For those who INTERPRET the CONSTITUTION literally?

[RyanH]

Why?

Why not become a NON-INTERPRETIVIST, such as the esteemd Justice Ginsburg, and you'll see that the Constitution is rarely ever interpreted literally.

For example, a literal reading of the Constitution would suggest that every search warrant must be supported by probable cause. Yet, many Courts have approved, on many occasions, warrants for less than probable cause. Consequently, Courts have departed from the literal text of the Constitution.

Don't you see? It happens all the time. Courts have consistently upheld gun regulations and a woman's right to choose, contrary to the Constitution.

Thus, the Constitutioin should always be only a STARTING POINT for analysis....we should then move on to moral philosophy, social desriability, and social patterns in determing what is or isn't constitutional.

Many people look silly trying to apply a two hundred year old document to every single modern circumstance.

 

[TxLonghorn]

Many people look silly trying to apply a two hundred year old document to every single modern circumstance.

Many people look silly trying to apply a two THOUSAND year old document to every single modern circumstance.

 

[WODIN]

If you don't have a Keystone upon which to build the law then it is mearly a series of rationalizations based on circular logic that have no true depth, meaning, value, or hold upon society. Sort of like our current legal system.

 

[Weapon X]

The fact that the Supreme Court has taken it upon themselves to surpass the limits of their position and wisdom does not make it RIGHT.

 

[Burning_Inside]

Many people look silly trying to apply a two THOUSAND year old document to every single modern circumstance.

BANG!!!

 

[Weapon X]

Truth doesn't change, from generation to generation.
Fashions change, but style doesn't.

 

[Warik]

Why not become a NON-INTERPRETIVIST, such as the esteemd Justice Ginsburg, and you'll see that the Constitution is rarely ever interpreted literally.

The Constitution is SUPPOSED to be interpreted literally, otherwise, what the hell is the point of amending the Constitution if you can deter from its meaning whenever it is convenient for you?

Don't you see? It happens all the time. Courts have consistently upheld gun regulations and a woman's right to choose, contrary to the Constitution.

Gun regulations are wrong and are in violation of the Second Amendment. A woman's right to murder her child is not guaranteed by the Constitution and is thus a non-issue here. Sorry.

Thus, the Constitutioin should always be only a STARTING POINT for analysis....we should then move on to moral philosophy, social desriability, and social patterns in determing what is or isn't constitutional.

Sorry. The Constitution is the ENDING point, unless one wishes to CHANGE it based on his "moral philosophy" and social crap. Then an AMENDMENT to the Constitution is the ENDING point. What is the point of having rights and regulations if they can be "interpreted" any whichway?

How's this. It is illegal for someone under 21 years of age to consume alcohol. Well, they didn't say if they were Earth years of Pluto years or Planet "X" years, so I'm going to "interpret" it as Mercury years. I guess that makes me about 82 years old. Time to go have a martini!

Many people look silly trying to apply a two hundred year old document to every single modern circumstance.

And many people look silly trying to apply a two hundred year old document only to support their radical opposition toward gun ownership yet ignoring the fact that SEVERAL of the decisions made by their DEMOCRATIC congressmen and presidents have resulted in BLATANT violation of the Constitution I.E. SOCIAL SECURITY AND THE CLINTONS' UNRELENTING QUEST FOR GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED HEALTCHARE.

You, RyanH, are a joke - only I am not laughing.

-Warik

 

[Warik]

again ryan, why is that we must view the constitution literally when it comes to retards voting, but non-literally when we're dealing with rights you oppose such as the right to bear arms??

You just answered your own question, dude. =)

-Warik

 

[RyanH]

First, BigPhysics: I have never said that the Constitution should always be interpreted differently from its text. My only premise is that in MANY modern circumstances, new problems occur that did not exist at the time of the framers wrote the Constitution. For instance, the framers never imagined that a police "bugging' might one day be a problem, nor did they envision that a woman might someday choose to end her pregnancy b/c of modern circumstance. Judges constantly recognize new rights that stem from the overall "philosophy" of the Constitution....e.g. a woman's right to choose fits in with a right of privacy.

Thus, to the voting issue: There is no need to change voting to modern circumstances. The Constitution provides that a person is entitled to her vote. Why would that be any less true than yesterday. So, there is no need to interpret it in light of modern circumstance.

WARIK YOU'RE NEXT......

 

[needleboy]

RyanH once again proves he does not know what he is talking about.

The constition is very specific in it's wording. Court decisions "intrepreting" the Constitution do no such thing. What the Judicial branch has been doing is writing law de facto(basically government by decree) by it's rulings. The 10th Ammendment is very clear as to issues not specifically covered- they are state issues. However allowing States to handle such issues limits the power(by design) of the Federal Government, so the Supreme Court intentionally oversteps it's bounds.

I am pro-choice, however, Roe vs Wade is Unconstitutional on it's face, because it is intentionally usurping the rights and powers granted to the States by the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to be timeless, and it is as it was writtten. It is in subequent Supreme Court "intrepretations" that have caused the degredation of it's ability to be enforced and understood, not the document itself. Have you read it, the writng of Thomas Payne, Thomas Jefferson, the Federalist Papers. You must read the documents that preceed it, along with the combined works of it's authors to understand why it was written as it was. They all feared a powerful centralized government because they understood form fist hand knowlege the tyranny that comes from too much power being granted to 1 body.

That is why we are the United States ie a group of individual states(look up the meaning) brought together on common issues by a central government.

 

[RyanH]

Re: Re: For those who INTERPRET the CONSTITUTION literally?

The Constitution is SUPPOSED to be interpreted literally, otherwise, what the hell is the point of amending the Constitution if you can deter from its meaning whenever it is convenient for you?

Because you cannot always count on Congress to pass modern legislation. Would you trust a Republican Congress to protect a woman's right to choose. Of course not. A Court's wisdom is often needed to protect those the Legislature refuses to protect.

Gun regulations are wrong and are in violation of the Second Amendment. A woman's right to murder her child is not guaranteed by the Constitution and is thus a non-issue here. Sorry.

Well, you offer Justice Scalia's radical viewpoint here. He, like you, believes that the Constitution should be interpreted literally. However, we see where this philosophy took him when the case of Bush v. Gore came around------he refused to recognize state's rights, rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Sorry. The Constitution is the ENDING point, unless one wishes to CHANGE it based on his "moral philosophy" and social crap. Then an AMENDMENT to the Constitution is the ENDING point. What is the point of having rights and regulations if they can be "interpreted" any whichway?

Again, because Congress cannot always be trusted.

How's this. It is illegal for someone under 21 years of age to consume alcohol. Well, they didn't say if they were Earth years of Pluto years or Planet "X" years, so I'm going to "interpret" it as Mercury years. I guess that makes me about 82 years old. Time to go have a martini!

Good Try! But, your argument holds little water. Drunk driving laws are recent laws and therefore need little revising by a Court to reflect modern circumstance.

And many people look silly trying to apply a two hundred year old document only to support their radical opposition toward gun ownership yet ignoring the fact that SEVERAL of the decisions made by their DEMOCRATIC congressmen and presidents have resulted in BLATANT violation of the Constitution I.E. SOCIAL SECURITY AND THE CLINTONS' UNRELENTING QUEST FOR GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED HEALTCHARE.

Why does Social Security violate the Constitution? The government has the broad power to tax. Additionally, the government can act to protect the "health, safety, and welfare" of society.

 

[RyanH]

RyanH once again proves he does not know what he is talking about.

I am pro-choice, however, Roe vs Wade is Unconstitutional on it's face, because it is intentionally usurping the rights and powers granted to the States by the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to be timeless, and it is as it was writtten. It is in subequent Supreme Court "intrepretations" that have caused the degredation of it's ability to be enforced and understood, not the document itself.

And once again NeedleBoy, you offer a frivolous argument, at best. Roe v. Wade isn't any more unconstitutional than your right to use a dildoright in your home--a privacy right. Both are modern rights that are found nowhere textually in the Constitution.

You're right about some modern interpretations of the Constitution being unconstitutional....See the Case of Bush v. Gore, for proof, where the Court rejected state sovereignty.

 

[RyanH]

BigPhysics, as always, you are offpoint.

These changes in voter laws would impede a constitutional right to vote----that is a basic right, and the Republican legislature is not really sincere in passing the new voter laws---their reason for enacting the law is so that thousands of more voters may become disenfranchised.

A Court when interpreting the Constitution in light of modern circumstance, should also look to the legislature's motive when examining its laws.

Hope you and Warik are having fun laying down in the trenches.

 

[needleboy]

There is not right to privacy in the Constitution. It however does guarentee the right to be secure in your person and you papers. The right to privacy is another "interpretation" you love so much. The constitution does not address abortion, therefore it is a state issue. To read into the Constitution that which you wish was there is exremely dangerous!!

Every time the federal government passses a law, or takes power away from the state your libert is put at greater risk.

And the Gore vs Bush was actually disallowing the state to superceed federal law over an election.

PS- even so no matter how they count they haven't been able to make Gore come out ahead.

 

[RyanH]

There is not right to privacy in the Constitution. It however does guarentee the right to be secure in your person and you papers. The right to privacy is another "interpretation" you love so much. The constitution does not address abortion, therefore it is a state issue. To read into the Constitution that which you wish was there is exremely dangerous!!

Every time the federal government passses a law, or takes power away from the state your libert is put at greater risk.

And the Gore vs Bush was actually disallowing the state to superceed federal law over an election.

PS- even so no matter how they count they haven't been able to make Gore come out ahead.

The right to choose is encompassed under the right to privacy, a long-time adopted right. And you are certainly right-----the right of privacy is NEVER mentioned in the Constitution, but I bet you'll recognize it. Why?

Because this court-recognized privacy right encompasses your right to jerk-off, watch porn, and be let alone.

Bush v. Gore was the hijacking of an election. This was a states right issue. Typically matters of elections have been left to the states to handle. The Florida Supreme Court was usurped by a partisan Supreme Court intent on electing Governor Bush.

 

[nycdefender]

The constition is very specific in it's wording. Court decisions "intrepreting" the Constitution do no such thing. What the Judicial branch has been doing is writing law de facto(basically government by decree) by it's rulings.

You go on to say that you are pro-choice but feel that Roe v. Wade is unconstiutional. You then turn to the Reservation Clause of the Constitution.

Isn't the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause vaguely worded (not "specific in it's wording')? The 14th Amendment reads in pertinent part: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens fo the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The founders had the foresight to allow the Constitution to be amended. Thus after the Civil War, along comes the 14th Amendment. Where is the precedent by which the Supreme Court was to interpret the meaning of the Due Process and the Equal Protection clauses? Such vague terms cannot be by definition literally enforced.

I agree that J. Blackmun would have made a better reasoned decision had he not hung his hat on the right of privacy. Some scholars suggest (and I would concur), that the ruling would have been better conceptualized as a case of gender discrimination, which was indeed barred by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

RyanH--J. Scalia, I would argue, is more an original intent interpretivist, than a literalist.

Just my $.02.

 

[RyanH]

RyanH--J. Scalia, I would argue, is more an original intent interpretivist, than a literalist.

Technically Justice Scalia is really both. He's an originalist b/c he looks to the intent of the founders, but he's also a literalist b/c rarely does he ever recognize any rights unless they are specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

 

[needleboy]

Incrementalism at it's finest. It is writing laws, and the Judicail Branch is specifically denied that power!!

Abortion is not about privacy, it's about the precedent it sets. If you can say a woman cannot have an abortion, it's not far from beaing able to say that a woman MUST have an abortion.

 

[litig8r]

Too Much Time on Your Hands

nycdefender & ryan:
You two have way too much time on your hands. I going to find me some underpriviliged, uneducated, economically deprived individual, suborn a lil perjury, charge him with some bullshit social crime, and ship his ass to prison. Damn that feels good

hasta

litig8r

 

[chesty]

Well, the Constitution should not be interpreted. It is a literal document that is the basis and cornerstone of the United States.

RyanH courts do not give out warrants unless you can prove that you have pc and reasonable belief that what you are looking for is there. If the warrant is found to be out of order, or not constitutional the judge and cops can go to jail for purposelly lying to get the warrant.

When we get a warrant or do any cop work we adhere to the strict writing of the Constitution specifically, the 4th, 5th amendments.

The second is to be taken literally as meaning the people not a national guard of some sort. In fact the NG was not formed until the 20th century.

And why would the meaning of the phrase right of the people in the first amendment which clearly means the people be any different from the same phrase in the second amendment.

In fact, RyanH you should read the writings of the founding fathers such as Jeffereson and others about their views on firearms, tyranny etc. It would really enlighten you as to why they crafted the Constitution the way they did.

Also, your continued terming of the bush gore court battles and how it was stolen, usurped, by-passed etc is really getting old. Fat boy gore lost plain and simple.

One more thing. I can't believe you even suggest that Ginsburg is even worth her weight in skin. she may be smart but when it comes to her position she did not deserve it, and from listening to her questions and dissentions during the bush gore deal she sounded as pathetic as you make bush out to be when it came to speaking. In fact, she had a hard time asking questions as though she didn't comprehend the Constitution.

 

[CN1]

bro you just answered your own question, the american democracy has become a fiasco and huge legal based system, the judicial system combined with legal litigation, such as terms and laws has switched the so-called democracy to a legal courtyard of lawyers and judges, think about it, why do we have lawyers, and what makes up our laws of government, the judges.....and when somebody breaks the law who do you call, a lawyer, thats it, judges give precedents based on past cases, and judges make up our current laws, if someone or there is an area that or matter that arises dealing with the constitution, the judges have the final say, and make up their own new law...........how do you think the people in office stay wealthy and rich, with power, the lawyers and judges vote them in, while other powerful rich coorporations team up with these influential individuals to hire our congressmen, senators, and president!!!!!1

 

[Laserdude]

RyanH is a WOMAN. So if you care to look at the post with her going after Warik, the previous paragraph before the closing refers to a woman's right to vote.

This was never an issue regarding the constitution. Just her view (a fraudian slip on her part), but none the less I am not surprised to have figured this one out.

Women are mostly in favor of removing the second amendment altogether. And I think I am RIGHT!

So Ryan, go to hell it is your fate.

 

[MR.?]

Initially, the Constitution was written to provide precise and stringent guidelines of the responsibilities of the government. The Bill of Rights was written to acknowledge the rights and freedoms of each citizen. The governments main responsibility is to protect the rights and lives of each citizen. Despite its concrete guidelines, the need for flexible interpretation is necessary for further growth.

The modern era of politics has changed and molded the way the Constitution is interpreted. Our Constitution in comparison to other foreign nations documents of declaration is short and vague. The Constitution was never written to be flexible and consequently problems arise when interpretation is misguided and abused.

The advent of new legislation and decisions made by Federal Supreme courts have change the landscape of the Constitution. The Constitution in one respect can be viewed as a definitive document void of discrepancy and subversion. In an other respect, the Constitution is viewed as ambiguous, as well as a growing and ever changing entity within itself.

We cannot aggresively apply the Constituion to the needs and concerns of our present day nation and government. As our nation evolves so should our perception of the constituion. However, the correct interpretation of the Constitution will always remain an issue of circumstance and personal foresight.

Just my opinion