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.