8 responses to “The Constitution: Living Document or Childish Document?”

1. 

   Philip France

   December 20, 2009

   Recommended reading: The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution by Kevin R. C. Gutzman, J.D., PhD.
   I would like to add that there has been one English word that has perpetually eroded the clear and black and white language of the original Constitution as well as the intent of its framers and our nation’s Founding Fathers.
   That word is “reasonable”.
   Thank you Selwyn Duke for another outstanding article.

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   Robert Berger

   December 21, 2009

   The constitution is rather similar to the Bible in that any American citizen can use it as an excuse to advocate banning this or that, or making certain things mandatory.
   But it says absolutely nothing about what
   personal conduct is permissable or not, or
   what individual things should be legal or legal.
   Some homophobic bigots have used it as an excusr to take away rights from gay people and even persecute them, even though it says absolutely nothing about the sexual conduct of private citizens.
   Others have claimed that there is supposedly no right to privacy in the constitution, and that therefore the government should have the right to pry into the bedrooms of Americans, and others have claimed that it mandates making abortion illegal, even though abortion was a non-issue at the time of the founding fathers, and that if any of them had even mentioned abortion at a meeting ,let alone making it illegal, the others would have thought he was out of his mind !
   No, the constitution is NOT an absolutely fixed thing. It is open to differing views of interpetation . No one, not even the members of the supreme court has a monopoly on interpeting it.

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. 

   Philip France

   December 21, 2009

   Robert,
   Please do us a favor before your next post and announce what drugs that you are under the influence of so that we may have sympathy for your mental disabilities or that we should should simply ignore your lunatic rants.
   Is it Prozac? Lexapro (I hear that stiff is pretty powerful)? Zolof? Welbutrin? Lithium? Whatever it is, it is working ovetime.
   You need help, my friend. If you are not addled by some psychotropic drug, you have a serious mental illness and you need our prayers.

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. 

   Walt

   December 22, 2009

   Robert,
   The very reason for the Constitution was that it would not be open for, “… differing views of interpretation.” It was written with full clarity and the founders knew exactly what they intended. The ONLY reason the Constitution was written was to place a fixed set of laws above any future ruler of our country. You see then, as is now, a man in power unrestrained, can and inevitably will make themselves the supreme law, thereby amassing untold power and wealth. If the Constitution is a document open for manipulation by people that skillfully argue the meaning of the word “is”, do we really have one? Or, is the one who holds the power “interpret” the document the supreme law?
   In the game of baseball the rules are fixed. The strike zone is defined and all who play knows what it is, even though the umpire might fail to recognize it. By your reasoning, the umpire should have the authority to change the zone at will. Or lets use this example…have you heard of the term “tie goes to the runner?” What if an umpire called a player out and admitted the ball and the player reached the base at the exact same time, and then he reached in his pocket and gave the runner a bow-tie…the tie went to the runner but he was still out; clever but wrong.

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. 

   Robert Berger

   December 23, 2009

   I’m not on any kind of medication that would affect my mind in any way, and am
   perfectly sane and rational.
   What I said was perfectly reasonable.
   We can’t all just use the constitution as en excuse to justify our own prejudices,as so many conservatives want to today , disingenuously claiming that they know exactly what the constitution means and requires.
   To talk about “original intent” is ridiculous. America and the whole world are so vastly different from the late 19th century that there’s absolutely no way to govern this country as it was at that time.
   Econonomic and social conditions are so vastly more complex from the past that wondering what the founding fathers supposedly intended is absolutely futile.
   We have to face the realities of this day in a pragmatic way or we are lost as a nation.

   LikeLike

   Reply
6. 

   Philip France

   December 23, 2009

   Please allow me to deconstruct Mr. Berger’s irrational delusions.
   “I’m not on any kind of medication that would affect my mind in any way”
   I find this truly disappointing. I was heretofore willing to offer my pity.
   “We can’t all just use the constitution as en excuse to justify our own prejudices,as so many conservatives want to today”
   How can you, in your right mind, know what “conservatives want”? Answer: you can’t. Mr. Berger speaks of “prejudice” by demonstrating exactly that. Can anyone be more duplicitous?
   “To talk about “original intent” is ridiculous.”
   I am sure that it is to those that dwell in darkness. This is also a statement that could only be made by one who has not read the Constitution and/or one who cannot grasp its clear and plain language.
   “America and the whole world are so vastly different from the late 19th century”
   The last I checked, the Constitution was written and ratified in the late 18th century, but who’s counting?
   “Econonomic and social conditions are so vastly more complex from the past that wondering what the founding fathers supposedly intended is absolutely futile.”
   One does not have to “wonder” what the founding Fathers intended. They expressed it in plain and simple language. Furthermore, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are based on eternal truths that are the same yesterday, today and forever.
   “We have to face the realities of this day in a pragmatic way or we are lost as a nation.”
   Based on this spurious “logic” is it any wonder that we are where we are as a nation? Is it any wonder that an illegal alien Marxist on training wheels with a propeller on his cap has been elected to our highest office and who is still being cheered by lunatics as he spends us into oblivion?
   Merry Christmas Robert and get well soon.

   LikeLike

   Reply
7. 

   Robert Berger

   December 23, 2009

   When I wrote late 19th century, that was just a slip of my finger. I’m perfectly aware that the constitution was written in the late 18th century.
   But the fact remains that many conservatives DO use the constitution as an excuse to justify their agenda.
   In fact, abortion was not illegal at the time of the founding fathers, and was not made illegal until the 19th century, but mainly because the primitive medical technology of the day made it dangerous, which is certainly not true today.
   State’s rights are a very problematical thing, because they make it much too easy for individual states to make unjust laws
   which are applicable only in those states.
   Comparing homosexual conduct between consenting adults to other genuine crimes such as sexual abuse of children or rape etc, is totally disingenuous.
   And furthermore,I’m not even a leftist.
   I’m just opposed to social conservatism, which is a threat to individual freedom
   and creates a slippery slope toward tyranny.

   LikeLike

   Reply
8. 

   Walt

   December 23, 2009

   Robert said, “State’s rights are a very problematical thing, because they make it much too easy for individual states to make unjust laws
   which are applicable only in those states.”
   So you prefer all suffer if a bad or unjust law was made??? The 10th was designed to allow “progressive” states the freedom to experiment with concepts and design laws that best fit their social, economic and geographic demands individualy. With this design, one bad apple will not spoil the whole busshel and good laws, proven in action would be adopted by other states. This was disscussed in the Federalist Papers. Abortion should be a state issue, health care, prohabition, drinking age, drug laws and so on should all be state issues. The proof will be in the pudding.

   LikeLike

   Reply