- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Who says The Constitution is a "Living document"? Evolving?
Posted on 3/21/17 at 10:42 am
Posted on 3/21/17 at 10:42 am
Besides Dianne Feinstein: LINK
It's another Democrat setup. Apply poetic overtones to your sinister intentions and it makes it ok do deviate from the Constitution. How convenient to deny the sanctity of the document and dismiss it as a mere "framework". Have the basic precepts of right, wrong and fairness really changed since 1789? She's daring the Republicans to call her out on it, since challenges would be perceived to imply the Constitution is dead. She's playing 3rd-grade linguistic mind games in full public view - like a wife roasting a husband in front of the kids armed with only with half-truths and innuendo.
All the democrats are shooting for is wiggle room for more irresponsible behavior. I've always said their end game is anarchy and the Constitution is their Public Enemy #1.
Framers to Feinstein: Act like an adult and adapt. We meant what we said in 1789. Not yours to interpret.
It's another Democrat setup. Apply poetic overtones to your sinister intentions and it makes it ok do deviate from the Constitution. How convenient to deny the sanctity of the document and dismiss it as a mere "framework". Have the basic precepts of right, wrong and fairness really changed since 1789? She's daring the Republicans to call her out on it, since challenges would be perceived to imply the Constitution is dead. She's playing 3rd-grade linguistic mind games in full public view - like a wife roasting a husband in front of the kids armed with only with half-truths and innuendo.
All the democrats are shooting for is wiggle room for more irresponsible behavior. I've always said their end game is anarchy and the Constitution is their Public Enemy #1.
Framers to Feinstein: Act like an adult and adapt. We meant what we said in 1789. Not yours to interpret.
22
Posted on 3/21/17 at 10:49 am to tigerpawl
Yeah, it has evolved since its original ratification. The original had 10 Amendments, and we're up to 27 amendments now.
Posted on 3/21/17 at 10:51 am to The Spleen
How many times has the wording of the constitution been changed (not added to in the form of an ammendment).
Posted on 3/21/17 at 10:51 am to The Spleen
That's different from interpreting an amendment one way and then another way 50 years later. You know that but choose to be a count.
Posted on 3/21/17 at 10:52 am to The Spleen
quote:Right. But she's suggesting that Gorsuch's views are somehow outdated/impractical/inappropriate because he's an Originalist. It's a veiled criticism of Gorsuch's reluctance to legislate from the bench and rule by pop culture, not waiting for amendments to take their rightful place.
Yeah, it has evolved since its original ratification. The original had 10 Amendments, and we're up to 27 amendments now.
This post was edited on 3/21/17 at 10:59 am
Posted on 3/21/17 at 10:52 am to The Spleen
quote:
eah, it has evolved since its original ratification. The original had 10 Amendments, and we're up to 27 amendments now.
But it doesn't breathe and live, smarty pants. It's a piece of paper
Posted on 3/21/17 at 10:53 am to tigerpawl
You can argue semantics all day if you want. If you don't like the term "living document" so be it, nobody cares.
But if you're trying to present some case that its not supposed to be changeable or adapting over time, you need to take middle school history again.
But if you're trying to present some case that its not supposed to be changeable or adapting over time, you need to take middle school history again.
Posted on 3/21/17 at 10:54 am to tigerpawl
While I am a strict constructionist, I do believe that the constitution was designed to evolve as our society and technology evolved. Otherwise, we would have had to write a new constitution every 50 years or so like most states do. That is the beauty of the constitution. It is just a framework, but it can "evolve" in many different ways that don't always have to be progressive.
Posted on 3/21/17 at 11:00 am to The Spleen
Thats what doesn't make sense with the democrats logic on the constitution. They advocate for judges to reinterpret the Constitution to basically create new laws. The Constitution allows for changes through the legislative branch so it is stupid to interpret the Constitution outside of the original intent of when the law was written. If it is a problem then Congress or the states can change it.
Posted on 3/21/17 at 11:02 am to tigerpawl
quote:
like a wife roasting a husband in front of the kids armed with only with half-truths and innuendo.
wut
Posted on 3/21/17 at 11:02 am to tigerpawl
quote:
But she's suggesting that Gorsuch's views are somehow outdated/impractical/inappropriate because he's an Originalist. It's a veiled criticism of Gorsuch's reluctance to legislate from the bench and rule by pop culture, not waiting for amendments to take their rightful place.
To be fair, I didn't click the link to see what she said. I just used the most basic example of how it has evolved over the years.
I do believe it is an evolving document as society changes and evolves.
Posted on 3/21/17 at 11:03 am to tigerpawl
quote:Evidently, as slavery was considered to be "right" in 1789.
Have the basic precepts of right, wrong and fairness really changed since 1789?
Posted on 3/21/17 at 11:05 am to tigerpawl
In my opinion, there are parts of the Constitution that almost require evolution based on changing societal mores (the definition of "cruel and unusual", for instance) while there are others that defy evolution without straining credulity (the definition of "interstate commerce" comes to mind).
The problem is that while the document was intended to be a pact between states, the Civil War killed the only option states had when they felt the contract was no longer being faithfully upheld: secession.
Now, we're simply in a race where all sides try to frick the other before they get fricked themselves. As much as it pains me, I think the current Constitution has run its course, and it's time for a new one that is vastly more explicit in how it should be used.
The problem is that while the document was intended to be a pact between states, the Civil War killed the only option states had when they felt the contract was no longer being faithfully upheld: secession.
Now, we're simply in a race where all sides try to frick the other before they get fricked themselves. As much as it pains me, I think the current Constitution has run its course, and it's time for a new one that is vastly more explicit in how it should be used.
Posted on 3/21/17 at 11:22 am to tigerpawl
Oh, so now a piece of paper is living and breathing, but a fetus is a group of cells with no rights. Makes perfect sense.
Posted on 3/21/17 at 11:24 am to tigerpawl
Didn't Thomas Jefferson have a bit of a "living document" attitude?
Posted on 3/21/17 at 11:30 am to The Spleen
quote:
Yeah, it has evolved since its original ratification. The original had 10 Amendments, and we're up to 27 amendments now.
Yes, and those amendments were added legally (Congress), not by the SCOTUS. Feinstein wants SCOTUS to legislate from the bench to do the bidding of the dems.
The constitution itself provides a framework for amending (2/3's Congress or constitutional conventions) but it's usually too difficult for Dems. They want the easy route.
Posted on 3/21/17 at 11:51 am to AUstar
quote:There ya go....
Yes, and those amendments were added legally (Congress), not by the SCOTUS. Feinstein wants SCOTUS to legislate from the bench to do the bidding of the dems.
Posted on 3/21/17 at 11:57 am to ELVIS U
quote:
It is just a framework, but it can "evolve" in many different ways that don't always have to be progressive.
Example of changes that wouldn't be considered progressive?
Posted on 3/21/17 at 2:32 pm to Colonel Flagg
quote:
Thats what doesn't make sense with the democrats logic on the constitution. They advocate for judges to reinterpret the Constitution to basically create new laws. The Constitution allows for changes through the legislative branch so it is stupid to interpret the Constitution outside of the original intent of when the law was written. If it is a problem then Congress or the states can change it.
This. This. This.
I would bet that Feinstein would not want Gorsuch to breath life into the Constitution such that abortion is illegal or gay marriage is illegal. If it isn't in the Constitution then let the legislature make law on it. The problem is most legislators would rather hide behind the Supreme Court instead of taking a stand.
Posted on 3/21/17 at 2:48 pm to tigerpawl
It is "living" to the extent there are express mechanisms to change the document within the document.
Other than that, it was intended to remain static.
Other than that, it was intended to remain static.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News