- 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
Why the liberal interpretation of the Constitution makes no sense...
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:19 am
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:19 am
If you can basically interpret the constitution any way you want, then there is no point to even having the constitution in the first place.
Therefore, it only makes logical sense to have a strict interpretation.
Therefore, it only makes logical sense to have a strict interpretation.
6
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:20 am to PrimeTime Money
When you realize that liberals hate the Constitution, it actually makes perfect sense.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:20 am to PrimeTime Money
Leftists arrive at their decision first, then cherry pick and twist the law to confirmation bias their decision
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:22 am to PrimeTime Money
quote:
If you can basically interpret the constitution any way you want, then there is no point to even having the constitution in the first place.
Yes, but
quote:
Therefore, it only makes logical sense to have a strict interpretation.
"I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be" - Antonin Scalia
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:23 am to PrimeTime Money
quote:
Why the liberal interpolation of the Constitution makes no sense...
FIFY
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:28 am to PrimeTime Money
quote:I think this should be the baseline stance; however, I don't think it's that easy when you consider the changes that don't easily fit into a rigid view from 200+ years ago (e.g., technology).
Therefore, it only makes logical sense to have a strict interpretation.
There has to be some flexibility around that baseline, practically speaking.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:29 am to goldennugget
This is fact.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:47 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
There has to be some flexibility around that baseline, practically speaking.
I hate that argument. The Constitution was written based on principles where application could be derived. The 2nd amendment protects modern "military-style weapons" vs. muskets the same as the 1st amendment protects computers and tablets vs. quills and ink. The principles don't change because our rights are God-given and apply to all people in all ages. Our Constitution recognized this and protects those rights for our citizens.
The founders also provided a way to change the Constitution if people felt it was outdated or not sufficient. No one wants to change the Constitution any more because it is too hard so they want the courts to make a ruling that effectively does the same thing. It's not the place of the courts to create rights or enact policy. They are supposed to judge laws that are created based on their Constitutionality.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:53 am to FooManChoo
quote:And I'm arguing to maintain those principles, but clearly a completely rigid interpretation is not always reasonable (e.g., can't threaten to murder someone; can't have your own nuclear weapon).
I hate that argument. The Constitution was written based on principles where application could be derived.
In other words, my perspective is that it's NOT a living, breathing document; however, society is so the interpretations have to take things into consideration.
This post was edited on 2/10/17 at 9:57 am
Posted on 2/10/17 at 10:03 am to buckeye_vol
I'm glad you don't think it's a living document. Too many people believe that.
I agree that there have to be interpretations of our rights based on applications. No right is unlimited. However, too many people want to "interpret" a right away (practically speaking) rather than change the Constitution. It's why we don't need activist judges on the court.
I agree that there have to be interpretations of our rights based on applications. No right is unlimited. However, too many people want to "interpret" a right away (practically speaking) rather than change the Constitution. It's why we don't need activist judges on the court.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 10:07 am to Pettifogger
quote:
"I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be" - Antonin Scalia
Wrong. Scalia preferred the term 'originalist'. He did not believe that the Constitution was a living breathing document. He stressed the importance of interpreting the Constitution with the writings of the founders as a guide. It's the opposite of liberal judges.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 10:19 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
There has to be some flexibility around that baseline, practically speaking
Yep, we don't need justices that interpret the constitution like Rafael Cruz interprets the Old Testament.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 10:19 am to FooManChoo
quote:It appears that we are on the same page.
However, too many people want to "interpret" a right away (practically speaking) rather than change the Constitution.
I just think that people see the Constitution as rigid (which I agree), and think that the applications must be equally rigid, despite the fluidity of society (Internet and implications on speech).
Even the strongest originalists recognized this, but they still come from an originalist perspective.
This post was edited on 2/10/17 at 10:22 am
Posted on 2/10/17 at 10:22 am to Zach
quote:
Wrong. Scalia preferred the term 'originalist'. He did not believe that the Constitution was a living breathing document. He stressed the importance of interpreting the Constitution with the writings of the founders as a guide. It's the opposite of liberal judges.
Zach, you're a buffoon.
If you bothered to read my post, you'd see that I'm not advocating for a living constitution. The fricking post itself clearly indicates that.
Second, that's a quote from Scalia, who distinguishes originalism and textualism from strict constructionism.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 10:33 am to Pettifogger
quote:
The fricking post itself clearly indicates that.
I didn't read your other fricking post, you micro-cepahlic. Your quote as it stands alone is a misrepresentation on which side Scalia stood upon, arse hat.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 10:35 am to PrimeTime Money
It always cracks me up when they talk about the conservative justices being strict constitutionalists or originalists. Uhh, so you mean they're doing their fricking job?
Posted on 2/10/17 at 10:36 am to Zach
quote:
I didn't read your other fricking post, you micro-cepahlic. Your quote as it stands alone is a misrepresentation on which side Scalia stood upon, arse hat.
Haha it's in the SAME POST dipshit. The one to which you originally responded.
And it's not a misrepresentation, it's a quote from Scalia about why he doesn't like strict constructionism. You can be an originalist or textualist and NOT be a strict constructionist.
I'm hope I'm as arrogant despite being blatantly incorrect when I get old as frick, Zach.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News