Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

How should the Constitution be interpreted?

NothingSpecial99
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 12:54:24 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Polls are broken, so I decided to ask the question here.

As a living, breathing document

Or

By its original intent and meaning
"Check your facts, not your privilege" - Christina Hoff Summers

If you go to jail for Tax Evasion, you're living off of Taxes as a result of not paying Taxes

"Facts don't care about your feelings" - Ben Shapiro
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 1:58:19 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
As it was originally written, and interpreted in the light of what those who wrote it meant. Same way you interpret any other text.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 2:04:38 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
The letter of the law kills, but the spirit of the law gives life.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Sam7411
Posts: 959
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 2:06:40 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 2:04:38 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
The letter of the law kills, but the spirit of the law gives life.

well spoken
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 2:11:03 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 12:54:24 AM, NothingSpecial99 wrote:
Polls are broken, so I decided to ask the question here.

As a living, breathing document

Or

By its original intent and meaning

By its original intent and meaning: as a living, breathing document.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 6:26:39 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 2:04:38 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
The letter of the law kills, but the spirit of the law gives life.

Did you come up with this or is this from something else? THis is brilliant!
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 6:28:35 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 12:54:24 AM, NothingSpecial99 wrote:
Polls are broken, so I decided to ask the question here.

As a living, breathing document

Or

By its original intent and meaning

Well I think you would start by reading it, then you think about it, and then you say what you think it means.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 6:28:42 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 2:11:03 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/11/2016 12:54:24 AM, NothingSpecial99 wrote:
Polls are broken, so I decided to ask the question here.

As a living, breathing document

Or

By its original intent and meaning

By its original intent and meaning: as a living, breathing document.

+1
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,376
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 7:00:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 6:28:42 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 2:11:03 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/11/2016 12:54:24 AM, NothingSpecial99 wrote:
Polls are broken, so I decided to ask the question here.

As a living, breathing document

Or

By its original intent and meaning

By its original intent and meaning: as a living, breathing document.

+1

You believe in the constitution?
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
TheFlex
Posts: 1,745
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 7:03:09 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 2:11:03 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/11/2016 12:54:24 AM, NothingSpecial99 wrote:
Polls are broken, so I decided to ask the question here.

As a living, breathing document

Or

By its original intent and meaning

By its original intent and meaning: as a living, breathing document.

.....I see what you did there.
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,376
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 7:06:31 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 6:28:42 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 2:11:03 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/11/2016 12:54:24 AM, NothingSpecial99 wrote:
Polls are broken, so I decided to ask the question here.

As a living, breathing document

Or

By its original intent and meaning

By its original intent and meaning: as a living, breathing document.

+1

No offense meant, but it's very rare to come across a socialist who cares about the constitution.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 7:11:08 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 7:06:31 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 4/11/2016 6:28:42 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 2:11:03 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/11/2016 12:54:24 AM, NothingSpecial99 wrote:
Polls are broken, so I decided to ask the question here.

As a living, breathing document

Or

By its original intent and meaning

By its original intent and meaning: as a living, breathing document.

+1

No offense meant, but it's very rare to come across a socialist who cares about the constitution.

Try Norman Thomas, Eugene Debs, and Michael Harrington.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 7:11:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 7:00:54 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 4/11/2016 6:28:42 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 2:11:03 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/11/2016 12:54:24 AM, NothingSpecial99 wrote:
Polls are broken, so I decided to ask the question here.

As a living, breathing document

Or

By its original intent and meaning

By its original intent and meaning: as a living, breathing document.

+1

You believe in the constitution?

In principle, yes. Are there things in it I would change? Yes, but not many
Maccabee
Posts: 1,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 9:19:08 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 12:54:24 AM, NothingSpecial99 wrote:
Polls are broken, so I decided to ask the question here.

As a living, breathing document

Or

By its original intent and meaning

By its original intent and meaning. It would save us the political grief we are now in if we did. Certainly taxes would drop.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
oneteacher
Posts: 100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 9:27:44 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 12:54:24 AM, NothingSpecial99 wrote:
Polls are broken, so I decided to ask the question here.

As a living, breathing document

Or

By its original intent and meaning : :

If you view the U.S. Constitution in the same way most Christians view the Bible, you will be deceived until your body dies in the world you think is real.
slo1
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 9:32:03 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 12:54:24 AM, NothingSpecial99 wrote:
Polls are broken, so I decided to ask the question here.

As a living, breathing document

Or

By its original intent and meaning

Seeing how it is not a living breathing document other than amendments, it is rarely changed. Secondly, it has enough ambiguity and has to cover unforseen circumstances it is often anyone's guess on measuring original intent.

The only thing one can say for certain is that it requires interpretation.

It should not be interpreted by using the religion or religious practices of individual leaders nor should it be interpreted that since a practice was common since founding it should be allowed today, ie: prayer prior to gov meetings.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 10:13:38 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 6:26:39 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 2:04:38 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
The letter of the law kills, but the spirit of the law gives life.

Did you come up with this or is this from something else? THis is brilliant!

It is from The Apostle Paul's second Epistle to the Corinthians, which reads..

"our sufficiency is of God; who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."

One of the reasons Jesus himself spoke in parables was to communicate spirit behind the law.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
walker_harris3
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 11:14:30 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 9:32:03 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 12:54:24 AM, NothingSpecial99 wrote:
Polls are broken, so I decided to ask the question here.

As a living, breathing document

Or

By its original intent and meaning

Seeing how it is not a living breathing document other than amendments, it is rarely changed. Secondly, it has enough ambiguity and has to cover unforseen circumstances it is often anyone's guess on measuring original intent.
I disagree, the founding fathers used literature and political philosophy books to shape the Constitution. Original intent can be found in such books and in philosophical theories.
The only thing one can say for certain is that it requires interpretation.

It should not be interpreted by using the religion or religious practices of individual leaders nor should it be interpreted that since a practice was common since founding it should be allowed today, ie: prayer prior to gov meetings.

Are you advocating a ban of prayer before gov meetings? That's actually against the Constitution. The Establishment clause relates to official establishment of a state religion, it does not forbid religious exercise within government. There's really no interpretation of the first amendment, it literally means exactly what was written.
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,630
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 11:49:55 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 12:54:24 AM, NothingSpecial99 wrote:
Polls are broken, so I decided to ask the question here.

As a living, breathing document

Or

By its original intent and meaning

By its original intent and meaning, I see no reason why people would want to go against it. The Constitution basically secures the most valuable rights of Americans; the thing was near perfect. When we stop sticking to principle and do things against the Constitution, totalitarianism occurs.
slo1
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 3:28:04 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 11:14:30 PM, walker_harris3 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 9:32:03 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 12:54:24 AM, NothingSpecial99 wrote:
Polls are broken, so I decided to ask the question here.

As a living, breathing document

Or

By its original intent and meaning

Seeing how it is not a living breathing document other than amendments, it is rarely changed. Secondly, it has enough ambiguity and has to cover unforseen circumstances it is often anyone's guess on measuring original intent.
I disagree, the founding fathers used literature and political philosophy books to shape the Constitution. Original intent can be found in such books and in philosophical theories.
The only thing one can say for certain is that it requires interpretation.

It should not be interpreted by using the religion or religious practices of individual leaders nor should it be interpreted that since a practice was common since founding it should be allowed today, ie: prayer prior to gov meetings.

Are you advocating a ban of prayer before gov meetings? That's actually against the Constitution. The Establishment clause relates to official establishment of a state religion, it does not forbid religious exercise within government. There's really no interpretation of the first amendment, it literally means exactly what was written.

Of course it is up for interpretation. What does "establish" mean?
Exactly how does one on one hand say the Founders intent which clearly did not offer slave, women, and non land owners individual rights was wrong, but other areas they are right. If our supreme Court was truly based upon "Founders intent" we would not be close to the country we are.
walker_harris3
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 9:50:38 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/12/2016 3:28:04 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 11:14:30 PM, walker_harris3 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 9:32:03 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 12:54:24 AM, NothingSpecial99 wrote:
Polls are broken, so I decided to ask the question here.

As a living, breathing document

Or

By its original intent and meaning

Seeing how it is not a living breathing document other than amendments, it is rarely changed. Secondly, it has enough ambiguity and has to cover unforseen circumstances it is often anyone's guess on measuring original intent.
I disagree, the founding fathers used literature and political philosophy books to shape the Constitution. Original intent can be found in such books and in philosophical theories.
The only thing one can say for certain is that it requires interpretation.

It should not be interpreted by using the religion or religious practices of individual leaders nor should it be interpreted that since a practice was common since founding it should be allowed today, ie: prayer prior to gov meetings.

Are you advocating a ban of prayer before gov meetings? That's actually against the Constitution. The Establishment clause relates to official establishment of a state religion, it does not forbid religious exercise within government. There's really no interpretation of the first amendment, it literally means exactly what was written.

Of course it is up for interpretation. What does "establish" mean?
No, there really isn't. You read what it says, and take it for what it says. Establish: set up (an organization, system, or set of rules) on a firm or permanent basis. Clearly means that there is not to be an established state religion.
Exactly how does one on one hand say the Founders intent which clearly did not offer slave, women, and non land owners individual rights was wrong, but other areas they are right. If our supreme Court was truly based upon "Founders intent" we would not be close to the country we are.

There was nothing written in the Constitution addressing Slavery besides the 3/5ths compromise. The 10th amendment reserved the power to accept or deny slavery to the states until the 13th amendment abolished slavery. What individual rights were denied to those parties?
slo1
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 1:42:12 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/12/2016 9:50:38 PM, walker_harris3 wrote:
At 4/12/2016 3:28:04 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 11:14:30 PM, walker_harris3 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 9:32:03 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 12:54:24 AM, NothingSpecial99 wrote:
Polls are broken, so I decided to ask the question here.

As a living, breathing document

Or

By its original intent and meaning

Seeing how it is not a living breathing document other than amendments, it is rarely changed. Secondly, it has enough ambiguity and has to cover unforseen circumstances it is often anyone's guess on measuring original intent.
I disagree, the founding fathers used literature and political philosophy books to shape the Constitution. Original intent can be found in such books and in philosophical theories.
The only thing one can say for certain is that it requires interpretation.

It should not be interpreted by using the religion or religious practices of individual leaders nor should it be interpreted that since a practice was common since founding it should be allowed today, ie: prayer prior to gov meetings.

Are you advocating a ban of prayer before gov meetings? That's actually against the Constitution. The Establishment clause relates to official establishment of a state religion, it does not forbid religious exercise within government. There's really no interpretation of the first amendment, it literally means exactly what was written.

Of course it is up for interpretation. What does "establish" mean?
No, there really isn't. You read what it says, and take it for what it says. Establish: set up (an organization, system, or set of rules) on a firm or permanent basis. Clearly means that there is not to be an established state religion.

Indeed thus why public prayer is not only limited to Christian prayer, which in turn by founders intent means that we are not a Christian nation.
Exactly how does one on one hand say the Founders intent which clearly did not offer slave, women, and non land owners individual rights was wrong, but other areas they are right. If our supreme Court was truly based upon "Founders intent" we would not be close to the country we are.

There was nothing written in the Constitution addressing Slavery besides the 3/5ths compromise.

Yeah, not sh1t, thus why the founders orignal intent was to not ban slavery.
walker_harris3
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 1:59:54 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 1:42:12 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/12/2016 9:50:38 PM, walker_harris3 wrote:
At 4/12/2016 3:28:04 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 11:14:30 PM, walker_harris3 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 9:32:03 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/11/2016 12:54:24 AM, NothingSpecial99 wrote:
Polls are broken, so I decided to ask the question here.

As a living, breathing document

Or

By its original intent and meaning

Seeing how it is not a living breathing document other than amendments, it is rarely changed. Secondly, it has enough ambiguity and has to cover unforseen circumstances it is often anyone's guess on measuring original intent.
I disagree, the founding fathers used literature and political philosophy books to shape the Constitution. Original intent can be found in such books and in philosophical theories.
The only thing one can say for certain is that it requires interpretation.

It should not be interpreted by using the religion or religious practices of individual leaders nor should it be interpreted that since a practice was common since founding it should be allowed today, ie: prayer prior to gov meetings.

Are you advocating a ban of prayer before gov meetings? That's actually against the Constitution. The Establishment clause relates to official establishment of a state religion, it does not forbid religious exercise within government. There's really no interpretation of the first amendment, it literally means exactly what was written.

Of course it is up for interpretation. What does "establish" mean?
No, there really isn't. You read what it says, and take it for what it says. Establish: set up (an organization, system, or set of rules) on a firm or permanent basis. Clearly means that there is not to be an established state religion.

Indeed thus why public prayer is not only limited to Christian prayer, which in turn by founders intent means that we are not a Christian nation.
Yes, and I'm not arguing that we are a Christian nation, although our society and history has been dominated by religious influence. My issue with your original statement is that you believe that any government meeting should never be opened with a prayer, and that is not what the 1st amendment says.
Exactly how does one on one hand say the Founders intent which clearly did not offer slave, women, and non land owners individual rights was wrong, but other areas they are right. If our supreme Court was truly based upon "Founders intent" we would not be close to the country we are.

There was nothing written in the Constitution addressing Slavery besides the 3/5ths compromise.

Yeah, not sh1t, thus why the founders orignal intent was to not ban slavery.
Completely false. Thomas Jefferson actually strongly opposed slavery and tried to abolish it in the declaration of independence and there are plenty of other examples.

You don't understand that the south would never have ratified the Constitution had there been a provision outlawing slavery. Again, no slavery provision means that the states decide whether or not to continue slavery via the 10th amendment, so the founding fathers actually did create a pathway to end slavery and in a manner that would create a strong and coherent country. The south wouldn't have even ratified the Constitution had there been no 3/5ths Compromise. So would you rather have had 1 cohesive America or no America at all?
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 11:07:45 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2016 12:54:24 AM, NothingSpecial99 wrote:
Polls are broken, so I decided to ask the question here.

As a living, breathing document

Or

By its original intent and meaning
--
The Constitution should be amended in order to improve the political process.