Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

No, it's not a Living Constitution

bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2016 1:13:15 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
One of the most common arguments used when it is realized that a person's preferred policy isn't authorized by the Constitution is to argue that it is a "Living Constitution", open to changing with the winds of time. "Constitutional Originalism", they say, is "extremist". As if believing the founders meant what they said and intended it to be law is some idea out of a fantasy novel.

While some pundits in the media and the intellectuals that roam our college campuses have come up with complex explanations that they feel justify this view, one must only ask a few simple questions to call their claims into question.

If the framers really intended the Constitution to be a living document, one in which the words could be construed to mean different things as time passed, why did they include a way to amend it? If the document is living and the meaning of the words so easily changed by judicial activism, what is the point of going through a process to amend the document at all?

The drafters of the Constitution were dedicated students of history, they understood full well where they were coming from, and that political realities would change in the future. That is why they included a way for us to change it over 200 years later if new realities indeed made it necessary.

Of course, the process is not a simple one. Amending the Constitution takes time, and ultimately a three-fourths majority of the states have to agree to the change. No easy process to be sure. The adherents of the Living Constitution argue that this process is too arduous. However, it was made so difficult deliberately. The framers understood the dangers that come with centralized accumulation of power. The Constitution was put in place to protect us from that. Any change must be carefully considered, and ultimately widely agreed upon, to assure no easy growth of tyranny. Arduous though it may be, it has been done 17 times since the Bill of Rights was added as the first 10 amendments. It can be done.

Why, if the framers intended it to be a living document, did they painstakingly debate every word of it? Why did they enumerate powers? Why not just have a simple system where the legislature passes laws without restriction, and the president can sign or veto it? Or better yet in the eyes of some, why not just have a legislature that merely makes suggestions to the executive, with the executive free to take that advice or not? Why even have a Supreme Court? There need not be anyone to check the power of government if there was never any intention to strictly follow the law!

No, none of this matters to the adherents of the Living Constitution. We must all succumb to their version of "common sense" reform and change.

If their ideas are indeed such common sense, why is it they cannot gather enough support to amend the constitution?

Indeed, their lack of ability to persuade us shows that their ideas aren't common sense at all, but are still open to debate. The original intent of the Constitution allows for change of common sense, the Living Constitution crowd just doesn't have much of it.

http://www.unbiasedamerica.com...

Discuss
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
capob
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2016 1:33:25 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
Revisionistic interpretation has been rampant in America. One can speculate on many possible reasons for this, ranging from the BAR being a set of private organizations potentially with political motivations, from the notions of public policy over law stemming from the 1930's, from the US being a private corporation itself.

The unfortunate reality is the state of public knowledge about issues of government. Almost no one knows that the constitution is a contract between the US Fed and the States. That is, we, as citizens, are not parties to the contract and can not demand execution any more than we can control our own states to do so.

Even fewer people know that the constitution was heavily influenced, and stated a commitment to following the book The Law of Nations.

And, even fewer people are aware of the actual technical problems within the constitution (http://deemit.com...)

It's not as though people are simply not inclined through lack of personal motivation in the subject - there are tax aspects which one only need read the pre-1930's supreme court rulings on to understand one's actual tax burden (or lack thereof) (I'd detail more, but I wouldn't want to get this site shut down).

This is where the importance of the composition of the citizenry comes in. My curiosity is to what makes a good citizen beyond IQ. I've had many chinese friends, and they are generally quite smart, but none of them ever consider society or government for philosophical purposes, nor do they have any interest in doing so.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2016 1:51:31 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/31/2016 1:33:25 AM, capob wrote:
Revisionistic interpretation has been rampant in America. One can speculate on many possible reasons for this, ranging from the BAR being a set of private organizations potentially with political motivations, from the notions of public policy over law stemming from the 1930's, from the US being a private corporation itself.

The unfortunate reality is the state of public knowledge about issues of government. Almost no one knows that the constitution is a contract between the US Fed and the States. That is, we, as citizens, are not parties to the contract and can not demand execution any more than we can control our own states to do so.

Even fewer people know that the constitution was heavily influenced, and stated a commitment to following the book The Law of Nations.

And, even fewer people are aware of the actual technical problems within the constitution (http://deemit.com...)

It's not as though people are simply not inclined through lack of personal motivation in the subject - there are tax aspects which one only need read the pre-1930's supreme court rulings on to understand one's actual tax burden (or lack thereof) (I'd detail more, but I wouldn't want to get this site shut down).

This is where the importance of the composition of the citizenry comes in. My curiosity is to what makes a good citizen beyond IQ. I've had many chinese friends, and they are generally quite smart, but none of them ever consider society or government for philosophical purposes, nor do they have any interest in doing so.

Agreed. The fact that people believe the Constitution to be a fluid document shows their hypocrisy, because assuming that the 2nd Amendment referred only to muskets is like assuming that the 1st Amendment refers only to the original printing press or words that were around in the 1700s.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2016 1:53:27 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/31/2016 1:13:15 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:

If the framers really intended the Constitution to be a living document, one in which the words could be construed to mean different things as time passed, why did they include a way to amend it?

This is terribly circular.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
capob
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2016 2:00:58 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/31/2016 1:53:27 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/31/2016 1:13:15 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:

If the framers really intended the Constitution to be a living document, one in which the words could be construed to mean different things as time passed, why did they include a way to amend it?

This is terribly circular.

It's not circular, but it's not concrete.

The logic goes: If the constitution could change without amendment by reinterpreting it, why write in the method for amendments.

But, the reality is, you could still need an amendment even with the ability to re-interpret things.

The bigger issue is, "living" contracts is not how law works. And, if there is a slide towards the idea of living contracts, it is, perhaps, the consequence of filler-defaults such as the UCC (which, if you arent in law or business, you probably have no idea what I'm talking about). But, law certaintly was not open for reinterpretation back when the constitution was written. Go read a law book pre 1940 and find out, I've got a recommendation if you want it.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2016 2:05:57 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/31/2016 2:00:58 AM, capob wrote:
At 7/31/2016 1:53:27 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/31/2016 1:13:15 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:

If the framers really intended the Constitution to be a living document, one in which the words could be construed to mean different things as time passed, why did they include a way to amend it?

This is terribly circular.

It's not circular, but it's not concrete.

It is indeed circular. The OP points to the intentions of the founders to justify originalism.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2016 2:11:20 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/31/2016 2:05:57 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/31/2016 2:00:58 AM, capob wrote:
At 7/31/2016 1:53:27 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/31/2016 1:13:15 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:

If the framers really intended the Constitution to be a living document, one in which the words could be construed to mean different things as time passed, why did they include a way to amend it?

This is terribly circular.

It's not circular, but it's not concrete.

It is indeed circular. The OP points to the intentions of the founders to justify originalism.

Original intent of the founders was broad, while the argument on the left currently is that the intent of the founders pertaining to the 2nd Amendment was solely for muskets. When looking at their philosophies in various other contexts, as well as researching the letters that Madison wrote to gun companies, as well as looking at the various weaponry already available in the 1700s, and on top of that, analyzing the fact that the founders understood the changing times, and tried to make a Constitution that could easily fit those times - this invalidates all of these arguments.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2016 2:18:04 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/31/2016 2:11:20 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/31/2016 2:05:57 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/31/2016 2:00:58 AM, capob wrote:
At 7/31/2016 1:53:27 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/31/2016 1:13:15 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:

If the framers really intended the Constitution to be a living document, one in which the words could be construed to mean different things as time passed, why did they include a way to amend it?

This is terribly circular.

It's not circular, but it's not concrete.

It is indeed circular. The OP points to the intentions of the founders to justify originalism.

Original intent of the founders was broad, while the argument on the left currently is that the intent of the founders pertaining to the 2nd Amendment was solely for muskets. When looking at their philosophies in various other contexts, as well as researching the letters that Madison wrote to gun companies, as well as looking at the various weaponry already available in the 1700s, and on top of that, analyzing the fact that the founders understood the changing times, and tried to make a Constitution that could easily fit those times - this invalidates all of these arguments.

The original intent of the second amendment is commonly adduced as evidence that it is outdated, not as a coherent framework for interpreting the law.

In any case, I'm not sure how this addresses the circular reasoning within your argument.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2016 2:19:23 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/31/2016 2:18:04 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/31/2016 2:11:20 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/31/2016 2:05:57 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/31/2016 2:00:58 AM, capob wrote:
At 7/31/2016 1:53:27 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/31/2016 1:13:15 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:

If the framers really intended the Constitution to be a living document, one in which the words could be construed to mean different things as time passed, why did they include a way to amend it?

This is terribly circular.

It's not circular, but it's not concrete.

It is indeed circular. The OP points to the intentions of the founders to justify originalism.

Original intent of the founders was broad, while the argument on the left currently is that the intent of the founders pertaining to the 2nd Amendment was solely for muskets. When looking at their philosophies in various other contexts, as well as researching the letters that Madison wrote to gun companies, as well as looking at the various weaponry already available in the 1700s, and on top of that, analyzing the fact that the founders understood the changing times, and tried to make a Constitution that could easily fit those times - this invalidates all of these arguments.

The original intent of the second amendment is commonly adduced as evidence that it is outdated, not as a coherent framework for interpreting the law.

No, the original context is used as an argument for it being outdated. Original intent is not.


In any case, I'm not sure how this addresses the circular reasoning within your argument.

It wasn't my argument. I linked the writer in the op (or at least I think I did).
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
SolonKR
Posts: 4,041
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 9:54:24 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
The most-used argument I've heard for a living constitution goes something along the lines of, "A constitution drafted by a bunch of rich white slave-owning males may occasionally need a few updates." Now, while that tells part of the story, it also sometimes conveys an impression that advocates of a living constitution are basically saying that we should ignore the constitution, which isn't true.

The framers were generally great people, but they were not perfect. Using the model of a living constitution ensures that it more accurately reflects the society of today, not the society of over 200 years ago. It's important to note that in advocating for a living constitution, the original intent is never discarded, but it is instead expanded upon. The issue is that the situations of today are vastly different than they were 200 years ago, but we have to use the same document to adjudicate these different circumstances. For example, when legislators wrote, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," I doubt the original authors had gay marriage on their mind. So, if we're enforcing what the authors originally meant, this would have very narrow applicability. Yet, it's pretty clear that forbidding gay marriage directly violates this if we're taking the words as written, and this was a good chunk of the justification for Obergefell v. Hodges (along with the Due Process Clause). Just rebutting, "Well, the original ratifiers would never have allowed gay marriage, so this is wrong," would be rather flippant.
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
Bennett91
Posts: 4,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 4:59:40 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/31/2016 1:13:15 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
One of the most common arguments used when it is realized that a person's preferred policy isn't authorized by the Constitution is to argue that it is a "Living Constitution", open to changing with the winds of time. "Constitutional Originalism", they say, is "extremist". As if believing the founders meant what they said and intended it to be law is some idea out of a fantasy novel.

I didn't bother reading the rest because this is the most interesting piece of right wing thought - an underpinning of US libertarian thought if you will. The Founders had no idea how drastically different the modern world would be. Thomas Jefferson, the man who wrote most of it is quoted as saying the Constitution ought to be updated every 20 years with the new generation. Amendments are added over time change the meaning of the Constitution as well. Not to mention SCOTUS precedent and legal scholarship ... to say we must limit our interpretation of government to 1788 put the US at a great legal and moral disadvantage in the ever evolving world around us.
BJH
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 11:58:00 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/31/2016 1:13:15 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
One of the most common arguments used when it is realized that a person's preferred policy isn't authorized by the Constitution is to argue that it is a "Living Constitution", open to changing with the winds of time. "Constitutional Originalism", they say, is "extremist". As if believing the founders meant what they said and intended it to be law is some idea out of a fantasy novel.

While some pundits in the media and the intellectuals that roam our college campuses have come up with complex explanations that they feel justify this view, one must only ask a few simple questions to call their claims into question.

If the framers really intended the Constitution to be a living document, one in which the words could be construed to mean different things as time passed, why did they include a way to amend it? If the document is living and the meaning of the words so easily changed by judicial activism, what is the point of going through a process to amend the document at all?

The drafters of the Constitution were dedicated students of history, they understood full well where they were coming from, and that political realities would change in the future. That is why they included a way for us to change it over 200 years later if new realities indeed made it necessary.

Of course, the process is not a simple one. Amending the Constitution takes time, and ultimately a three-fourths majority of the states have to agree to the change. No easy process to be sure. The adherents of the Living Constitution argue that this process is too arduous. However, it was made so difficult deliberately. The framers understood the dangers that come with centralized accumulation of power. The Constitution was put in place to protect us from that. Any change must be carefully considered, and ultimately widely agreed upon, to assure no easy growth of tyranny. Arduous though it may be, it has been done 17 times since the Bill of Rights was added as the first 10 amendments. It can be done.

Why, if the framers intended it to be a living document, did they painstakingly debate every word of it? Why did they enumerate powers? Why not just have a simple system where the legislature passes laws without restriction, and the president can sign or veto it? Or better yet in the eyes of some, why not just have a legislature that merely makes suggestions to the executive, with the executive free to take that advice or not? Why even have a Supreme Court? There need not be anyone to check the power of government if there was never any intention to strictly follow the law!

No, none of this matters to the adherents of the Living Constitution. We must all succumb to their version of "common sense" reform and change.

If their ideas are indeed such common sense, why is it they cannot gather enough support to amend the constitution?

Indeed, their lack of ability to persuade us shows that their ideas aren't common sense at all, but are still open to debate. The original intent of the Constitution allows for change of common sense, the Living Constitution crowd just doesn't have much of it.

http://www.unbiasedamerica.com...

Discuss : :

The first amendment was the most important one of all. Without freedom of speech, debates wouldn't exist and all the other amendments would be useless. A dictatorship would be in place in America today. The power of free speech keeps potential dictators from taking control of the government.

Do you see any potential dictators who would love to control Americans today.
brontorraptor
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 3:00:42 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/31/2016 1:13:15 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
One of the most common arguments used when it is realized that a person's preferred policy isn't authorized by the Constitution is to argue that it is a "Living Constitution", open to changing with the winds of time. "Constitutional Originalism", they say, is "extremist". As if believing the founders meant what they said and intended it to be law is some idea out of a fantasy novel.

While some pundits in the media and the intellectuals that roam our college campuses have come up with complex explanations that they feel justify this view, one must only ask a few simple questions to call their claims into question.

If the framers really intended the Constitution to be a living document, one in which the words could be construed to mean different things as time passed, why did they include a way to amend it? If the document is living and the meaning of the words so easily changed by judicial activism, what is the point of going through a process to amend the document at all?

The drafters of the Constitution were dedicated students of history, they understood full well where they were coming from, and that political realities would change in the future. That is why they included a way for us to change it over 200 years later if new realities indeed made it necessary.

Of course, the process is not a simple one. Amending the Constitution takes time, and ultimately a three-fourths majority of the states have to agree to the change. No easy process to be sure. The adherents of the Living Constitution argue that this process is too arduous. However, it was made so difficult deliberately. The framers understood the dangers that come with centralized accumulation of power. The Constitution was put in place to protect us from that. Any change must be carefully considered, and ultimately widely agreed upon, to assure no easy growth of tyranny. Arduous though it may be, it has been done 17 times since the Bill of Rights was added as the first 10 amendments. It can be done.

Why, if the framers intended it to be a living document, did they painstakingly debate every word of it? Why did they enumerate powers? Why not just have a simple system where the legislature passes laws without restriction, and the president can sign or veto it? Or better yet in the eyes of some, why not just have a legislature that merely makes suggestions to the executive, with the executive free to take that advice or not? Why even have a Supreme Court? There need not be anyone to check the power of government if there was never any intention to strictly follow the law!

No, none of this matters to the adherents of the Living Constitution. We must all succumb to their version of "common sense" reform and change.

If their ideas are indeed such common sense, why is it they cannot gather enough support to amend the constitution?

Indeed, their lack of ability to persuade us shows that their ideas aren't common sense at all, but are still open to debate. The original intent of the Constitution allows for change of common sense, the Living Constitution crowd just doesn't have much of it.

http://www.unbiasedamerica.com...

Discuss

liberlas think the constitution is a living document
Totalitarian Dictator of DDO
BJH
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 3:02:19 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/2/2016 3:00:42 PM, brontorraptor wrote:
At 7/31/2016 1:13:15 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
One of the most common arguments used when it is realized that a person's preferred policy isn't authorized by the Constitution is to argue that it is a "Living Constitution", open to changing with the winds of time. "Constitutional Originalism", they say, is "extremist". As if believing the founders meant what they said and intended it to be law is some idea out of a fantasy novel.

While some pundits in the media and the intellectuals that roam our college campuses have come up with complex explanations that they feel justify this view, one must only ask a few simple questions to call their claims into question.

If the framers really intended the Constitution to be a living document, one in which the words could be construed to mean different things as time passed, why did they include a way to amend it? If the document is living and the meaning of the words so easily changed by judicial activism, what is the point of going through a process to amend the document at all?

The drafters of the Constitution were dedicated students of history, they understood full well where they were coming from, and that political realities would change in the future. That is why they included a way for us to change it over 200 years later if new realities indeed made it necessary.

Of course, the process is not a simple one. Amending the Constitution takes time, and ultimately a three-fourths majority of the states have to agree to the change. No easy process to be sure. The adherents of the Living Constitution argue that this process is too arduous. However, it was made so difficult deliberately. The framers understood the dangers that come with centralized accumulation of power. The Constitution was put in place to protect us from that. Any change must be carefully considered, and ultimately widely agreed upon, to assure no easy growth of tyranny. Arduous though it may be, it has been done 17 times since the Bill of Rights was added as the first 10 amendments. It can be done.

Why, if the framers intended it to be a living document, did they painstakingly debate every word of it? Why did they enumerate powers? Why not just have a simple system where the legislature passes laws without restriction, and the president can sign or veto it? Or better yet in the eyes of some, why not just have a legislature that merely makes suggestions to the executive, with the executive free to take that advice or not? Why even have a Supreme Court? There need not be anyone to check the power of government if there was never any intention to strictly follow the law!

No, none of this matters to the adherents of the Living Constitution. We must all succumb to their version of "common sense" reform and change.

If their ideas are indeed such common sense, why is it they cannot gather enough support to amend the constitution?

Indeed, their lack of ability to persuade us shows that their ideas aren't common sense at all, but are still open to debate. The original intent of the Constitution allows for change of common sense, the Living Constitution crowd just doesn't have much of it.

http://www.unbiasedamerica.com...

Discuss

liberlas think the constitution is a living document : :

Many people think the Bible is living, too.
tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 3:04:45 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/31/2016 1:53:27 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/31/2016 1:13:15 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:

If the framers really intended the Constitution to be a living document, one in which the words could be construed to mean different things as time passed, why did they include a way to amend it?

This is terribly circular.

lol I thought the same thing
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
brontorraptor
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 3:05:55 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/2/2016 3:02:19 PM, BJH wrote:
At 8/2/2016 3:00:42 PM, brontorraptor wrote:
At 7/31/2016 1:13:15 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
One of the most common arguments used when it is realized that a person's preferred policy isn't authorized by the Constitution is to argue that it is a "Living Constitution", open to changing with the winds of time. "Constitutional Originalism", they say, is "extremist". As if believing the founders meant what they said and intended it to be law is some idea out of a fantasy novel.

While some pundits in the media and the intellectuals that roam our college campuses have come up with complex explanations that they feel justify this view, one must only ask a few simple questions to call their claims into question.

If the framers really intended the Constitution to be a living document, one in which the words could be construed to mean different things as time passed, why did they include a way to amend it? If the document is living and the meaning of the words so easily changed by judicial activism, what is the point of going through a process to amend the document at all?

The drafters of the Constitution were dedicated students of history, they understood full well where they were coming from, and that political realities would change in the future. That is why they included a way for us to change it over 200 years later if new realities indeed made it necessary.

Of course, the process is not a simple one. Amending the Constitution takes time, and ultimately a three-fourths majority of the states have to agree to the change. No easy process to be sure. The adherents of the Living Constitution argue that this process is too arduous. However, it was made so difficult deliberately. The framers understood the dangers that come with centralized accumulation of power. The Constitution was put in place to protect us from that. Any change must be carefully considered, and ultimately widely agreed upon, to assure no easy growth of tyranny. Arduous though it may be, it has been done 17 times since the Bill of Rights was added as the first 10 amendments. It can be done.

Why, if the framers intended it to be a living document, did they painstakingly debate every word of it? Why did they enumerate powers? Why not just have a simple system where the legislature passes laws without restriction, and the president can sign or veto it? Or better yet in the eyes of some, why not just have a legislature that merely makes suggestions to the executive, with the executive free to take that advice or not? Why even have a Supreme Court? There need not be anyone to check the power of government if there was never any intention to strictly follow the law!

No, none of this matters to the adherents of the Living Constitution. We must all succumb to their version of "common sense" reform and change.

If their ideas are indeed such common sense, why is it they cannot gather enough support to amend the constitution?

Indeed, their lack of ability to persuade us shows that their ideas aren't common sense at all, but are still open to debate. The original intent of the Constitution allows for change of common sense, the Living Constitution crowd just doesn't have much of it.

http://www.unbiasedamerica.com...

Discuss

liberlas think the constitution is a living document : :

Many people think the Bible is living, too.

No
Totalitarian Dictator of DDO
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 4:28:26 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/2/2016 11:58:00 AM, BJH wrote:
At 7/31/2016 1:13:15 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
One of the most common arguments used when it is realized that a person's preferred policy isn't authorized by the Constitution is to argue that it is a "Living Constitution", open to changing with the winds of time. "Constitutional Originalism", they say, is "extremist". As if believing the founders meant what they said and intended it to be law is some idea out of a fantasy novel.

While some pundits in the media and the intellectuals that roam our college campuses have come up with complex explanations that they feel justify this view, one must only ask a few simple questions to call their claims into question.

If the framers really intended the Constitution to be a living document, one in which the words could be construed to mean different things as time passed, why did they include a way to amend it? If the document is living and the meaning of the words so easily changed by judicial activism, what is the point of going through a process to amend the document at all?

The drafters of the Constitution were dedicated students of history, they understood full well where they were coming from, and that political realities would change in the future. That is why they included a way for us to change it over 200 years later if new realities indeed made it necessary.

Of course, the process is not a simple one. Amending the Constitution takes time, and ultimately a three-fourths majority of the states have to agree to the change. No easy process to be sure. The adherents of the Living Constitution argue that this process is too arduous. However, it was made so difficult deliberately. The framers understood the dangers that come with centralized accumulation of power. The Constitution was put in place to protect us from that. Any change must be carefully considered, and ultimately widely agreed upon, to assure no easy growth of tyranny. Arduous though it may be, it has been done 17 times since the Bill of Rights was added as the first 10 amendments. It can be done.

Why, if the framers intended it to be a living document, did they painstakingly debate every word of it? Why did they enumerate powers? Why not just have a simple system where the legislature passes laws without restriction, and the president can sign or veto it? Or better yet in the eyes of some, why not just have a legislature that merely makes suggestions to the executive, with the executive free to take that advice or not? Why even have a Supreme Court? There need not be anyone to check the power of government if there was never any intention to strictly follow the law!

No, none of this matters to the adherents of the Living Constitution. We must all succumb to their version of "common sense" reform and change.

If their ideas are indeed such common sense, why is it they cannot gather enough support to amend the constitution?

Indeed, their lack of ability to persuade us shows that their ideas aren't common sense at all, but are still open to debate. The original intent of the Constitution allows for change of common sense, the Living Constitution crowd just doesn't have much of it.

http://www.unbiasedamerica.com...

Discuss : :

The first amendment was the most important one of all. Without freedom of speech, debates wouldn't exist and all the other amendments would be useless. A dictatorship would be in place in America today. The power of free speech keeps potential dictators from taking control of the government.

Do you see any potential dictators who would love to control Americans today.

Liberals love freedom of speech until they disagree, then they call it hate speech and try to make laws against it.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
BJH
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 4:39:50 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/2/2016 4:28:26 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 11:58:00 AM, BJH wrote:
At 7/31/2016 1:13:15 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
One of the most common arguments used when it is realized that a person's preferred policy isn't authorized by the Constitution is to argue that it is a "Living Constitution", open to changing with the winds of time. "Constitutional Originalism", they say, is "extremist". As if believing the founders meant what they said and intended it to be law is some idea out of a fantasy novel.

While some pundits in the media and the intellectuals that roam our college campuses have come up with complex explanations that they feel justify this view, one must only ask a few simple questions to call their claims into question.

If the framers really intended the Constitution to be a living document, one in which the words could be construed to mean different things as time passed, why did they include a way to amend it? If the document is living and the meaning of the words so easily changed by judicial activism, what is the point of going through a process to amend the document at all?

The drafters of the Constitution were dedicated students of history, they understood full well where they were coming from, and that political realities would change in the future. That is why they included a way for us to change it over 200 years later if new realities indeed made it necessary.

Of course, the process is not a simple one. Amending the Constitution takes time, and ultimately a three-fourths majority of the states have to agree to the change. No easy process to be sure. The adherents of the Living Constitution argue that this process is too arduous. However, it was made so difficult deliberately. The framers understood the dangers that come with centralized accumulation of power. The Constitution was put in place to protect us from that. Any change must be carefully considered, and ultimately widely agreed upon, to assure no easy growth of tyranny. Arduous though it may be, it has been done 17 times since the Bill of Rights was added as the first 10 amendments. It can be done.

Why, if the framers intended it to be a living document, did they painstakingly debate every word of it? Why did they enumerate powers? Why not just have a simple system where the legislature passes laws without restriction, and the president can sign or veto it? Or better yet in the eyes of some, why not just have a legislature that merely makes suggestions to the executive, with the executive free to take that advice or not? Why even have a Supreme Court? There need not be anyone to check the power of government if there was never any intention to strictly follow the law!

No, none of this matters to the adherents of the Living Constitution. We must all succumb to their version of "common sense" reform and change.

If their ideas are indeed such common sense, why is it they cannot gather enough support to amend the constitution?

Indeed, their lack of ability to persuade us shows that their ideas aren't common sense at all, but are still open to debate. The original intent of the Constitution allows for change of common sense, the Living Constitution crowd just doesn't have much of it.

http://www.unbiasedamerica.com...

Discuss : :

The first amendment was the most important one of all. Without freedom of speech, debates wouldn't exist and all the other amendments would be useless. A dictatorship would be in place in America today. The power of free speech keeps potential dictators from taking control of the government.

Do you see any potential dictators who would love to control Americans today.

Liberals love freedom of speech until they disagree, then they call it hate speech and try to make laws against it. : :

Most people are like that. This is why the first amendment was written. This means the Constitution should protect a homeless U.S. citizen who has the freedom to ask someone for money. Many cities around the U.S. pass laws to take away the freedoms of it's homeless citizens who should have the freedom to say this. "I need help".