What the fuck is the point of a Constitution

[sibelian]

That means whatever anyone wants it to mean?

[kentuck]

1. Haven't you heard??

It's only a piece of paper. Completely out-dated.

[graham4anything]

2. Just look at what Heller did to the 2nd. Complete misinterpretation. And look at the first...

the first hasn't from day one included 82% of the democratic party, being that Tom Jefferson (he of founding father infamy)
said all men are created equal, and sadly left out women and all minorities, in his statement.

The guns/NRA take away every single on of the rights of every single person shot/killed or hurt by a person with a gun/bullet.

in fact, it is totally unlivable to be in the US whilst the 2nd says a Zimmy can kill Mr. Travyon Martin in cold blood at the snap of his fingers.

What rights did Trayvon Martin have that day?

[madokie]

3. Exactly

what rights do I have as a person who wants to live my life free of having to deal or worry with a gun toter.
Tommy and his cohorts thought that a black person was only 3/5ths of a person best I remember and if you weren't a land owner, you weren't even that. Women were simply women according to the men of that era.
When a land owner was actually a thief having stole his supposed land from our Native Americans. Yea lots of problems with the constitution when it comes right down to it. IMHO

[Pelican]

15. You'll have to show me the part of the Bill of Rights..

... where it says that you have a right not to have things in the world that scare you...

[Trillo]

4. Not sure, but I'd guess it has something to do with deception

and competition.

[reformist2]

5. And how about those who tell us to wait for a court ruling before you can have an opinion on it.

It's like they've outsourced their brains.

[alc]

6. seems that both parties agree

It's a limit on governmental power when THE OTHER PARTY is in control.

In the ACA debate on DU, many (some?) of us were concerned about constitutional limits of governmental power. Some people argued that this was constitutional (a valid reason and good topic of debate). Many argued that it didn't matter because this was so important an issue (a horrible argument). And some argued that the constitution is outdated and doesn't have to be followed (an even more horrible argument).

Once WE give up and limitation of governmental power, WE never get it back. The constitution is the only legal limit so I will take a real hard line on anything that expands that limit or even seems to expand it. I don't care about the issue or the current emergency. I care about the long term need to have limits and worry about those on both sides who think any issue is important enough to cede some freedom.

Even more important than the constitutional limits is the accepted government practices. We are raising a generation which thinks the patriot act and ACA (purchasing mandates) are normal government powers. We have had lots of debate, because not everyone accepts it but that isn't true for the young generation. Just image what powers they will be willing to give the government when they face an emergency in a few decades after they've been raised to accept the expanded government powers of the last decade. Whether those powers should be constitutional or not they are now accepted which pretty much makes them within the limit.

[geek tragedy]

7. It means what nine people in robes say it means. Feel better? nt

[el_bryanto]

8. You should have a talk with Scalia - you and he might have a lot in common

Of course you would, presumably, disagree on what it was supposed to originally mean.

Bryant

[sibelian]

9. No thanks, I don't like Scalia very much.

[FarCenter]

10. The original articles are pretty clear and define the legislative, executive & legislative branches

There are some ammendments that are fairly terse and the subject of considerable interpretation.

[TheKentuckian]

11. Mostly from those who wish to subvert, eliminate, or end around them for their own purposes.

The non-enumerated exceptions are almost always a long game power grab with the end goal of undoing limitation on power, to cease government protection of enumerated rights, or to pervert the meaning to allow systems of control.

There are no "sticky wickets" until someone wants to undo or subvert pretty clear individual protections. Some have had those that never wanted such rights enumerated in the first place and have had forces fighting a rebellion against different ones the whole way.

There are also those deeply ideologically opposed to limits on government that are all about pooh poohing anything that does so while hanging like ticks on other sections of the constitution that prop them up and then there is a subset of this group that fundamentally believe that the government is the sole source and arbiter of our rights that rather than being natural they are a boon granted that can be recalled based on moment circumstances or convenience of the state.

[FarCenter]

13. Not always; for example the SC has invented a right to privacy which is nowhere literally stated

[Johonny]

12. What the fuck is the point of the Constitution if it isn't a living document

that is able to change and adapt to the changing trends in human society. Information moves differently than it did when the constitution was written. Does that mean the "press" only means a company printing something on paper with moveable type? People can now assemble virtually what does that do to your right to assemble?

I'd rather have a living breathing document than a dead and totally irrelevant document. The meaning of the constitution changes because our society sure as fuck changes. you'd think that would be obvious.

[sibelian]

14. So it's not so much a Constitution as...

a game of Nomic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic

[Johonny]

16. but our constitution left open the door to do this

almost like the people that wrote it understood that societies change over time.

You have two options A) a constitution write in stone that takes an armed revolution to over throw and then rewrite.
B) a constitution that has built in it the frame work of an institutions with the ability to adapt, check themselves, and change with time.

I would argue tour constitution is modeled after B.

The 30 years of voting for more conservatives has slowly edged the country towards more conservative readings of the constitution. If you want that to change, convince people to stop voting for conservatives. Or you can try option A and see how that works out for you.

[sibelian]

17. So it's a game of Nomic.

Fair enough.

[reformist2]

18. We've thrown it away so we can fight terror... for the rest of our lives, and then some!