Lets have a Poll...... Is our Constitution a taboo subject on T-Net?

[BuffaloBob]

Let's have a Poll...... Is our Constitution a taboo subject on T-Net?

Every person in office has sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. So Help Me God. That is the United States. That's why we live here. That's why it was begun. Just because a percentage of people do not uphold their Sacred Oath, it is still the Law Of The Land. Period. Not suggesstions or rules to try to abide by, or temporary regulations. How about a Poll? Constitution of the United States: Do you believe in it? Yes/no/sometimes.
BB

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[Treasure_Hunter]

Yes I believe in all of it, can't pick and choose pieces either, you either believe and support all or none. I don't believe it is a living document, it is a rock, the foundation this country is built on. Admendments can be added, but the Bill of Rights is s sacred part of Constitution and not to be touched which is why our forefathers named it BoR.

 

[Crispin]

Yes I believe in all of it, can't pick and choose pieces either, you either believe and support all or none. I don't believe it is a living document, it is a rock, the foundation this country is built on. Admendments can be added, but the Bill of Rights is s sacred part of Constitution and not to be touched which is why our forefathers named it BoR.

Rocks will be eroded by time and the elements...reduced to sand.

Living things will die, but their genomes will live on. The strongest will be selected and survive, they will evolve into smarter and more fit entities.

I would rather be a living thing than a rock.

 

[bill from lachine]

Folks,

Just a Canuck's take on it.....the living/breathing part of it falls under the term jurisprudence.....that is interpretation of the Constitution is the context of today's reality.

If it wasn't open to interpretation based on today's reality it would become redundant and/or irrelevant....due to the evolution of the world.....just my humble opinion.

Regards + HH

Bill

 

[Crispin]

Folks,

Just a Canuck's take on it.....the living/breathing part of it falls under the term jurisprudence.....that is interpretation of the Constitution is the context of today's reality.

If it wasn't open to interpretation based on today's reality it would become redundant and/or irrelevant....due to the evolution of the world.....just my humble opinion.

Regards + HH

Bill

Bill,

You are Canadian...you don't get a vote. Did you not learn anything from the trials and tribulations of Dano?

Crispin

 

[bill from lachine]

Crispin,

Yeah.....I'm kind of thick that way....let's see what stockpicker and dejapooh have to say....hopefully they get a vote.

Regards + HH

Bill

 

[0121stockpicker]

I think bill hit the nail on the head. I think it's clear to anyone with a knowledge of history and or constitutional law. Or civics 101 for that matter. You just end up missing the entire beauty and wisdom of the document - it's really a shame and sad.

 

[Crispin]

I think bill hit the nail on the head. I think it's clear to anyone with a knowledge of history and or constitutional law. Or civics 101 for that matter. You just end up missing the entire beauty and wisdom of the document - it's really a shame and sad.

You are starting to sound a little bit too much like a Pinko Commie Liberal for my tastes...

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Rocks will be eroded by time and the elements...reduced to sand.

Living things will die, but their genomes will live on. The strongest will be selected and survive, they will evolve into smarter and more fit entities.

I would rather be a living thing than a rock.

It appears a Supreme Court Judge agress with me.........


01/29/2013
Justice Scalia: Constitution is ‘dead’

"Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia took the stage at Southern Methodist University Monday night and argued the Constitution is “not a living document” and is “dead, dead, dead.”
Justice Scalia discussed how children would visit the Supreme Court and refer to the Constitution as a “living document” but that the Constitution is, in fact, “dead.” A staunch conservative and “textualist,” Scalia believes the law must be taken literally and that the original meaning of the Constitution is the best way to interpret it.
While giving a lecture with SMU law professor Bryan Garner, Justice Scalia also stated that his legal decisions do not always align with his political views. “The judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge,” Scalia told the audience."

 

[0121stockpicker]

It appears a Supreme Court Judge agress with me.........

01/29/2013
Justice Scalia: Constitution is ‘dead’

"Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia took the stage at Southern Methodist University Monday night and argued the Constitution is “not a living document” and is “dead, dead, dead.”
Justice Scalia discussed how children would visit the Supreme Court and refer to the Constitution as a “living document” but that the Constitution is, in fact, “dead.” A staunch conservative and “textualist,” Scalia believes the law must be taken literally and that the original meaning of the Constitution is the best way to interpret it.
While giving a lecture with SMU law professor Bryan Garner, Justice Scalia also stated that his legal decisions do not always align with his political views. “The judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge,” Scalia told the audience."

Of course. We have nine judges ranging from conservative to liberal interpretations of constitutional law. It's a fascinating study to see how the diff justices rule on issues and to read their opinions on those issues. This is why we have more than one on the Supreme Court as in the end it all comes down to interpretation and opinion and that is best done by majority if a group and not a single individual.

 

[dieselram94]

The constitution as has been said is a rock formed of granite. In other words here forever. How long have the pyramids been around? It is for sure not a living document.......To think so is to give up your rights......

 

[0121stockpicker]

The constitution as has been said is a rock formed of granite. In other words here forever. How long have the pyramids been around? It is for sure not a living document.......To think so is to give up your rights......

I guess you missed those things we call amendment. To amend - what does that mean?? If some is in rock, granite or whatever you said than how could it possibly be amended??

Do you believe we should go back to the original doc where women and non-Caucasians did not have the right yo vote?

The constitution itself clearly spells out how it can be changed?? So your statement might be your wish or desire but is certainly not true.

 

[dieselram94]

The constitution is not meant to be changed on a whim. It is what this country is built on, period. To change it in a way that diminishes rights is suicide. Why would anyone support doing that? Most likely because they have a strong distaste for this country as founded. In which case said persons can expatriate and will not be missed.......The constitution is a document limiting govt. Why is this so hard for people to understand. But then again if you get your info from sources like economist.com then your views are skewed......kind of like NPR.

 

[scurvy_seadog]

110% believe in it and have also sworn to defend it against all enemies foreign or domestic.
It is not a ever living breathing document. It means what it says period. not open for interpitation.

 

[0121stockpicker]

110% believe in it and have also sworn to defend it against all enemies foreign or domestic.
It is not a ever living breathing document. It means what it says period. not open for interpitation.

Amendment - to amend Etc etc??

 

[dieselram94]

110% believe in it and have also sworn to defend it against all enemies foreign or domestic.
It is not a ever living breathing document. It means what it says period. not open for interpitation.

Well said!

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Constitution can be amended, no doubt about that, that does not mean it isnt the rock this country was built on, too many try to go in and read something in it based on today's views rather than on views of the day it was written.... As Judge Scalia puts it "the original meaning of the Constitution is the best way to interpret it."

Perfect example is the latest attack by the left on the 2nd amendment claiming any weapon they don't like is an "assault weapon", oh our fore fathers didn't mean assault weapons when they said "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", when the Bill of Rights was written the musket was the latest and greatest assault weapon of it's day...

 

[packerbacker]

The constitution is to be taken at face value, not twisted by accident-chasing lawyers, otherwise it ends up like Slick Willy's "It depends on what your definition of is, is" statement. How easily the wool is pulled.

 

[0121stockpicker]

The constitution is not meant to be changed on a whim. It is what this country is built on, period. To change it in a way that diminishes rights is suicide. Why would anyone support doing that? Most likely because they have a strong distaste for this country as founded. In which case said persons can expatriate and will not be missed.......The constitution is a document limiting govt. Why is this so hard for people to understand. But then again if you get your info from sources like economist.com then your views are skewed......kind of like NPR.

No need to get personal if you don't agree with someone's opinion. Actually you made it just fine for me. Not sure why you believe the economist is a "liberal" magazine, but you are entitled to your opinion. You prefer the drudge report, fox.com and blaze.com. I'm not sure if one can make an argument of the superiority in the quality of reporting of some of the sources that you read can you? I think for global news the economist is an excellent source if information.

You state that the constitution is not meant to be changed on a whim - I agree with you 1000 percent. Of course that is completely different than the statement above that I disagreed with that it can never be changed - it is in stone. Si we completely agree with each other and you are 100 percent correct. The constitution clearly spells out how it can be changed and yes it is extremely difficult to do as it should be. It should never be on a whim. Matter a fact it can be changed multiple times on the same issue as we saw with booze. I'm sure most of you are happy that prohibition was repealed?

So in the end we are completely agreeing with each other. The constitution can be changed but it is very very difficult.

This is why all this talk about doing away with the second is just fear mongering by special interest groups looking for money and profit.

 

[0121stockpicker]

The constitution is not meant to be changed on a whim. It is what this country is built on, period. To change it in a way that diminishes rights is suicide. Why would anyone support doing that? Most likely because they have a strong distaste for this country as founded. In which case said persons can expatriate and will not be missed.......The constitution is a document limiting govt. Why is this so hard for people to understand. But then again if you get your info from sources like economist.com then your views are skewed......kind of like NPR.

Folks, you guys need to listen to diesel - he is 100 percent correct. The constitution CAN be changed, but not on a whim. The amendment process is clearly spelled out for all to see and it is in fact extremely difficult to do. Diesel was paying attention in civics class.