The US Constitution

[Puckstop31]

We can start with a simple question, that often generates a LOT of healthy debate.

- Should the Constitution be interpreted as the founders intended, or should it be a "living and breathing" document and more loosely interpreted based on the current social era?


No right or wrong answers here... Just trying to generate honest discussion.

[Puckstop31]

And I'll go first. :)

I believe in a strict constructionist view. That is, to exercise that Constitution as the great minds who wrote it intended.

I quote the "father" of the US Constitution, James Madison.

"I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that not be the guide in expounding it there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shapes and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in the modern sense. And that the language of our Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founders, will I believe appear to all unbiasesd Enquirers into the history of its origin and adoption."

[Grace]

We can start with a simple question, that often generates a LOT of healthy debate.

- Should the Constitution be interpreted as the founders intended, or should it be a "living and breathing" document and more loosely interpreted based on the current social era?

No right or wrong answers here... Just trying to generate honest discussion.

For the sake of discussion –


Article V:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

There have been 27 such amendments since The Constitution was adopted – the first was ratified in 1791. Hardly enough time to take a deep breath before changes were made.

Also from 1791, Amendment IX –


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Certain rights not specifically enumerated . . . . . . this could cover a multitude of rights not even imagined back then.

[Puckstop31]

For the sake of discussion –



There have been 27 such amendments since The Constitution was adopted – the first was ratified in 1791. Hardly enough time to take a deep breath before changes were made.

Also from 1791, Amendment IX –



Certain rights not specifically enumerated . . . . . . this could cover a multitude of rights not even imagined back then.

Thank you. :)

The Amendment process is a great thing, IMO. I have no problem with that at all. An Amendment is part of the Constitution as a whole. What I was talking about and my apologies if I communicated poorly, is how it is interpreted and the power executed. I think Madison's comments about changing language are important and should be considered, so as to not mis-interpret the intent of the era of people who passed the Amendment.

"Certain Rights", is indeed a sticky phrase. But as I read the founders, time and again, they talk about a RIGHT being something that man cannot grant, or morally deny. It is something inalienable. Not to be confused with a privilidge. So I wonder about what you mean when you say, "rights not even imagined back then.

The 9th Amendment does indeed wield great power. Perhaps that was what FDR was getting at in his famous 1944 State of the Union speech. His words when I read it, scare me to death. But I digress.... :)

Thanks Grace! Any other people have some opinion they want to share?

[smokey the elder]

I'll take a stab at this. In the 18th century, women did not have the vote. Slaves existed. Amendments were both passed to address this. Interpretation of the constitution is the purview (sp?) of the judiciary branch. Amendments are the purview of "we the people" and the legislative branch. As such, the Constitution and its amendments are meant to be valid "as written", with the most recent amendment(s) superseding previous ones (i.e.prohibition and repeal of same.)

One thing that disturbs me about increased federalization is the erosion of states' rights. The threat of withholding of federal funding (e.g. for education, roads, etc.) is a pretty powerful club to wield over individual states.

[moosmom]

I'll pass. I'm not in the mood for argument or debate this morning. Trying to interpret what was written hundreds of years ago would be literally impossible, as times they are a changing.

[blue]

I'll pass. I'm not in the mood for argument or debate this morning. Trying to interpret what was written hundreds of years ago would be literally impossible, as times they are a changing.

Exactly why the Constitution shouldnt be interpreted.

If its not enumerated and isnt cut and dried as to why its a Right, the Constitution should be amended.

The 1rst and 2nd Amendment are a perfect examples of the Constitution being "interpreted" and the abuse that follows.

[Puckstop31]

One thing that disturbs me about increased federalization is the erosion of states' rights. The threat of withholding of federal funding (e.g. for education, roads, etc.) is a pretty powerful club to wield over individual states.

And a reason why states are doing this....

http://www.newsok.com/house-bypasses-governors-veto-to-claim-oklahomas-sovereignty/article/3366762

The 10th Amendment has been largely ignored for decades.

[Puckstop31]

I'll pass. I'm not in the mood for argument or debate this morning. Trying to interpret what was written hundreds of years ago would be literally impossible, as times they are a changing.

<sigh>

This kind of complacency is why we get what we have.... Overbearing "Fedzilla" running every little portion of our lives.

And YES, indeed... The times, they are a changing. Is this the change (I assume, correct me if I am wrong) you voted for?

[moosmom]

While I usually do not reveal how I voted, because I think it is a personal choice, I will answer, yes, I voted for Obama and am proud of it. Up until Obama took office, this country was in shambles. I'm glad Bush is outta there and finally we see the light.

Times they are a changing and yes, I'm ready for that change.

[Grace]

We the People –

As long as the people were white, male, landowners. No women, non-property owners, native Americans, or African Americans (slave or free) allowed.

As Justice Marshall once said –
For a sense of the evolving nature of the Constitution, we need look no further than the first three words of the document’s preamble: ‘We the people.’ When the founding fathers used this phrase in 1787, they did not have in mind the majority of America’s citizens.

The men who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 could not . . . have imagined, nor would they have accepted, that the document they were drafting would one day be construed by a Supreme Court to which had been appointed a woman and the descendant of an African slave.

The Constitution was ratified in June 1788, but it took the Bill of Rights before the last state would sign on.
North Carolina and Rhode Island refused to approve the Constitution and take part in the new government until Congress agreed to add a bill of rights.

As I said earlier, changes to language and intent were made from the very beginning.

It took another 173 years to correct all the voting inequities.

I don’t believe in a strict constructionist view. But you already figured that out ;)

Remember - No right or wrong answers here . . . . .

[Puckstop31]

I'm glad Bush is outta there and finally we see the light.

Times they are a changing and yes, I'm ready for that change.

I too am glad GWB is gone. But what light do you speak of? What change? Obama's economic policies are the same, only on steroids. We are still in Iraq, will be in Iraq and are increasing our presence in Afghanistan.

Are we really prepared to bankrupt our posterity?

[Puckstop31]

We the People –

As long as the people were white, male, landowners. No women, non-property owners, native Americans, or African Americans (slave or free) allowed.

As Justice Marshall once said –

I disagree with Justice Marshall... I belive that most of the founders could indeed see a day where all adult citizens could vote. Further, a lot of them understood the almost certain and dire consequences of the compromises necessary on slavery issues, to get the Constitution ratified. The Constitution is not perfect, nothing man can do ever CAN be. But is pretty darn close, IMO.




As I said earlier, changes to language and intent were made from the very beginning.

It took another 173 years to correct all the voting inequities.

I don’t believe in a strict constructionist view. But you already figured that out ;)

I know change was intended. I have no problem with change. But change should come in the form of Amendments. The Federal government was granted a very finite list of powers. It, has VASTLY expanded that scope of power, at libertys peril. As for words and wording... My earlier quote from Madison is important I think. Just because a word changes meaning does not mean the intent of the law should.


Remember - No right or wrong answers here . . . . .

I know... LOL I am enjoying this discussion. But you bring to light another reason why a overbearing Federal government is a bad thing. If the 10th Amendment were respected, individual states could "experiment" with radical social and economic policy, without effecting the nation as a whole. Oh how I would love to let that happen. California and New York versus South Dakota and Texas. LOL Lets see whos policy works better for its people.

A man can dream, can't he?

Again, thanks Grace.

[RICHARD]

I had a wonderful conversation w/a Canuckian who said to me, ?You mericans are anal about your patriotism'.

I loved it she was comfortable enough to say that to me.
Later on I thought about all the Yahoos who want to give some of our rights to scummy pirates and terrorists.

No Thanks, I am too brainwashed with patriotism to let some Jackhole share my Constitution.

They can have yours.

[blue]

We the People –

As long as the people were white, male, landowners. No women, non-property owners, native Americans, or African Americans (slave or free) allowed.

As Justice Marshall once said –


For a sense of the evolving nature of the Constitution, we need look no further than the first three words of the document’s preamble: ‘We the people.’ When the founding fathers used this phrase in 1787, they did not have in mind the majority of America’s citizens.

The men who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 could not . . . have imagined, nor would they have accepted, that the document they were drafting would one day be construed by a Supreme Court to which had been appointed a woman and the descendant of an African slave.

The Constitution was ratified in June 1788, but it took the Bill of Rights before the last state would sign on.
North Carolina and Rhode Island refused to approve the Constitution and take part in the new government until Congress agreed to add a bill of rights.

As I said earlier, changes to language and intent were made from the very beginning.

It took another 173 years to correct all the voting inequities.

I don’t believe in a strict constructionist view. But you already figured that out ;)

Remember - No right or wrong answers here . . . . .

Exactly the reason I think the amendment proccess was genius, it can be changed.

Besides the living under the Constitution is better then living under Sharia law (http://www.cfr.org/publication/8034/).

[smokey the elder]

Oh, you have that right! At least you can change the Constitution. Sharia is an invention of the devil, IMO.