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.

[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...rticle/3366762

The 10th Amendment has been largely ignored for decades.