• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Constitutional basic issue, for the right especially

Buckeyes85

Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2020
Messages
2,774
Reaction score
1,873
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The first thing you should understand is that Constitution does not give or grant the government power.

Rather, the Constitution recognizes where the power already resides and the document's purpose is to limit and diffuse that power. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to grant individuals powers against the government.
You could not be more wrong. Literally 100% backwards.
 

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
20,507
Reaction score
7,630
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I would first marvel that progressives like to think they have become originalists and strict constructionists-- when the subject is abortion.
Hmmmm.....shouldn't that be that anti-vacs become progressives when the subject is right to choose for their own body with regard to COVID vaccine?
 

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
19,914
Reaction score
7,410
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
The second bolded should answer the first.

By definition since the constitution can be changed means it’s a living document.

The phrase "living document" is not about its ability to be amended primarily (does any constitution have no way to amend it?)

It refers to how to interpret it. For example, a prohibition against unequal application of the laws would have Clarence Thomas saying it only applies to groups understood at the time, but wouldn't apply to gay people that weren't, while a 'living constitution' would say that the prohibition has grown to protect gay people also.
 

Jay59

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
10,839
Reaction score
2,193
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You could not be more wrong. Literally 100% backwards.
Quote where the Constitution grants the government a power, rather than defining who, when, or how it is used. You can't.

The Constitution does not give the government rights. It restricts the ones already there.

The phrase "living document" is not about its ability to be amended primarily
That's exactly what it's about.

(does any constitution have no way to amend it?)
They didn't until this one was written. Indeed, having a document rather than a set of procedures was revolutionary.

It refers to how to interpret it.
While this is not wrong, it is not the reason that the Constitution is considered a living document.

For example, a prohibition against unequal application of the laws would have Clarence Thomas saying it only applies to groups understood at the time, but wouldn't apply to gay people that weren't, while a 'living constitution' would say that the prohibition has grown to protect gay people also.
You do not understand Clarence Thomas at all.
 
Last edited:

Aunt Antifa

Vaccinated-American
Banned
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
27,202
Reaction score
14,203
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
The phrase "living document" is not about its ability to be amended primarily (does any constitution have no way to amend it?)

It refers to how to interpret it. For example, a prohibition against unequal application of the laws would have Clarence Thomas saying it only applies to groups understood at the time, but wouldn't apply to gay people that weren't, while a 'living constitution' would say that the prohibition has grown to protect gay people also.

Dood. Work with me here. ;)
 

Aunt Antifa

Vaccinated-American
Banned
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
27,202
Reaction score
14,203
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
You do not understand Clarence Thomas at all.

All ya gotta do to understand him is understand he’s a dummy and has zero business sitting on that court.

Also, his wife is one craaaaaazy bitch.
 

Jay59

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
10,839
Reaction score
2,193
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
All ya gotta do to understand him is understand he’s a dummy and has zero business sitting on that court. Also, his wife is one craaaaaazy bitch.
Then you understand nothing either.

Ginni Thomas is an activist. As such she is about as sane as AOC.

There is an authoritative citation. :LOL: Even it admits that it is not the usual interpretation.

The Constitution is called living because it can change and adapt. This is a literal reference to the built-in amendment process. What you are describing is judicial activism.

The Constitution of the United States is referred to as a "living document" because it the architects of the document intended for it to be adapted by future generations. It is because it is adaptable, that amendments could be ratified, or added to it.​
 

Linuxcooldude

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2020
Messages
3,049
Reaction score
980
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You want to write a constitution for the United States. In it, you say that you want to give the federal government specific power, but to limit them to those powers, and powers they aren't given are retained by the people. You decide to list a few especially key rights, like free speech and the right to have guns, and just to make sure that rights that you didn't highlight aren't lost, you say any others are kept by the people.

Then a state or the federal legislature passes a law limiting a right of people that isn't listed in the constitution. How would you suggest that right be protected? How would you respond if a Supreme Court Justice said they were an "originalist", and if it wasn't listed, then he doesn't recognize it? You can answer both if the right in question is abortion, or another right.

Would you support saying that the right way to ban abortion would be to pass a constitutional amendment, as was done for alcohol, another right not given to the government?

What do you think you should do if your political interests conflict with the constitution?

Trying to answer that would be nearly impossible. You would really need to submit the Constitution as a whole, not in parts. The Supreme Court often points to other parts of the Constitution in their ruling. Since you want to submit a whole new Constitution.
 

US&THEM

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
8,951
Reaction score
2,247
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Then you understand nothing either.

Ginni Thomas is an activist. As such she is about as sane as AOC.


There is an authoritative citation. :LOL: Even it admits that it is not the usual interpretation.

The Constitution is called living because it can change and adapt. This is a literal reference to the built-in amendment process. What you are describing is judicial activism.

The Constitution of the United States is referred to as a "living document" because it the architects of the document intended for it to be adapted by future generations. It is because it is adaptable, that amendments could be ratified, or added to it.​

Wow I am proud of you! Finally one accurate post.
But of course you are dead wrong about everything else.
 

Aunt Antifa

Vaccinated-American
Banned
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
27,202
Reaction score
14,203
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Then you understand nothing either.

Ginni Thomas is an activist. As such she is about as sane as AOC.


There is an authoritative citation. :LOL: Even it admits that it is not the usual interpretation.

The Constitution is called living because it can change and adapt. This is a literal reference to the built-in amendment process. What you are describing is judicial activism.

The Constitution of the United States is referred to as a "living document" because it the architects of the document intended for it to be adapted by future generations. It is because it is adaptable, that amendments could be ratified, or added to it.​

Oh dear no. AOC is a rational, smart person that believes in science. Ginny Thomas would be shoving leeches into body parts if she were given free reign. Clarence is just dumb.
 

Jay59

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
10,839
Reaction score
2,193
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Oh dear no. AOC is a rational, smart person that believes in science.
:LOL: :ROFLMAO: :LOL: :ROFLMAO: :LOL:

Good one. Did you key it with a straight face?

Ginny Thomas would be shoving leeches into body parts if she were given free reign. Clarence is just dumb.
Tell it to the cult. They don't care about the truth either.
 

US&THEM

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
8,951
Reaction score
2,247
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
:LOL: :ROFLMAO: :LOL: :ROFLMAO: :LOL:

Good one. Did you key it with a straight face?


Tell it to the cult. They don't care about the truth either.

Why do you continue to enable the cult?
 

Aunt Antifa

Vaccinated-American
Banned
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
27,202
Reaction score
14,203
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
That is irrelevant, and you know it.

No, it’s really not. Your hot takes on the constitution depends on which part you want to violate. 1A now means “twitter” cause times have changed since the document was first written.
 

Aunt Antifa

Vaccinated-American
Banned
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
27,202
Reaction score
14,203
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
:LOL: :ROFLMAO: :LOL: :ROFLMAO: :LOL:

Good one. Did you key it with a straight face?


Tell it to the cult. They don't care about the truth either.

Ginny is most likely to buy a pair of sneakers in prep to leave the planet by a lot.
 

diz

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2019
Messages
1,671
Reaction score
448
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You want to write a constitution for the United States. In it, you say that you want to give the federal government specific power, but to limit them to those powers, and powers they aren't given are retained by the people. You decide to list a few especially key rights, like free speech and the right to have guns, and just to make sure that rights that you didn't highlight aren't lost, you say any others are kept by the people.


This is quite literally what the Constitution says, except the last part is not “kept by the people” it’s by the states or the people. You have chosen strange language that makes it sound like some sort of hypothetical instead of the current reality.

Then a state or the federal legislature passes a law limiting a right of people that isn't listed in the constitution. How would you suggest that right be protected? How would you respond if a Supreme Court Justice said they were an "originalist", and if it wasn't listed, then he doesn't recognize it? You can answer both if the right in question is abortion, or another right.

Would you support saying that the right way to ban abortion would be to pass a constitutional amendment, as was done for alcohol, another right not given to the government?

What do you think you should do if your political interests conflict with the constitution?

In the legal sense, you need to actually read what the Constitution says. Some powers are denied the Federal government (e.g., Congress shall make no law...) others are granted directly to the people (e.g., no person shall be held to answer...)

The Federal government may not do that which it is prohibited from doing, nor may it infringe on rights directly granted the people. Later some of the prohibitions against the US Congress were applied to the states through the 14th Amendment, but before that time those powers were not denied to the states.

So, if the Federal government does something it has no power to do (in Article I) *or* something it is specifically prohibited from doing elsewhere that law is unconstitutional and should be found so by the courts. History has shown this not necessarily to be the case, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be the case. If you want to do something that is unconstitutional to do so you should have to amend the Constitution. Again, history has not always shown this to be the case.

Political interest should have nothing to do with it. The rule of law should rise above political interests. Again, not always the case at the USSC.

When the courts act outside of what is written in the Constitution we should all be offended. The sole source from which courts derive their power is the Constitution, they are not intended to be super-legislatures that trump the workings of our democracy. Though historically they have sometimes acted as if they were.
 

smallvoice

Classic Liberal
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2018
Messages
8,549
Reaction score
1,437
Location
God's country
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
No, it’s really not. Your hot takes on the constitution depends on which part you want to violate. 1A now means “twitter” cause times have changed since the document was first written.
I don't want my President to violate ANY of it. 1A absolutely does not mean "twitter".

Times HAVE changed, and there is a Constitutional method of changing it. You libbies just can't get enough support for your cockamamie ideas.

Now, what else did you get wrong?
 

NatMorton

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
8,930
Reaction score
3,059
Location
Greater Boston Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There is no universal agreement on a set of established "rights." One person's "right" is another person's "harm done to another." (Abortion is the classic example here.)

The judicial activists go wrong when they presume that there is an established set of rights outside of the Constitution that need protection/enforcement by the federal government. That is nonsense. The written Constitution only has authority because two-thirds of Congress and three fourths of the states agreed to impose their will on the entire country. An extra-Constitutional "right" lacks the democratic authority to be imposed or enforced by the federal government in opposition to a state.

It all comes down to who has the authority to create national law. I assert it's the people through their representatives and not a tribunal of nine lawyers with lifetime tenure.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
80,789
Reaction score
36,188
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
dont need any change in the document

just need to do away with the law giving "platforms" free gratis from any and all lawsuits

twitter and facebook want to have their cake and eat it too....

they just need to LOSE the protections given.....done deal

No, what right wingers are actually asking for is for Twitter to not be allowed to moderate its own platform at all.
 

Buckeyes85

Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2020
Messages
2,774
Reaction score
1,873
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Quote where the Constitution grants the government a power, rather than defining who, when, or how it is used. You can't.
Preamble:
We the People of the United States,.............

Article 1; Section 1:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Well that was pretty easy.
Want to go 0 for 2?
 

Buckeyes85

Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2020
Messages
2,774
Reaction score
1,873
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
This is quite literally what the Constitution says, except the last part is not “kept by the people” it’s by the states or the people. You have chosen strange language that makes it sound like some sort of hypothetical instead of the current reality.



In the legal sense, you need to actually read what the Constitution says. Some powers are denied the Federal government (e.g., Congress shall make no law...) others are granted directly to the people (e.g., no person shall be held to answer...)

The Federal government may not do that which it is prohibited from doing, nor may it infringe on rights directly granted the people. Later some of the prohibitions against the US Congress were applied to the states through the 14th Amendment, but before that time those powers were not denied to the states.
The constitution does not grant any rights to the people. You are reading it backwards as too many people do.
 

diz

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2019
Messages
1,671
Reaction score
448
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The constitution does not grant any rights to the people. You are reading it backwards as too many people do.

Try reading the plain language of amendments 2 and 4 thru 8. Unless you’re trying to make a “natural rights” philosophical argument, which frankly I think has less relevance in a legal discussion.
 
Top Bottom