- Joined
- Oct 5, 2020
- Messages
- 11,783
- Reaction score
- 11,397
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
You could not be more wrong. Literally 100% backwards.
You could not be more wrong. Literally 100% backwards.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.
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?I would first marvel that progressives like to think they have become originalists and strict constructionists-- when the subject is abortion.
The second bolded should answer the first.
By definition since the constitution can be changed means it’s a living document.
Quote where the Constitution grants the government a power, rather than defining who, when, or how it is used. You can't.You could not be more wrong. Literally 100% backwards.
That's exactly what it's about.The phrase "living document" is not about its ability to be amended primarily
They didn't until this one was written. Indeed, having a document rather than a set of procedures was revolutionary.(does any constitution have no way to amend it?)
While this is not wrong, it is not the reason that the Constitution is considered a living document.It refers to how to interpret it.
You do not understand Clarence Thomas at all.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.
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.
You do not understand Clarence Thomas at all.
Also, his wife is one craaaaaazy bitch.
More evil IMO.
Then you understand nothing either.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.
There is an authoritative citation.How Is the Constitution a Living Document?
The living document theory interprets the Constitution of the United States as a document actively changed by context, but the theory has its detractors.legalbeagle.com
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?
Then you understand nothing either.
Ginni Thomas is an activist. As such she is about as sane as AOC.
There is an authoritative citation.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.
Then you understand nothing either.
Ginni Thomas is an activist. As such she is about as sane as AOC.
There is an authoritative citation.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.
Tell it to the cult. They don't care about the truth either.Ginny Thomas would be shoving leeches into body parts if she were given free reign. Clarence is just dumb.
That is irrelevant, and you know it.Is that like how the right wants a living document when Twitter comes up?
Good one. Did you key it with a straight face?
Tell it to the cult. They don't care about the truth either.
That is irrelevant, and you know it.
Good one. Did you key it with a straight face?
Tell it to the cult. They don't care about the truth either.
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?
I don't want my President to violate ANY of it. 1A absolutely does not mean "twitter".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.
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
Preamble: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 grant any rights to the people. You are reading it backwards as too many people do.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?