• 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!

Federal Judge: Constitution has no value

American said:
He ought to be impeached and dropped off in Somalia.
Click to expand...
Why do you feel that way?
Renae said:
And that's why the trust in the institutions and laws has ebbed so low, people like you.
Click to expand...
So instead of responding to what I actually said and the point I made with the supporting evidence, you simply chopped off the context to post some useless rhetoric.

But sure, I'M the reason the trust in the honesty of our country is so low.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Sure you can. We do it all the time. :shrug:

Take this forum, as an example. There are rules against flaming and baiting, but those rules are completely decided by the collective whim of the current Staff. For example, if I said "you are stupid", that would be a flame and I would be hit with an infraction. If I said "conservatives/liberals are stupid", then it won't be an infraction, even if you are one of them. And this forum is still governed by the rules set forth by Staff. and continues to plug right along. But they could change the rules tomorrow and make "conservatives/liberals are stupid" an Infraction offense...and the forum would keep chugging along.

It works similarly in government. Take Brown v. Board of Education overturning Plessy v. Ferguson. As education and attitudes of the country changed, and as evidenced continued to come in, it became apparent to the Court that separate but equal was not equal.

You most certainly can have a meaningful document and apply modern thinking to it. The idea we have to abide by the thinking of those 200 years ago, even if we can PROVE their thinking was erroneous or biased, is silly. And apparently even Thomas Jefferson thought so.
One applies the Constitution and the other disposes of it.

There's a big difference.
Sure it is. :shrug:
False. You cannot ignore the Constitution, your judgments still have to align with it. You couldn't just ignore it at will.

Not the nature of people, but rather what we know of the world around us. As is pointed out numerous times, the Founders didn't write the Constitution with the knowledge of cars, the Internet, airplanes, nuclear weapons, frozen pizza, etc. But they KNEW they didn't know what would happen in the future and so they wrote a framework. A framework is not strict, but rather adaptable.

Let's put it this way...do you really believe that the federal government should have the right to censor any website which is critical of the government? Because the "Internet" is written nowhere in the Constitution.
There was nothing convoluted about it, I clearly responded to each section individually. I accept your apology for your sloppy reading.
I see your ability to read with context is also lacking today. Perhaps if you had bothered to pay more attention to the post to which you replied, you could have understood the very clear point I was making, since it was prevalent throughout my post. Again, I accept your apology for your sloppy reading. And, because I'm kind, I'll add in the ONE word you obviously had trouble interpreting:

"I don't believe you READ the original source either"

It wasn't gibberish, it was the hurried omission of one word, a word which anyone with a touch of honesty and attention to detail would have obviously deduced. I apologize for assuming all people in this thread would meet that criteria.
But the 1st Amendment didn't say that Congress couldn't pass a law censoring websites on the Internet. Absent the ability to apply modern concepts to the 1st Amendment, the argument could easily be made the Internet should be nothing more than another form of government propaganda.

Is this what you believe should happen to the Internet? Or, on the reverse side, do you believe the government shouldn't be able to pass a law which allows for the police to arrest someone who posts on Facebook they are going to shoot up the local elementary school within the next week?

No one is saying otherwise.
No, the amendment process changes, adds or removes parts of the framework. How the framework is applied has nothing to do with amendments.
Click to expand...
Come now. Its 2016. We have been formed as a country for some 230+ years with the Constitution as a guiding document. Do you see where the 1st Amendment cannot or has not been applied to questions regarding free speech on the internet?

The intent is the same. The tragic is that we have revisionists wishing to bastardize or kill off parts of the Constitution that doesnt fit their own personal rhetoric. Those are the people...especially if they have power...that were the impetus for the creation of the 2nd.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Sure you can. We do it all the time. :shrug:

Take this forum, as an example. There are rules against flaming and baiting, but those rules are completely decided by the collective whim of the current Staff. For example, if I said "you are stupid", that would be a flame and I would be hit with an infraction. If I said "conservatives/liberals are stupid", then it won't be an infraction, even if you are one of them. And this forum is still governed by the rules set forth by Staff. and continues to plug right along. But they could change the rules tomorrow and make "conservatives/liberals are stupid" an Infraction offense...and the forum would keep chugging along.

It works similarly in government. Take Brown v. Board of Education overturning Plessy v. Ferguson. As education and attitudes of the country changed, and as evidenced continued to come in, it became apparent to the Court that separate but equal was not equal.

You most certainly can have a meaningful document and apply modern thinking to it. The idea we have to abide by the thinking of those 200 years ago, even if we can PROVE their thinking was erroneous or biased, is silly. And apparently even Thomas Jefferson thought so.
One applies the Constitution and the other disposes of it.

There's a big difference.
Sure it is. :shrug:
False. You cannot ignore the Constitution, your judgments still have to align with it. You couldn't just ignore it at will.

Not the nature of people, but rather what we know of the world around us. As is pointed out numerous times, the Founders didn't write the Constitution with the knowledge of cars, the Internet, airplanes, nuclear weapons, frozen pizza, etc. But they KNEW they didn't know what would happen in the future and so they wrote a framework. A framework is not strict, but rather adaptable.

Let's put it this way...do you really believe that the federal government should have the right to censor any website which is critical of the government? Because the "Internet" is written nowhere in the Constitution.
There was nothing convoluted about it, I clearly responded to each section individually. I accept your apology for your sloppy reading.
I see your ability to read with context is also lacking today. Perhaps if you had bothered to pay more attention to the post to which you replied, you could have understood the very clear point I was making, since it was prevalent throughout my post. Again, I accept your apology for your sloppy reading. And, because I'm kind, I'll add in the ONE word you obviously had trouble interpreting:

"I don't believe you READ the original source either"

It wasn't gibberish, it was the hurried omission of one word, a word which anyone with a touch of honesty and attention to detail would have obviously deduced. I apologize for assuming all people in this thread would meet that criteria.
But the 1st Amendment didn't say that Congress couldn't pass a law censoring websites on the Internet. Absent the ability to apply modern concepts to the 1st Amendment, the argument could easily be made the Internet should be nothing more than another form of government propaganda.

Is this what you believe should happen to the Internet? Or, on the reverse side, do you believe the government shouldn't be able to pass a law which allows for the police to arrest someone who posts on Facebook they are going to shoot up the local elementary school within the next week?

No one is saying otherwise.
No, the amendment process changes, adds or removes parts of the framework. How the framework is applied has nothing to do with amendments.
Click to expand...

You know what, just because you're too ****ing lazy and lack the decency to respond to each poster separately, just like every other poster on this site respectfully does, doesn't mean I'm going to wade through your essay of nonsense to figure out what part of it might remotely related to something I posted.
 
VanceMack said:
Come now. Its 2016. We have been formed as a country for some 230+ years with the Constitution as a guiding document.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY! The Constitution as a "guiding" document. Not a strict and inflexible document from which our government can only operate as set forth in the late 1770s, but rather as a guiding document to protect the process contained within.

It is a framework, not a law.

Do you see where the 1st Amendment cannot or has not been applied to questions regarding free speech on the internet?
Click to expand...
Of course it can. That's the point. But how can you apply the 1st Amendment to the Founders intent of Facebook posts, if the Founders didn't know of the Internet?

Life is much different today. We have to be able to apply the 1st Amendment to Facebook. That's the entire point.

The intent is the same.
Click to expand...
But the application simply cannot be, because society is constantly changing.

The tragic is that we have revisionists wishing to bastardize or kill off parts of the Constitution that doesnt fit their own personal rhetoric.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's the case, I think people try to apply the Constitution to fit with their understanding of it.
Those are the people...especially if they have power...that were the impetus for the creation of the 2nd.
Click to expand...
I'll grant you this...If there was ever an example of people trying to bastardize the Constitution, it would be those who ignore the first part of the 2nd Amendment simply to focus on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I'm not making a gun argument, only posting one of the very few examples of where I see people intentionally trying to bastardize the Constitution.

CanadaJohn said:
You know what, just because you're too ****ing lazy
Click to expand...
Lazy? It's far more difficult to cut and paste each quote into one post than making double, triple posts, etc.

That's just one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
and lack the decency to respond to each poster separately
Click to expand...
Why double and triple post when I can contain it all in one post? Especially when the overarching theme in all the posts are the same?

Look, just accept the fact that you were a sloppy reader and move on. It's okay, it happens. But it was still your fault, so don't blame me because you feel embarrassed you didn't bother to read what Posner actually said and instead fell for the misinformation.
every other poster on this site respectfully does
Click to expand...
It is far more disrespectful to make half the posts on a page from one poster because they were too lazy to combine them into one post.

doesn't mean I'm going to wade through your essay of nonsense to figure out what part of it might remotely related to something I posted.
Click to expand...
It's not hard...you look for your name in the post and what is written in response to it. Most people have no trouble with it.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Why do you feel that way?
So instead of responding to what I actually said and the point I made with the supporting evidence, you simply chopped off the context to post some useless rhetoric.

But sure, I'M the reason the trust in the honesty of our country is so low.
Click to expand...



Slyfox696 said:
Why do you feel that way?
So instead of responding to what I actually said and the point I made with the supporting evidence, you simply chopped off the context to post some useless rhetoric.

But sure, I'M the reason the trust in the honesty of our country is so low.
Click to expand...

Here's the reason why: because if the constitution is a "living" document then we are subject to the whims of idiots who try to twist the words into whatever they want it to mean at the moment, until even more idiots say "the document isn't worth anything... let's just disregard it."

that's why. that's what this judge appears to be saying.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Why do you feel that way?
So instead of responding to what I actually said and the point I made with the supporting evidence, you simply chopped off the context to post some useless rhetoric.

But sure, I'M the reason the trust in the honesty of our country is so low.
Click to expand...

Man doesn't like the Constitution, he can go where they don't have one.
 
Hypothetical said:
Here's the reason why: because if the constitution is a "living" document then we are subject to the whims of idiots who try to twist the words into whatever they want it to mean at the moment, until even more idiots say "the document isn't worth anything... let's just disregard it."

that's why. that's what this judge appears to be saying.
Click to expand...
As opposed to saying the government can control what you say on Facebook because the Founders never intended the 1st Amendment to apply to the Internet? That makes more sense to you?

The Constitution is a framework. That's it. Its intent is to lay a foundation for government, not to determine which materials we use to build the house.
American said:
Man doesn't like the Constitution, he can go where they don't have one.
Click to expand...
He didn't say he didn't like the Constitution. As I've suggested to others in this thread, you should probably read the entirety of what Posner said, rather than the misleading selection presented by the article in the OP.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
How dare anyone say anything bad about our sacred "kawnstitution"!
Click to expand...

You can pretty much say whatever you like. Sometimes it's best to keep one's mouth shut, though. Intelligent people can discern when to speak, and when not to. When a judge can't figure out the difference, the judge shouldn't be on the bench. Now, if he happened to be a baker, no one would care one way or the other. Surely you could figure that much out for yourself.
 
Slyfox696 said:
EXACTLY! The Constitution as a "guiding" document. Not a strict and inflexible document from which our government can only operate as set forth in the late 1770s, but rather as a guiding document to protect the process contained within.

It is a framework, not a law.

Of course it can. That's the point. But how can you apply the 1st Amendment to the Founders intent of Facebook posts, if the Founders didn't know of the Internet?

Life is much different today. We have to be able to apply the 1st Amendment to Facebook. That's the entire point.

But the application simply cannot be, because society is constantly changing.

I don't think that's the case, I think people try to apply the Constitution to fit with their understanding of it.
I'll grant you this...If there was ever an example of people trying to bastardize the Constitution, it would be those who ignore the first part of the 2nd Amendment simply to focus on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I'm not making a gun argument, only posting one of the very few examples of where I see people intentionally trying to bastardize the Constitution.

Lazy? It's far more difficult to cut and paste each quote into one post than making double, triple posts, etc.

That's just one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
Why double and triple post when I can contain it all in one post? Especially when the overarching theme in all the posts are the same?

Look, just accept the fact that you were a sloppy reader and move on. It's okay, it happens. But it was still your fault, so don't blame me because you feel embarrassed you didn't bother to read what Posner actually said and instead fell for the misinformation.
It is far more disrespectful to make half the posts on a page from one poster because they were too lazy to combine them into one post.

It's not hard...you look for your name in the post and what is written in response to it. Most people have no trouble with it.
Click to expand...
Wow. Your train of logic is hard to follow. "Of COURSE it works to interpret free speech arguments but really...how can it POSSIBLY be expected to work to interpret free speech arguments?"

The principle and intent is as clear today as it was then. Protect free speech from tyrannical and oppressive governments. It doesnt matter if we are talking typeset, computerized printers, telephones, radios, or the internet. The guiding principle is the same. If clarification is needed, thats what the US Code is for. The US Code is still steered by the principles of the Constitution.
 
VanceMack said:
Indeed. And to prepare and train which would include not only arms but ammo. I'm just wondering if Deuce has the integrity to admit it.
Click to expand...

Another analogy -- Free speech covers the written word, but it's like saying it is okay for you to have a pen/pencil, but the government is outlawing ink and lead.
 
Slyfox696 said:
As opposed to saying the government can control what you say on Facebook because the Founders never intended the 1st Amendment to apply to the Internet? That makes more sense to you?

The Constitution is a framework. That's it. Its intent is to lay a foundation for government, not to determine which materials we use to build the house.
He didn't say he didn't like the Constitution. As I've suggested to others in this thread, you should probably read the entirety of what Posner said, rather than the misleading selection presented by the article in the OP.
Click to expand...

Actually it does, but not the way you framed the question. First, the Constitution does not deal with the government controlling what you say, but in protecting you from government action for what you say. It was designed to protect POLITICAL speech, which you should know as you've read the Federalist Papers.

And stop with the "you should probably read" bull****. We've read what he said and know the context.
 
VanceMack said:
Wow. Your train of logic is hard to follow. "Of COURSE it works to interpret free speech arguments but really...how can it POSSIBLY be expected to work to interpret free speech arguments?"
Click to expand...
It's about the application of the concept. That's the point. It's not hard to follow the logic at all, if you're willing to think about it.
clownboy said:
And stop with the "you should probably read" bull****. We've read what he said and know the context.
Click to expand...
Not if you think he said he wants to get rid of the Constitution or doesn't think it's applicable. If you think that, then you obviously didn't.
 
Slyfox696 said:
It's about the application of the concept. That's the point. It's not hard to follow the logic at all, if you're willing to think about it.
Not if you think he said he wants to get rid of the Constitution or doesn't think it's applicable. If you think that, then you obviously didn't.
Click to expand...
Application of the first amendment is relevant in all forms of speech cases...correct?
 
VanceMack said:
The principle and intent is as clear today as it was then. Protect free speech from tyrannical and oppressive governments. It doesnt matter if we are talking typeset, computerized printers, telephones, radios, or the internet. The guiding principle is the same. If clarification is needed, thats what the US Code is for. The US Code is still steered by the principles of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

That's what it is really about, the principles and morality of our founding documents. The "living and breathing" BS is a ridiculous term that the left made up in an effort to invalidate the Constitution. Very little of it is in need of interpretation.

It's not like it's from the cretaceous period. We know what the intentions were when it was written. To protect we the people from tyranny in the form of our government. To restrain the government to do the minimum that is necessary, and stay out of our lives.

Obviously, over time, the "progressives" have been able to whittle down our liberties and give more and more power to the government. It spits out thousands of regulations a year, with the power of law, that nobody ever gets a chance to vote on. I wonder how many lives have been wrecked by the EPA and the IRS together over the years. This certainly is not the government that was set up by the Constitution. But we have the left cheering every time the government stomps on our rights.
 
Anthony60 said:
That's what it is really about, the principles and morality of our founding documents. The "living and breathing" BS is a ridiculous term that the left made up in an effort to invalidate the Constitution. Very little of it is in need of interpretation.

It's not like it's from the cretaceous period. We know what the intentions were when it was written. To protect we the people from tyranny in the form of our government. To restrain the government to do the minimum that is necessary, and stay out of our lives.

Obviously, over time, the "progressives" have been able to whittle down our liberties and give more and more power to the government. It spits out thousands of regulations a year, with the power of law, that nobody ever gets a chance to vote on. I wonder how many lives have been wrecked by the EPA and the IRS together over the years. This certainly is not the government that was set up by the Constitution. But we have the left cheering every time the government stomps on our rights.
Click to expand...
The "living breathing" argument means they want to restrict freedoms and they are really upset at the obstacle the Constitution imposes.
 
VanceMack said:
Application of the first amendment is relevant in all forms of speech cases...correct?
Click to expand...
It's not whether or not it's applied, it's how it is applied. It's about the knowledge and societal values which are used to make the application. The idea Posner is putting forth is that we shouldn't use the knowledge and societal values of 18th century white men to make those applications today. That's what he is saying. He's not saying we should no longer have the Constitution.
 
Slyfox696 said:
It's not whether or not it's applied, it's how it is applied. It's about the knowledge and societal values which are used to make the application. The idea Posner is putting forth is that we shouldn't use the knowledge and societal values of 18th century white men to make those applications today. That's what he is saying. He's not saying we should no longer have the Constitution.
Click to expand...

And he is wrong. They ABSOLUTELY SHOULD study those 18th century principles and embrace them above all else.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
Federal Judge: U.S. Constitution Is Outdated, Judges Should Stop Studying It | Mediaite

Finally someone recognizing that than 17th century document made by a bunch of slave-owning creationists shouldn't be held up as sacred. Too bad he will now be tarred and feathered.
Click to expand...

That would be 18th century. The constitution is outdated for the left because it limits the power of government and the left wants all the powerful government it can get. For the right the constitution is positive because it limits the power of government. You may guess that I disagree with that judge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom