Is the US constitution carved in stone?

[TurtleDude]

It depends on the issue.

With gun rights, they tend to see the 2nd amendment through a keyhole and argue any pragmatic gun regs.

pragmatic would suggest laws that actually accomplish something legitimate. Care to try to come up with a gun law that the liberals want that meets that test?

 

[GPS_Flex]

We could add an Amendment that Women and Men are equal under the law as well as paywise.
We could at that Abortion is a constitutional right for adults.
We could abolish the right to bear arms except for soilders and policemen.
We could make Spanish the 2nd offcial language in the US.
We could make a Amendment saying that standing armies in foreign lands is illegal.
An amendment making college education free for all that have the appitude and study in a resonable time.

Yes, we could amend the Constitution to make all of the above the law of the land. That’s the beauty of the system our founding fathers gave us.

 

[GPS_Flex]

I would argue that every freedom has some political aspect to it. Absolute freedom has a name; Anarchy, complete lack of freedom has a name; Despotism...... in between do we choose tyranny in all of it's forms, or do we maximize freedom for the individual and allow for the lattitude that liberty provides?

Well said. This is what makes the Constitution such an awesome document. Through it, we gave up some of our rights and empowered the government, albeit with a short leash, so that we could better function as a complex society.

 

[GPS_Flex]

How YOU interpret the Constitution is not really relevant. How the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, is. If you buy one, and a lawsuit is brought against you for doing so, and if the Supreme Court indicates that, based on the 2nd Amendment, what you did was legal, you can keep it. If not, then you can't. This is how things have worked for 200+ years.

Well said. I think this is the crux of the “living document” debate.

With that said, I think the POTUS should refrain from nominating judges to the SCOTUS based upon political ideology and I think the Senate should refuse to confirm if he does. The amendment process is available for a reason and judges aren’t supposed to be politically motivated.

 

[GPS_Flex]

Again: The Constitution clearly states that I have a Right that shall not be infringed.

Congress doesn't have the power to vote that Right away, and neither does the SCOTUS.

Unfortunately the second amendment is a little vague and needs to be clarified (IMHO). I think we should amend the second amendment.

Also, the SCOTUS obviously does have that power. The Constitution didn’t give that power to them but that didn’t stop them from taking it.

 

[GPS_Flex]

So if 50% plus 1 of society thinks that I can't own a rifle then I can't. Is that your position?

If they directly or indirectly (appointment by politicians) elect people who interpret the second amendment that way, than yes.

This is a dangerous road you would have us travel down megaprogman. There is a reason the founding fathers tried to prevent the SCOTUS from becoming a political body. If it is another political arm of government, none of our rights are safe.

 

[GPS_Flex]

Take the case U.S. v Brown for instance, an attainder case in 1956, Yick Wo v Hopkins, 1886, the Slaughter-house cases, Aptheker v Secretary of state, quotations in the case of the Amistad, Calder v. Bull, 1798. Mculloch v. Maryland, 1819. This is just a small scattering, through two centuries of law.

The founders, as a group, did not win. The federalists prevailed over the antifederalists, who were against the constitution in entirety.
McCulloch versus Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819).

Can you explain what each of these cases were about, what the arguments were on both sides and what the outcome was please?

 

[GPS_Flex]

Do you have stats to back up the most scholars claim?

I don't think it takes a scholar to figure this one out.

 

[GPS_Flex]

The Liberals/Progressives will sing a different tune if/when the SCOTUS interprets the Constitution in such a way as to impose Christianity as the national religion. When being gay or having an abortion start landing them in prison, they will wish the SCOTUS wasn’t interpreting the constitution in such a political manner.

When they find out they don’t have the right to vote because they don’t own property or they aren’t really US citizens because of some technicality the current SCOTUS ruled on, they will long for the days when there were checks and balances.

I’m not advocating such things. I’m simply making the point that the power pendulum swings both ways and everyone’s freedoms are dependent upon the balance of power between our governmental institutions. If we allow one body of government to grab more power than it was granted via the constitution, we will lose our freedom and we will suffer at the hands of despots and tyrants.

This is why we must be vigilant in our lifetimes, making sure we keep government in check and reigning in any branch of government that tries to usurp power that wasn’t granted to it.

If the SCOTUS is political, it can be voted to the left or voted to the right or even worse, it could be used to take complete control of the US. Is that what anyone really wants? Isn’t it better to have a foundation of laws that protect the minority against the majority? Isn’t it better to limit the power we give to the government? Isn’t it better to be “we the people”?

 

[GPS_Flex]

Justice Stephen Breyer on 'FNS'

An excellent interview with SCOTUS Justice Stephen Breyer and Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. Justice Stephen Breyer has written a book and is promoting it on the news shows.

I think I'll buy his book. Personally, I think anyone who is interested in this topic should buy his book too. Great insight into the mind of a sitting Justice of the SCOTUS IMHO.

Here is a link to the interview video: LINK

 

[Jetboogieman]

Re: Justice Stephen Breyer on 'FNS'

I'm pretty sure it wasn't carved into stone.

It was written on paper with ink right?

 

[marduc]

Re: Justice Stephen Breyer on 'FNS'

I'm pretty sure it wasn't carved into stone.

It was written on paper with ink right?

hemp paper

correction (after a quick google) , It appears that it was just drafted on hemp paper, and was written on animal parchment

 

[Hatuey]

It didn't take decades, the issues became current and the motion to amend the constitution happened. I'm sure if there wast vast support for an amendment that we could vote on it in 2012. The Constitution is chiseled stone that gives us the parameters to add more too it.

You have obviously never taken an art class.

 

[MsTatianna2U]

Under Article 3 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court powers are NOT to “Interpret” the Constitution, but to ENFORCE the Constitution.

 

[MsTatianna2U]

The Constitution is the restraint that domesticated the federal government. Without that restraint, our federal government has reverted to a barbaric, natural state.

 

[Arch Enemy]

The Constitution is the restraint that domesticated the federal government. Without that restraint, our federal government has reverted to a barbaric, natural state.

Or a strong, modern administrative state that is limitless in its ability to effectively regulate our country...

 

[VF500]

Most Reps and conservatives in general beleive that the constituion is carved in stone and cant be changed/ interperated.

I beleive that the constitution is a living constitution as can be reinterpreted by every generation. Otherwise issues like slavery and the emanipation of women would have to reflect the status of 1789.

The constitution can be seen as a road map, and when questions arise ie social security and HC that were unknown to the founding fathers , then we cant look for answers in such an old piece of paper.

I guess they didn't teach you about constitutional amendments before you dropped out of school. That's the way the constitution is supposed to be changed, not by activist judges or a communistic president. Of course the tricky thing about amending the constitution is that you have to get two thirds of congress to agree that it needs amending, not just one goof.

 

[VF500]

It took 89 years to force an admendment through Congress to free the slaves and another 55 years to give women the right to vote.

The system is so against change that it takes decades and decades to make resonable reforms.

And with good reason.