Is the US constitution carved in stone?

[justabubba]

Because if you are going to interpret, intent matters, and the federalist papers show the intent of two of the most influential people in writing the Constitution.

i see this perspective quite a bit, as the federalist papers are often cited to present the words of the Constitution to allow for a particular slant. but the document was written collectively, such that it could achieve consensus
when i negotiate labor contract language with my peers, i often have an emphasis, softer or stronger, than what emerges in the adopted language
my emphasis (or de-emphasis) is not binding once the alternative language is adopted
given the significance of the document these founders were writing, it is not unexpected that they would want to "defend" themselves and offer their take on what was framed, in comparison to the language they had proposed, but which language had not found its way into the final document
but as with my circumstance in labor agreements, that i would have crafted the language differently is not binding in any way on the manner in which the adopted words are interpreted, and neither are the accounts of the writers of the federalist papers

 

[Goobieman]

Why do liberals hate the Constitution? They want to do an end-run around it by ignoring it, and using a 50% plus one Congressional majority to usurp it.

Simple:
They only way they can do what they want to do is to have the Constitution mean something it doesn't mean.

 

[Goobieman]

but as with my circumstance in labor agreements, that i would have crafted the language differently is not binding in any way on the manner in which the adopted words are interpreted, and neither are the accounts of the writers of the federalist papers

Would you then argue that any interpretation based on the 'intent' of the founders, expressed in a federalist paper of otherwise, is unsound?

 

[justabubba]

Why do liberals hate the Constitution? They want to do an end-run around it by ignoring it, and using a 50% plus one Congressional majority to usurp it.

one would think from that post that you believe a simple majority is all that is required to effect change to the Constitution
please confirm that is a wrong assumption

 

[Southern Man]

one would think from that post that you believe a simple majority is all that is required to effect change to the Constitution
please confirm that is a wrong assumption

I'm not sure how how came to that misunderstanding.

Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have the Power To:" and, by my count, 18 clauses follow defining that Power. These enumerated Powers are all that Congress is authorized to do. So if Congress assumes some other power, then they have usurped the Constitution.

To legally obtain more Power Congress must go through the Amendment process, requiring a super-majority of the States to approve it.

 

[Dav]

If they didn't want it to be interpreted in any other manner than theirs, they would have written so within the constitution and not in opinion pieces. It's not like preambles weren't around then.

None of this really changes the fact that intent is extremely important in interpreting a document :shrug:
It would be the same no matter how much detail the actual document went into. And since the Constitution was made to be general so it could apply itself to unforseen issues, that makes it all the more important.

The Preamble states the intent of writing the Constitution in the first place. Not the intent of specific passages.

Good. Their preamble states that the Constitution is to be guiding document of the nation. You see anything about intent there?

So you are saying that intent has no bearing on how a document should be interpreted? Good luck finding any legal experts who agree with you.

 

[Dav]

i see this perspective quite a bit, as the federalist papers are often cited to present the words of the Constitution to allow for a particular slant. but the document was written collectively, such that it could achieve consensus
when i negotiate labor contract language with my peers, i often have an emphasis, softer or stronger, than what emerges in the adopted language
my emphasis (or de-emphasis) is not binding once the alternative language is adopted
given the significance of the document these founders were writing, it is not unexpected that they would want to "defend" themselves and offer their take on what was framed, in comparison to the language they had proposed, but which language had not found its way into the final document
but as with my circumstance in labor agreements, that i would have crafted the language differently is not binding in any way on the manner in which the adopted words are interpreted, and neither are the accounts of the writers of the federalist papers

If you don't really think that intent matters, then you don't really know much about our legal system.

It does matter. If you're changing a phrase into something it wasn't supposed to mean via "re-interpretation", it's not the same phase. There's a very specific method to altering the Constitution, and it doesn't involve judges deciding that they don't want what its authors wanted. And Madison and Hamilton are two of the most important men in writing the Constitution. Yes, other people were there too. But that doesn't change the fact that the Federalist Papers should be given a high level of importance.

 

[justabubba]

I'm not sure how how came to that misunderstanding.

Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have the Power To:" and, by my count, 18 clauses follow defining that Power. These enumerated Powers are all that Congress is authorized to do. So if Congress assumes some other power, then they have usurped the Constitution.

To legally obtain more Power Congress must go through the Amendment process, requiring a super-majority of the States to approve it.

so then, you just failed to appreciate the significance of that supermajority when writing the following indicating a simple majority was required:

Originally Posted by Southern Man
Why do liberals hate the Constitution? They want to do an end-run around it by ignoring it, and using a 50% plus one Congressional majority to usurp it.

i can live with that, now that you have clarified that more than a simple majority is required, just as we are now also clear that Constitutional changes are not something undertaken 'willy-nilly'

 

[Southern Man]

so then, you just failed to appreciate the significance of that supermajority when writing the following indicating a simple majority was required:

i can live with that, now that you have clarified that more than a simple majority is required, just as we are now also clear that Constitutional changes are not something undertaken 'willy-nilly'

I don't understand your point at your obvious attempts to misunderstand what I have posted.

 

[Objective Voice]

If the constituion is carved in stone, than when do you rednecks get your slaves back? Dont they owe you 40 hector and a mule, plus compounded interest?

You lost all credibility right here with this comment. I'm black and didn't see the need for it even up until this point.

Look, I think I understand what you're getting at to a degree; the U.S. Constitution is a "living" document in that it's constantly being reviewed, challenged, interpreted depending on national events, and changed (amended) at least 25 times. So, yes, it can be changed again...and again...and again as changes in society dictate. You (Congress) just has to go through the process. It's slow because sometimes society (the nation) isn't ready for certain changes. Or sometimes Congress thinks they have it right, but get it all wrong. (See 18th and 21st Amendments, respectfully). Still, it's a process. Nonetheless, I'd like to know exactly what your intent was when starting this thread? Just what were you getting at? What issue in today's society as it relates to the Constitution would you like to see changed?

 

[justabubba]

I don't understand your point at your obvious attempts to misunderstand what I have posted.

got it
you use a term that means simple majority when you later acknowledge that a super majority is required to effect a Constitutional change
you indicate that 'will-nilly' was stated in the post i responded to, but when given the opportunity to identify suich language within the post to which i responded, it wasn't there
you are unable to articulate what you mean to say, but it is the reader seeking clarification who, you insist, intends to misunderstand
i recognize you are near pilot mountain and mount airy, but please quit acting like goober from the andy griffith show

 

[Objective Voice]

No. Parts of it were purposefully written to be ambiguous so that future generations could interpret them as they wished.

Not according to the Founders. Have you ever read any of the Federalist papers? I suggest you read #41 by Madison, who is known as "the father of the Constitution". His opinion should matter to you more than say, Nancy Pelosi.

I think there's truth to both how the Constitution was written (somewhat vaguely) and how certain members of our nation's Founding Fathers wanted this new Republic to be. Like today, some were rigid, others were flexible, but both sides new the importance of starting the birth of a new nation. Nonetheless, I'd have to say Southern Man is correct; some things were left vague on purpose for the next generation of governing bodies to deal with. I'd like to think they hoped things would get better as they invisioned "a more perfect union" in their mind's eye to be.

 

[Objective Voice]

Why do liberals hate the Constitution? They want to do an end-run around it by ignoring it, and using a 50% plus one Congressional majority to usurp it.

I hate it when people make such broad, unfounded comments like that. Just because an individual who may or may not be of the same opinion as another doesn't automatically make them a liberal. It just means you disagree on certain points. After all, this IS a political forum for debates...where differing opinions can be shared and addressed, correct?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

If the constituion is carved in stone, than when do you rednecks get your slaves back? Dont they owe you 40 hector and a mule, plus compounded interest?

Moderator's Warning:

Watch the personal attacks.

 

[Slartibartfast]

As with any contract, as time goes on it matters not if the original writers are in office, or even alive.

Its a set of laws, not a contract.

 

[Southern Man]

Its a set of laws, not a contract.

Which makes it different in this context how?

 

[Southern Man]

I think there's truth to both how the Constitution was written (somewhat vaguely) and how certain members of our nation's Founding Fathers wanted this new Republic to be. Like today, some were rigid, others were flexible, but both sides new the importance of starting the birth of a new nation. Nonetheless, I'd have to say Southern Man is correct; some things were left vague on purpose for the next generation of governing bodies to deal with. I'd like to think they hoped things would get better as they invisioned "a more perfect union" in their mind's eye to be.

I never said the Constitution was vague; in fact the opposite is true. The Founders know how to write succinctly, and did so.

Again, read the Federalist Papers. Here's an example (#41) of how Madison uses the colonial equivalent of "retarded" to describe someone who would interpret incorrectly:

The terms of article eighth are still more identical: ``All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,'' etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

 

[American]

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.

The Constitution has been amended to account for slavery and all that other jiberish you like to claim gives you the right to interpret it any way you damn will please. So yes, until it is amended it is carved in stone, which means you are stuck with the interpretation of those who ratified its original body and amendments that are currently in effect.

 

[Southern Man]

I hate it when people make such broad, unfounded comments like that. Just because an individual who may or may not be of the same opinion as another doesn't automatically make them a liberal. It just means you disagree on certain points. After all, this IS a political forum for debates...where differing opinions can be shared and addressed, correct?

When assessing the beliefs of your enemies it is unwise to take them at their word, for they seek to hide their true and unpopular motives. Instead one must hypothesize then constantly test the theory for its validity. In this case my theory follows the predicted results exactly.

As an example, "universal health care". It is clearly a usurpation of the Constitution so Liberals, as predicted, support it.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Which makes it different in this context how?

Laws tend to be subject to interpretation as the need arises.

 

[Southern Man]

Laws tend to be subject to interpretation as the need arises.

No different than contracts, and again, to ignore the original intent of either is a usurpation.

 

[Slartibartfast]

No different than contracts, and again, to ignore the original intent of either is a usurpation.

I don't care. Those guys are dead.

 

[Southern Man]

I don't care. Those guys are dead.

And here we go full circle:

As with any contract, as time goes on it matters not if the original writers are in office, or even alive.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Its a set of laws, not a contract.

False. The two are not mutually exclusive, all members of society fall under the social contract of that society, even when not explicitly signed we agree to abide up to a certain point by the rules set. We only negate that contract when the rules are no longer legitimate, which is why the United States of America wrote a strong contract with the constitution, the only problem is lawyers and politicians are ****ing it up.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I don't care. Those guys are dead.

I do care, their way of doing things was revolutionary and allowed for people to rule without becoming tyrannical. Those who would find fault with their concepts of checked and balanced power fall into two camps; 1) The truly tyrannical and 2) People who bought their arguments for some reason or other.