• 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!

Is the US Constitution Open to Interpretation? (1 Viewer)

Rich2018 said:
Perhaps so, but nothing to be proud of.
Click to expand...
I am merely trying to enumerate the presumed values of northeast 18th Century America. The Preamble should be given more weight in Constitutional law decisions.
 
Barque of Dante said:
Simple question: Is the US Constitution Open to Interpretation?
Click to expand...
Yes. Thats why we have judges. I mean you couldnt have original intent without interpretation despite what originalists might have us believe.
 
Spock said:
Was restraint of government considered valuable?
Was liberty for the governed considered valuable?
Was security and transition of power considered valuable?
Value is expressed or implied throughout the Constitution.
Start with the Preamble if you have doubts about values.
Click to expand...
Yes restraint, for both state and federal.
Stilted language.
Transition of power? The power of any office or branch of government is not transferable. It exists regardless of who occupies a seat in government. Again, Your language is stilted. Are you using a bot?
Huh?
Not sure what you mean about value and doubts.
 
bomberfox said:
Yes. Thats why we have judges. I mean you couldnt have original intent without interpretation despite what originalists might have us believe.
Click to expand...
"Yes." - okay

Originalists argue guidelines and dogma arund interpretation.
 
Rich2018 said:
I don't see why
The preamble is just a means of introduction.
Click to expand...
Comment above is a reply to: "I am merely trying to enumerate the presumed values of northeast 18th Century America. The Preamble should be given more weight in Constitutional law decisions." - which is totally nonsensical. 'enumerate, presumed values, northeast 18th century America' -- huh?


Your reply: "B-I-N-G-O!

It is not about any Northeast. And 'constitutional law decisions?' wtf does that even mean?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
--Preamble to the United States Constitution
Click to expand...
 
Barque of Dante said:
Yes restraint, for both state and federal.
Stilted language.
Transition of power? The power of any office or branch of government is not transferable. It exists regardless of who occupies a seat in government. Again, Your language is stilted. Are you using a bot?
Huh?
Not sure what you mean about value and doubts.
Click to expand...
You do not understand the word "values"?
Try this:
ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu

Values - Ethics Unwrapped

Values are society’s shared beliefs about what is good or bad and how people should act.
ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu
 
Barque of Dante said:
Comment above is a reply to: "I am merely trying to enumerate the presumed values of northeast 18th Century America. The Preamble should be given more weight in Constitutional law decisions." - which is totally nonsensical. 'enumerate, presumed values, northeast 18th century America' -- huh?


Your reply: "B-I-N-G-O!

It is not about any Northeast. And 'constitutional law decisions?' wtf does that even mean?
Click to expand...

No idea about what you're trying to say here.
 
Rich2018 said:
No idea about what you're trying to say here.
Click to expand...
I suspect @Barque of Dante is communicating he agrees with your statement

"I don't see why
The preamble is just a means of introduction."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I find that agreements between people (as in marriage) or mission statements by corporations or institutions typically attempt to express or highlight certain values.
Yet, few people attempt to extract from the Constitution even a HINT of what values were important at the Constitutional Convention.
The Preamble does that and should be considered by those tasked with interpreting the Constitution (SCOTUS, primarily). This approach is a more nuanced and wholistic view of the Constitution than than trying to divine the everyday common behaviors and attitudes of 18th American colonialists as a standard for jurisprudence that is labelled "originalism".
 
Barque of Dante said:
Simple question: Is the US Constitution Open to Interpretation?
Click to expand...

No. It doesn't require interpretation and if clarification is needed you need only look at the Styles Committee, or Morris' Committee or any of the other committees or their personal journals/diaries or the letters they wrote to each other and to members of the State legislatures and to private parties.

There's a reason why Free Speech is not expressly defined as oral speech and why Press isn't limited exclusively to periodicals, newspapers and/or books and that is those men had witnessed technological innovations in their life-time, mostly the result of the 1st Industrial Revolution (the 2nd Industrial Revolution would come later).

The people who have the most difficult time are the non-legal types who don't understand unstated presumptions at Common Law.
 
Spock said:
I suspect @Barque of Dante is communicating he agrees with your statement

"I don't see why
The preamble is just a means of introduction."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I find that agreements between people (as in marriage) or mission statements by corporations or institutions typically attempt to express or highlight certain values.
Yet, few people attempt to extract from the Constitution even a HINT of what values were important at the Constitutional Convention.
The Preamble does that and should be considered by those tasked with interpreting the Constitution (SCOTUS, primarily). This approach is a more nuanced and wholistic view of the Constitution than than trying to divine the everyday common behaviors and attitudes of 18th American colonialists as a standard for jurisprudence that is labelled "originalism".
Click to expand...

If so, then I agree with him

The preamble is nothing but an introduction.
 
Rich2018 said:
If so, then I agree with him

The preamble is nothing but an introduction
Click to expand...
Are there other parts of the Constitution that are "nothing"? It is a logical and succinct document.
Surely there must be some reason for the Preamble, if for no other reason to emphasize the goals and values.
 
Spock said:
I find it strange that you are apparently unable to identify ANY values expressed, or implied, in the Constitution.
Click to expand...
You may be confusing constitutions with holy books. 😂

John Adams especially, and others of that era spoke frequently about 'virtue.' More so than anything I can find.

Try looking up how the founding generation used the term, and in what context(s) the founding generation used the term. You don't appear to know much about what you speak volumes on.
 
Spock said:
Are there other parts of the Constitution that are "nothing"? It is a logical and succinct document.
Surely there must be some reason for the Preamble, if for no other reason to emphasize the goals and values.
Click to expand...

It's a vague and ambiguois document that's poor written and was, in its original form, the world's only ever pro-slavery national constitution.
 
Barque of Dante said:
You may be confusing constitutions with holy books. 😂

John Adams especially, and others of that era spoke frequently about 'virtue.' More so than anything I can find.

Try looking up how the founding generation used the term, and in what context(s) the founding generation used the term. You don't appear to know much about what you speak volumes on.
Click to expand...
Maybe they are directly expressed in the Preamble and you just refuse to recognize them.
 
Rich2018 said:
No idea about what you're trying to say here.
Click to expand...
If you follow links back, you will find it is an agreement to you replying to some nonsense posted by the Spock poster.

Spock: I am merely trying to enumerate the presumed values of northeast 18th Century America. The Preamble should be given more weight in Constitutional law decisions.

You: I don't see why. The preamble is just a means of introduction.

moi: "B-I-N-G-O! It is not about any Northeast. And 'constitutional law decisions?' wtf does that even mean?
 
Barque of Dante said:
If you follow links back, you will find it is an agreement to you replying to some nonsense posted by the Spock poster.

Spock: I am merely trying to enumerate the presumed values of northeast 18th Century America. The Preamble should be given more weight in Constitutional law decisions.

You: I don't see why. The preamble is just a means of introduction.

moi: "B-I-N-G-O! It is not about any Northeast. And 'constitutional law decisions?' wtf does that even mean?
Click to expand...


I wasn't sure what you were saying, Spock helped me out :)
 
Mircea said:
No. It doesn't require interpretation and if clarification is needed you need only look at the Styles Committee, or Morris' Committee or any of the other committees or their personal journals/diaries or the letters they wrote to each other and to members of the State legislatures and to private parties.

There's a reason why Free Speech is not expressly defined as oral speech and why Press isn't limited exclusively to periodicals, newspapers and/or books and that is those men had witnessed technological innovations in their life-time, mostly the result of the 1st Industrial Revolution (the 2nd Industrial Revolution would come later).

The people who have the most difficult time are the non-legal types who don't understand unstated presumptions at Common Law.
Click to expand...

Very interesting take. That is your 'no.' The rest? You seem to be speaking to the Bill of Rights. Specifically the first amendment.

"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution." --
Preamble to the Bill of Rights

Note: The amendment was ratified December 15, 1791. The constitution itself was written in 1787, ratified in 1788.

Amendment I: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I'm quote sure you do not know what you're speaking about here. It's as if an AI bot was used to post a salad of words. Prove me wrong.

"Unstated presumptions at Common Law" --'at,' common law? What exactly is that supposed to mean in the context 'at'?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom