This book could change the way conservatives read the Constitution

[Rich2018]

I have provided you with numerous citations with reams of historical background to educate you

OK let's take one:

"A living Constitution is one that evolves, changes over time, and adapts to new circumstances, without being formally amended...."

The Living Constitution | University of Chicago Law School

Do we have a living Constitution? Do we want to have a living Constitution? A living Constitution is one that evolves, changes over time, and adapts to new circumstances, without being formally amended. On the one hand, the answer has to be yes: there's no realistic alternative to a living...

www.law.uchicago.edu

So this one is BS. Surely a constitution that ***IS*** formally amended and doesn't rely on judges changing their minds over time, is more akin to a "living" constitution.
ie: one that actually changes, in response to the real world.

If the US Constitution is a "living" constitution, that what form of constitution is one that does actually change in response the changes in the real world ?

There is no way on earth that you, or anyone, could claim that the US Constitution is a "living" thing, while the UK constitution is not
Moreover even if you did say that the UK constitution was a "living" constitution, it is not even in the same "ball park" as the relatively static US Constitution, in terms of adaptability and propensity to change in response to the real world.
The UK Constitution is dynamic by comparison, and actually changes to meet the changing requirements of the real word - THIS is a "living" constitution.

Unlike you, I not only learned this stuff - it's a fundamental part of constitutional law, my profession - I taught it (albeit briefly and informally). I didn't just pull it out of my ass, like some tend to. Again, your assertions are nonsense. All of the common law jurisdictions that follow the British tradition have "living" Constitutions, in the sense that the courts apply the laws and constitutional principles to new and developing circumstances without the need for legislation or Amendments. That's a different subject entirely. What you are discussing is actually the Civil Law system, such as in France, where courts are very circumscribed.

If it is, then it is fundamentally wrong

This idea that the USA has a "living" constitution, is just some parochial BS to try and persuade the gullible that the US Constitution is somehow "special" - when it absolutely is not.

Let me repeat my question above:
If you think changing judicial opinion, qualifies the US Constitution as "living", please can you explain which democracies do NOT have a "living constitution".
Does the UK have a 'living constitution" in your mind ?
Does Canada, Australia or New Zealand...or so you think the USA is somehow special in this regard ?

 

[NWRatCon]

OK let's take one:

"A living Constitution is one that evolves, changes over time, and adapts to new circumstances, without being formally amended...."

The Living Constitution | University of Chicago Law School

Do we have a living Constitution? Do we want to have a living Constitution? A living Constitution is one that evolves, changes over time, and adapts to new circumstances, without being formally amended. On the one hand, the answer has to be yes: there's no realistic alternative to a living...

www.law.uchicago.edu

So this one is BS. Surely a constitution that ***IS*** formally amended and doesn't rely on judges changing their minds over time, is more akin to a "living" constitution.
ie: one that actually changes, in response to the real world.

If the US Constitution is a "living" constitution, that what form of constitution is one that does actually change in response the changes in the real world ?

There is no way on earth that you, or anyone, could claim that the US Constitution is a "living" thing, while the UK constitution is not
Moreover even if you did say that the UK constitution was a "living" constitution, it is not even in the same "ball park" as the relatively static US Constitution, in terms of adaptability and propensity to change in response to the real world.
The UK Constitution is dynamic by comparison, and actually changes to meet the changing requirements of the real word - THIS is a "living" constitution.



If it is, then it is fundamentally wrong

This idea that the USA has a "living" constitution, is just some parochial BS to try and persuade the gullible that the US Constitution is somehow "special" - when it absolutely is not.

Let me repeat my question above:
If you think changing judicial opinion, qualifies the US Constitution as "living", please can you explain which democracies do NOT have a "living constitution".
Does the UK have a 'living constitution" in your mind ?
Does Canada, Australia or New Zealand...or so you think the USA is somehow special in this regard ?

Since you are incapable of acknowledging your error, and insist on not bothering to read, much less attempting to understand, I'm done. Be well.

 

[rjay]

A while back there was an effort to push the idea of "The Constitution is a Living Document".
There were public service ads that popped up on network television pushing that notion.
Wasn't long before people realized it was a load of left wing garbage intended to make them accept what they knew in their hearts and minds was not what the Country is.
Here we are again.
Words don't mean what they say.
Oh well, Jonathan Gienapp's got the same tale to try to sell.

Yeah, back then the Supreme Court had a habit of protecting individuals rights, and expanding them when feasible. Now the Supreme Court is in the business of reducing individal's rights and expanding the rights and protections of corporations. That is the one main reason the United States of America now ranks among the countries whose citizens enjoy the least amount of freedom in the western world

 

[bubbabgone]

Yeah, back then the Supreme Court had a habit of protecting individuals rights, and expanding them when feasible. Now the Supreme Court is in the business of reducing individal's rights and expanding the rights and protections of corporations. That is the one main reason the United States of America now ranks among the countries whose citizens enjoy the least amount of freedom in the western world

That doesn't follow.
Approaching the Constitution as a "living document" is intended to make it say something it doesn't say.
Eventually you get a Justice who can't define "woman" and end up with men playing against women in amateur and professional sports as a Constitutional Right.

 

[bubbabgone]

But the supreme court made it black and white. Thats what absolute immunity means. Except in cases of impeachment.

That's not what the SC did.

Harris/Biden subvert the 1st Amendment ?
Really, how and when ?

Just out of interest, do you also think Donald Trump also subverts the 1st Amendment ?

Well, for one, by having Government entities like the FBI contact social media to, um, encourage, demoting or banning opinions they decided are mis/dis/information.
Still do it, btw.

 

[Rich2018]

Since you are incapable of acknowledging your error, and insist on not bothering to read, much less attempting to understand, I'm done. Be well.

Yet another Ad-Hom attack, a clear sign you have no argument
And it's more like you are incapable of critical thinking

The author of that piece you reference is expressing an opinion - not stating a fact
And I've explained how that opinion is wrong. And if you share it, then you are equally wrong

The USA does not have a "living constitution" - quite the reverse
A "living constitution", would be one like that enjoyed by the people of the UK, for reasons explained

You should reflect that you're unable what I asked you as indicative of the flaws in the article

So here it is again:
If you think changing judicial opinion, qualifies the US Constitution as "living", please can you explain which democracies do NOT have a "living constitution".
Does the UK have a 'living constitution" in your mind ?
Does Canada, Australia or New Zealand...or so you think the USA is somehow special in this regard.

 

[rjay]

That doesn't follow.
Approaching the Constitution as a "living document" is intended to make it say something it doesn't say.
Eventually you get a Justice who can't define "woman" and end up with men playing against women in amateur and professional sports as a Constitutional Right.

Instead of money = free speech.?

You worry about something that may never happen, that effects .05% of the population.

Why not worry about what is happening and has been happening for the past 40 years. Supreme Court picks that have nothing to do with proven records of being incredible jurists. Who are instead picked based on their adherence to the Bible. There was a time when the Supreme Court had great legal minds serving. Making decisions that helped ensure the country kept the citizens rights at the forefront. One day the Sipreme Court started to protected black people who wanted to attend schools and universities and join country clubs. Then it protected women who wanted to be able to have an abortion and Unions who wanted to strike.

This was going too far for some. *We need to put a stop to this. Let's get judges on the Court who will stop entrenching people'rights

And now we are seeing the fruits of all that effort. First they had to convince a bunch of people that they did not want an "activist court" Then they set it up so only judges who think a certain way will be considered for Supreme Court nomination.

The bext step, make up a rule so the senate can refuse to consider a Presidents Supreme Court nomonee. Next, ignore that new rule if the President belongs to the same Party as the Seanate majority.
And now we see the results of all that effort. We have an "activist court" taking away hard won rights" , doing away with this notion of no one being above the law.

Turning a once great nation into an international embarrassment.

 

[Rich2018]

Instead of money = free speech.?

You worry about something that may never happen, that effects .05% of the population.

Why not worry about what is happening and has been happening for the past 40 years. Supreme Court picks that have nothing to do with proven records of being incredible jurists. Who are instead picked based on their adherence to the Bible. There was a time when the Supreme Court had great legal minds serving. Making decisions that helped ensure the country kept the citizens rights at the forefront. One day the Sipreme Court started to protected black people who wanted to attend schools and universities and join country clubs. Then it protected women who wanted to be able to have an abortion and Unions who wanted to strike.

This was going too far for some. *We need to put a stop to this. Let's get judges on the Court who will stop entrenching people'rights

And now we are seeing the fruits of all that effort. First they had to convince a bunch of people that they did not want an "activist court" Then they set it up so only judges who think a certain way will be considered for Supreme Court nomination.

The bext step, make up a rule so the senate can refuse to consider a Presidents Supreme Court nomonee. Next, ignore that new rule if the President belongs to the same Party as the Seanate majority.
And now we see the results of all that effort. We have an "activist court" taking away hard won rights" , doing away with this notion of no one being above the law.

Turning a once great nation into an international embarrassment.

Justices are so much more politicized in the USA, than the UK

When I lived in the UK, I can't remember a single debate over the selection of a new judge, even a Supreme Court judge.

 

[uptower]

No seriously, read?

 

[Rich2018]

No seriously, read?

Read what ?

 

[bubbabgone]

Instead of money = free speech.?

you worry about something that may never happen, that effects .05% of the population.

Why not worry about what is happening and has been happening for the past 40 years. Supreme Court picks that have nothing to do with proven records of being incredible jurists. Who are instead picked based on their adherence to the Bible. There was a time when the Supreme Court had great legal minds serving. Making decisions that helped ensure the country kept the citizens rights at the forefront. One day the Sipreme Court started to protected black people who wanted to attend schools and universities and join country clubs. Then it protected women who wanted to be able to have an abortion and Unions who wanted to strike.

This was going too far for some. *We need to put a stop to this. Let's get judges on the Court who will stop entrenching people'rights

And now we are seeing the fruits of all that effort. First they had to convince a bunch of people that they did not want an "activist court" Then they set it up so only judges who think a certain way will be considered for Supreme Court nomination.

The bext step, make up a rule so the senate can refuse to consider a Presidents Supreme Court nomonee. Next, ignore that new rule if the President belongs to the same Party as the Seanate majority.
And now we see the results of all that effort. We have an "activist court" taking away hard won rights" , doing away with this notion of no one being above the law.

Turning a once great nation into an international embarrassment.

Women are more than .05% of the population.


Whose rights have been taken away?

 

[Rich2018]

Women are more than .05% of the population.


Whose rights have been taken away?

If the USA had a truly living constitution, like that of the UK, then this whole Supreme Court justices would not be an issue.

 

[rjay]

Women are more than .05% of the population.


Whose rights have been taken away?

Yes women represent more than .05% of the population, you are correct. So perhaps I was not referring to women. Perhaps I was addressing the part where you said: "...end up with men playing against women in amateur and professional sports as a Constitutional Right"

Whose rights have been taken away?
Maybe you didn't hear about the Supreme Court strinking down Roe vs Wade eliminating rights that had been in place for 53 years

Perhaps you were away when In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), when the Court struck down the Voting Rights Act's Section 4—which had established a formula for identifying jurisdictions that were required to obtain preclearance—declaring it to be unjustified in light of changed historical circumstances. Soon after that decision we found that historical circumstances had not changed all that much when several states, formerly subject to the preclearance requirement implemented voting restrictions that had been (or would have been) blocked by the federal government, and in subsequent years scores of similar voter-suppression measures were introduced in other states. Following the federal elections of 2020, which gave Democrats control of the presidency and both houses of Congress, several Republican-controlled states adopted additional voting restrictions that would make voting even more difficult for racial minorities and other Democratic-leaning constituencies.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a controversial decision that reversed century-old campaign finance restrictions and enabled corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited funds on elections. While wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups have long had an outsized influence in elections, that sway has dramatically expanded since the Citizens United decision, with negative repercussions for American democracy and the fight against political corruption. This ruling helped to ensure that all citizens influence over what the politicians vote, for is greatly reduced or non-existant.

There are many more examples of rulings, in the last forty years that have resulted in less rights and freedoms for the American people. It is your country, not mine. I hate to see people have their rights diminshed, I know in some of the examples, it may not affect you personally, but if you were to look at some of the rulings that have taken place, I am sure you would find that you too, are not as free as you once were.

 

[bubbabgone]

Yes women represent more than .05% of the population, you are correct. So perhaps I was not referring to women. Perhaps I was addressing the part where you said: "...end up with men playing against women in amateur and professional sports as a Constitutional Right"

Whose rights have been taken away?
Maybe you didn't hear about the Supreme Court strinking down Roe vs Wade eliminating rights that had been in place for 53 years

Perhaps you were away when In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), when the Court struck down the Voting Rights Act's Section 4—which had established a formula for identifying jurisdictions that were required to obtain preclearance—declaring it to be unjustified in light of changed historical circumstances. Soon after that decision we found that historical circumstances had not changed all that much when several states, formerly subject to the preclearance requirement implemented voting restrictions that had been (or would have been) blocked by the federal government, and in subsequent years scores of similar voter-suppression measures were introduced in other states. Following the federal elections of 2020, which gave Democrats control of the presidency and both houses of Congress, several Republican-controlled states adopted additional voting restrictions that would make voting even more difficult for racial minorities and other Democratic-leaning constituencies.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a controversial decision that reversed century-old campaign finance restrictions and enabled corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited funds on elections. While wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups have long had an outsized influence in elections, that sway has dramatically expanded since the Citizens United decision, with negative repercussions for American democracy and the fight against political corruption. This ruling helped to ensure that all citizens influence over what the politicians vote, for is greatly reduced or non-existant.

There are many more examples of rulings, in the last forty years that have resulted in less rights and freedoms for the American people. It is your country, not mine. I hate to see people have their rights diminshed, I know in some of the examples, it may not affect you personally, but if you were to look at some of the rulings that have taken place, I am sure you would find that you too, are not as free as you once were.

You should have been.
You think women are not affected by men playing against them in sports?
But it is curious that you think it's just the men who are affected.

Dobbs didn't ban abortion.

You should be happy that ,la has a massive war chest of contributions from donors ... although it doesn't seem to be having the affect you're warning against.

Not being your Country and all, maybe your news source is your problem. They're bad enough here.

 

[bubbabgone]

If the USA had a truly living constitution, like that of the UK, then this whole Supreme Court justices would not be an issue.

It's not supposed to be a Living Constitution.
A Living Constitution is nothing more than whatever you want it to be, wherever you are, and whoever decides what it is for you.

 

[Rich2018]

It's not supposed to be a Living Constitution.

No it's not, and what's more it isn't.

A Living Constitution is nothing more than whatever you want it to be, wherever you are, and whoever decides what it is for you.

A "living constitution", if it means anything, means it is constantly changing in responses to changing requirements and circumstances of the day
An example of this would be the UK constitution.

 

[RF667799]

No it's not, and what's more it isn't.



A "living constitution", if it means anything, means it is constantly changing in responses to changing requirements and circumstances of the day
An example of this would be the UK constitution.

So if changing requirements and circumstances of the day involved well administered concentration camps populated on the basis of ethnicity....

 

[bubbabgone]

No it's not, and what's more it isn't.



A "living constitution", if it means anything, means it is constantly changing in responses to changing requirements and circumstances of the day
An example of this would be the UK constitution.

Good. then we agree. It's not and shouldn't be.

 

[Rich2018]

Good. then we agree. It's not and shouldn't be.

It's not, but it should be
A rigid constitution helps no-one. It acts more like a pair of handcuffs on the nation that anything else. The constitution, like any law, is a document of its time. When times change, the law has to change with it
And so it is with the Constitution too.

 

[bubbabgone]

It's not, but it should be
A rigid constitution helps no-one. It acts more like a pair of handcuffs on the nation that anything else. The constitution, like any law, is a document of its time. When times change, the law has to change with it
And so it is with the Constitution too.

Okay.
What Constitutional provision do you think is
too “old fashioned “ and not worthy of survival in today’s society?

 

[Rich2018]

Okay.
What Constitutional provision do you think is
too “old fashioned “ and not worthy of survival in today’s society?

There are lots of things I would like to amend in the Constitution

For example
I'd like the repeal the first Amendment and replace it with one that allows free speech, but not if it can be considered "hate speech"
I'd like the scrap the Electoral College with the result of the presidential election being decided purely by the popular vote
I'd like to repeal the 2nd Amendment with one that gives Congress the authority to ban all firearms (though I'd grant the national executive the power to exempt certain firearms)
I'd like to scrap trial by jury for all court cases
I would like to pass a constitutional amendment that compelled all states (and counties therein) to maintain (with as close to 100 accuracy as possible) a database of ALL residents within their state/county boundary, that all eligible to vote

 

[bubbabgone]

There are lots of things I would like to amend in the Constitution

For example
I'd like the repeal the first Amendment and replace it with one that allows free speech, but not if it can be considered "hate speech"
I'd like the scrap the Electoral College with the result of the presidential election being decided purely by the popular vote
I'd like to repeal the 2nd Amendment with one that gives Congress the authority to ban all firearms (though I'd grant the national executive the power to exempt certain firearms)
I'd like to scrap trial by jury for all court cases
I would like to pass a constitutional amendment that compelled all states (and counties therein) to maintain (with as close to 100 accuracy as possible) a database of ALL residents within their state/county boundary, that all eligible to vote

considered hate speech by whom?
popular vote by CA and NY residents.
power by few over all
power by a single person over all
citizenship is replaced by residency ... but still ruled by a select few.

You truly are an elite wannabe with no idea whatsoever why the Founders even created the United States.

 

[Captain Adverse]

It's not, but it should be
A rigid constitution helps no-one. It acts more like a pair of handcuffs on the nation that anything else. The constitution, like any law, is a document of its time. When times change, the law has to change with it
And so it is with the Constitution too.

WRONG!

It is supposed to act as a "handcuff" to prevent outrageous violations of civil rights by the Government.

Our Constitution is a wonderful document, as is the Amendment process. The first ten Amendments serve as a guarantee against an overweening central government, and a check on State and Local governments who seek to undermine/violate/ignore those basic rights.

It is hardly "rigid" either, as the system allows for additional Amendments. However, we already have examples where the Amendment process can lead to flaws. Good example: The Eighteenth Amendment which led to Prohibition and massive disobedience allowing for the growth of Organized Crime. That led to the passage of the Twenty-First Amendment repealing the 18th.

The above proves the Constitution is not "rigid." However, the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments) are the foundation of our free society and have been fleshed out by SCOTUS rulings when issues of the past have wound their way up under review by the Court System.

So, I cannot agree with your assertion "when times change the Constitution needs to change too." Change (as per the Prohibition example) needs to be SLOW and CAREFUL to ensure the correct path is actually being followed. Not rushed to serve an ideological agenda.

Instead, I prefer the process of Judicial Review. This allows an issue to wend its way up through the Judicial system allowing for a final decision via SCOTUS. If things need to be changed, it is then up to the Legislative process to do its job too.

 

[Cordelier]

WRONG!

It is supposed to act as a "handcuff" to prevent outrageous violations of civil rights by the Government.

Our Constitution is a wonderful document, as is the Amendment process. The first ten Amendments serve as a guarantee against an overweening central government, and a check on State and Local governments who seek to undermine/violate/ignore those basic rights.

It is hardly "rigid" either, as the system allows for additional Amendments. However, we already have examples where the Amendment process can lead to flaws. Good example: The Eighteenth Amendment which led to Prohibition and massive disobedience allowing for the growth of Organized Crime. That led to the passage of the Twenty-First Amendment repealing the 18th.

The above proves the Constitution is not "rigid." However, the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments) are the foundation of our free society and have been fleshed out by SCOTUS rulings when issues of the past have wound their way up under review by the Court System.

So, I cannot agree with your assertion "when times change the Constitution needs to change too." Change (as per the Prohibition example) needs to be SLOW and CAREFUL to ensure the correct path is actually being followed. Not rushed to serve an ideological agenda.

Instead, I prefer the process of Judicial Review. This allows an issue to wend its way up through the Judicial system allowing for a final decision via SCOTUS. If things need to be changed, it is then up to the Legislative process to do its job too.

You do know that Brown v. Board of Education was decided a full decade before the Civil Rights Act was passed, right?

 

[NWRatCon]

You do know that Brown v. Board of Education was decided a full decade before the Civil Rights Act was passed, right?

Of course not. Facts rarely enter the thought/bleat process.