This book could change the way conservatives read the Constitution

[Str8shooter]

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.

IMO, the Constitution is a living document in the sense that with 2/3rds of the Senate and 3/4ths of the state's approval, the Consitution can be amended to deal with concerns from today. Again, JMHO!

 

[BirdinHand]

Have you ever read a book by a conservative?

 

[AZRWinger]

So words mean what the left wants them to mean at any given time, to support the current objective of the left?

Absolutely, the Left operates on the Red Queen principle of words mean what I say they mean when I use them. It's an Alice In Wonderland bubble they live in.

This is why originalism is vital. We have a Constitution to constrain unlimited power by the government, but if the left can distort and pervert language that protection dissipates. We have already seen the left pervert the concept of "Freedom OF speech" to mean "freedom FROM speech" that the left disagrees with.

 

[bubbabgone]

IMO, the Constitution is a living document in the sense that with 2/3rds of the Senate and 3/4ths of the state's approval, the Consitution can be amended to deal with concerns from today. Again, JMHO!

Of course. In that sense.
Absent that ... no.

 

[NWRatCon]

I knew when I started this thread that it was a quixotic quest. The problem is identified in the thread title:

This book could change the way conservatives read the Constitution​

It assumes a fact clearly not in evidence. Still, I was hopeful that an interesting discussion could happen, and it has. Just not with its intended target audience.

 

[Nickyjo]

So words mean what the left wants them to mean at any given time, to support the current objective of the left?

This is why originalism is vital. We have a Constitution to constrain unlimited power by the government, but if the left can distort and pervert language that protection dissipates. We have already seen the left pervert the concept of "Freedom OF speech" to mean "freedom FROM speech" that the left disagrees with.

It was the right that decided that money was speech.

 

[Rich2018]

Sure it does. The Constitution established the federal legislature that is empowered to make laws regarding such things.

???

You have a monumental misunderstanding of what I wrote

The Constitution does indeed give Congress the authority to regulate interstate (and international), transportation

But it doesn't prohibit the tampering of smoke detectors in commercial aircraft toilets. Largely because neither smoke detectors nor aircraft were perceived by the framers.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

What does he mean by that?

He means that The Constitution can mean anything you want it to mean because time changes the interpretation of all things.

While I agree that time is a factor and that the Constitution is a “living document” I don’t take it where Gienapp is going. It’s fuzzy around the ages and can be formed about those edges to fit modern times.

It foundation is built on pillars. This establishes its timeless core built on a specific foundation. These are immutable. Not fuzzy. Designed to be a constant. These include the rights of human kind and where government fits in as an institution that serves it, not the other way around, the rights to commerce, the three branches of government, etc.

Amendments adjust those edges in larger detail. The federal courts fine tune by judicial review.

 

[Rich2018]

He means that The Constitution can mean anything you want it to mean because time changes the interpretation of all things.

While I agree that time is a factor and that the Constitution is a “living document” I don’t take it where Gienapp is going. It’s fuzzy around the ages and can be formed about those edges to fit modern times.

It foundation is built on pillars. This establishes its timeless core built on a specific foundation. These are immutable. Not fuzzy. Designed to be a constant. These include the rights of human kind and where government fits in as an institution that serves it, not the other way around, the rights to commerce, the three branches of government, etc.

Amendments adjust those edges in larger detail. The federal courts fine tune by judicial review.

More a case of the Constitution being so poorly written that a number of interpretation can be placed on much of what it says.

 

[Blue Dog]

Am listening to the audio book.

 

[mrjurrs]

There are so many that have already been discerned: the right to travel, to raise children, to privacy, bodily autonomy, to vote. How is it not supported? It's in the ****ing text! That's my point. Roe was correctly decided, although it needed to be centered on the 9th Amendment.

I agree with your last statement, but not the first. Easiest current example? The transgender question. Sure that right could conceivably be considered to be preexisting, but since the science behind it was not available to the framers it is, imo, not a right that that was already there.

 

[mrjurrs]

He means that The Constitution can mean anything you want it to mean because time changes the interpretation of all things.

While I agree that time is a factor and that the Constitution is a “living document” I don’t take it where Gienapp is going. It’s fuzzy around the ages and can be formed about those edges to fit modern times.

It foundation is built on pillars. This establishes its timeless core built on a specific foundation. These are immutable. Not fuzzy. Designed to be a constant. These include the rights of human kind and where government fits in as an institution that serves it, not the other way around, the rights to commerce, the three branches of government, etc.

Amendments adjust those edges in larger detail. The federal courts fine tune by judicial review.

The Constitution is the fence around the pasture of US laws. Amendments increase the size of the pasture (except for the 18th and see where that ended up).

 

[LouC]

Just what is the criteria for a "classical Conservative" ?

Republicans who are still voting for MAGA Republicans while pretending they aren't supporting KING MAGAT and MAGAISM.

 

[ataraxia]

The Constitution means whatever the left wants it to mean. The words and original meaning don't matter to them.

Few conservatives will read this book and fewer still will be swayed by it.

As times change, there are fundamental changes for which an "originalist" interpretation would be patently ridiculous.

For example, the phrase "the right to arms shall not be infringed". An originalist interpretation would take it to mean that the right to nuclear arms shall not be infringed either.

But does that make any sense in the context of 21st century technology?

 

[Uncensored2008]

A reminder: the MAGA Party are not classical conservatives.

Neither are the spineless RINO's.

In many ways, the MAGA movement are the classical liberals. The RINO's are more at home with the Communists - the democrats - than with Jeffersonian liberals such as MAGA.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Republicans who are still voting for MAGA Republicans while pretending they aren't supporting KING MAGAT and MAGAISM.

It's called liberalism Lou. Your party abandoned it nearly a hundred years ago - adopting the Wilson Fabian model that led to Roosevelt's socialist party that remains to this day.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Education, opportunity, non monopolies, international trade, also we really hated the Russians.

The modern Democratic Party is now effectively old school Republicans.

ROFL

The modern democrat party is effectively Stalinist. An authoritarian, collectivist party where civil rights are jettisoned and replaced with privilege based on group affiliation.

Also, the democrats really loved the Russians until the day they stopped being Communists. Bernie even took his honeymoon in Moscow. democrats dream of the USSR rising again - but under their rule.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Since the civil rights movement in the 60's was embraced by the Democrats
These have been Democrat goals.

Say, didn't a greater percentage of Republicans vote for both the 1957 and 1964 civil rights acts? Why yes, yes they did. Didn't Al Gore, Fritz Hollings, and Robert Byrd - icons of the democrat party - filibuster against the civil rights act of 1964?

It isn't that the democrat drones don't know anything - it's that what they have been programmed by the party to know simply isn't true...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Constitutional originalism is a made up idea used to buttress the political ideology of the user.

What a silly and false post.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's a pretty common phrase.
I've heard it before and to me it simply means that attitudes and countries change and the US now is completely different to how it was when the constitution was written.

Even just going back to the 1960s would see a very different America and UK.

Open borders in both countries have a lot to do with that. America has a different population and demographic.

Englandstan has little in common with England.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Like the discernment of a new right to privacy within the penumbra emanating from the bill of rights? Like an admix of ancient oracle and carnival fortune teller the black robed law givers of the SCOTUS conjured up a new right by magical process.

Invoking the 9th Amendment as justification for his/her so-called discernment undermines the Constitution as Justice Scalia wrote.

"the Constitution’s refusal to ‘deny or disparage’ other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even further removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people.”

Roe overturned state restrictions, laws duly enacted by the people, on abortion based on the judge's wish list.

Well stated.

Roe was an affront to and and dismantling of democracy. Denying the right of the people to vote for the laws that govern them. Rather having the central authority dictate laws without need or aid from any legislative body.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Quick question. The First Amendment. It clearly says Congress shall pass no laws. Could California make it a death penalty offense to have a Trump sign or clothing? Could Texas establish Baptist as the only recognized Church within the State? If the Founders wanted the First Amendment to be an individual right, wouldn’t they have written it that way?

Are there other amendments besides the 1st?

There is your answer.

Think "the 14th"

 

[Uncensored2008]

Have you ever read a book?

 

[Uncensored2008]

It was the right that decided that money was speech.

False.

It was the Authoritarian left that demanded "Fahrenheit 9-11" was protected speech, but "Hillary: The Movie" was outlawed speech. McCain-Feingold dictated that we might be one nation, but two very different standards of law apply, dependant on party affiliation.

Citizens United stands with Brown v. BOE as a bulwark protecting basic civil rights. democrats are ever vigilant in their attempts to crush freedom of speech and all civil rights.

 

[Uncensored2008]

???

You have a monumental misunderstanding of what I wrote

The Constitution does indeed give Congress the authority to regulate interstate (and international), transportation

But it doesn't prohibit the tampering of smoke detectors in commercial aircraft toilets. Largely because neither smoke detectors nor aircraft were perceived by the framers.

Certainly it does. The legislature empowered by that Constitution crafted laws that prohibit such acts.