The Consitution

[john.roberts85]

...they are nothing more than generalities because you failed to list the language you consider ambiguous.

...you also failed to offer an alternative to the Constitution. ...and yeah, it sounds like nothing more than complaining to me.

keep in mind that in America you are free to leave if you don't like it here, ...and you can take your little kitty with you.

'Due process of law' is clearly an example of ambiguous language in the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

What are the standards by which you measure if due process has been afforded? The standards have changed over time. It's like you guys are intentionally dense.

 

[canndo]

Preambles of the constitutions of all 50 states ... [video=youtube;V3lw_U7UrM8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3lw_U7UrM8[/video]

That the individual states mention some deity in their constitutions has no bearing upon the notion that our Federal Constitution is absolutely religion neutral. The fact that most of the framers were deists or Christians makes it all the more telling that they chose consciously not to include their religious beliefs in that document. the construction of the constitution makes it quite clear that we are to be free as a nation that follows the constructs of the constitution, from an religious constraints what so ever.

There shall be no religious tests, individuals have the option when being confirmed for office of oath OR affirmation - that alone should be telling enough that an oath is religious in nature and affirmation is not.

 

[justanotherbozo]

'Due process of law' is clearly an example of ambiguous language in the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

What are the standards by which you measure if due process has been afforded? The standards have changed over time. It's like you guys are intentionally dense.

lol, and you? ...you think you aren't dense?

...try to understand that the constitution was written by men fighting for their freedom and while they may not have drafted a perfect document, you have STILL failed to offer an alternative, ...all you've done is whine about 'ambiguities'.

...btw, are you even American? ...or just some foreign asshole who hasn't grown up under the rules of the Constitution so has no actual experience in how it functions?

bozo

 

[st0wandgrow]

Every time our leaders figure out a way to sidestep the constitution it ends horribly for the citizens. The constitution is a protecting document for me, you, and everyone else. To "revisit" it is to do only one thing strip the protections from us and doing so restructuring the country. A snowball has a better chance in hell than you convincing us to give our rights up to our leaders. Simply put the constitution isn't the problem our leaders are.

What about something like the Citizens United decision? Do you feel that our founders intended upon multinational corporations being treated as a "person", or do you feel that a constitutional amendment would be in order to clarify that?

 

[desert dude]

What about something like the Citizens United decision? Do you feel that our founders intended upon multinational corporations being treated as a "person", or do you feel that a constitutional amendment would be in order to clarify that?

The supreme court decided Citizens United on first amendment grounds. Corporations are assemblages of people that have the right to engage in political speech. You might not like it, but it is legal for groups of people to try to sway the political process. You would need to modify 1A to change it.

 

[ginwilly]

What about something like the Citizens United decision? Do you feel that our founders intended upon multinational corporations being treated as a "person", or do you feel that a constitutional amendment would be in order to clarify that?

We don't need an amendment to change corporate laws. Those were never in the constitution, it was just more cronyism.

I'd like to revisit those pesky commerce/general welfare clauses, other than that, I'm good with it.

 

[canndo]

It lacks rigidity, which is what has lead to the various modes of constitutional interpretation (e.g., weak originalism, exclusive originalism, and pragmatism). Fairly common examples are:

Due Process of Law
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Equal Protection

Come on, guys, some things are common knowledge, not really in need of elaboration.

Well they may not be in need of elaboration here, but you seem to be the only supreme court justice on this site.

 

[canndo]

I wasn't talking about reading it. I was responding to this:

"And the Bible? whould we be run by the words written by men 2000 years ago?"



It is optional to follow the words of the bible in this country. It is not optional to follow the words of the constitution.

We as citizens are not actually obligated to follow the words of the constitution, the document is not composed to govern the actions of the citizens but the activities of federaly mandated governing bodies. It is damn fortunate for the citizens of the United States that they need not read, know nor comprehend this particular document. As others have said, there are any number of public officials who have the same understanding of the document as our children have through repeated viewings of "school house rock".

 

[canndo]

, we will need our scotus free from the corruption of partiality toward any interest aside from morality and the wishes of we the people.

The whole point is that we needn't depend upon the purity of our leaders and that this country can continue even when those leaders are corrupt and have interests aside those of morality and our wishes. I don't believe we need SCOTUS justices to even be present for us to establish constitutional amendments.

 

[canndo]

The supreme court decided Citizens United on first amendment grounds. Corporations are assemblages of people that have the right to engage in political speech. You might not like it, but it is legal for groups of people to try to sway the political process. You would need to modify 1A to change it.

Not really, all that would need to be done is to define what a citizen is. Citizens United does not depend upon groups of people having the same rights and priveleges as individuals. That would be a rather sticky situation considering that the other side has long maintained that the 2nd was a "group right".

 

[john.roberts85]

lol, and you? ...you think you aren't dense?

...try to understand that the constitution was written by men fighting for their freedom and while they may not have drafted a perfect document, you have STILL failed to offer an alternative, ...all you've done is whine about 'ambiguities'.

...btw, are you even American? ...or just some foreign asshole who hasn't grown up under the rules of the Constitution so has no actual experience in how it functions?

bozo

Now we're onto jingoistic Love It or Leave It, Foreigner! drivel? I gave the most common criticism of the AC: lack of rigidity. It also happens to be touted as one of its superior qualities too. I'm flat-out being trolled by invalids.

 

[canndo]

We don't need an amendment to change corporate laws. Those were never in the constitution, it was just more cronyism.

I'd like to revisit those pesky commerce/general welfare clauses, other than that, I'm good with it.

I have some problems with those but there are others that could be fixed as well. as I mentioned, a definition of citizen would be helpful, more clarity on the role of the Fed with regard to borders, something concrete about the right of the individual to do as he wishes with his own body and their ability to enact laws to that effect within their own states would be kinda helpful.

Some clarity as to state sovereignty might be nice. Something about gender transparency with regard to Federal perview. Oh and that pesky initial clause in the 2nd could be either clarified or simply removed for everyone's sake.

While we are at it, how about some direction as to individual income tax and maybe, just maybe a balanced budget provision?

No, it is a fine document but it is showing its age and could stand a decent rewrite for a new century.

 

[Doer]

I gave examples prior to saying it was common knowledge. You're beyond disingenuous.

You only gave concepts. You did not give any language examples. And just because it seems ambiguous to you, means nothing. I see the entire thing as quite clear. Yet, there are those that wish it was more ambiguous. That is the re-write agenda. Re-write it until, like any concept it becomes meaningless.

 

[john.roberts85]

You only gave concepts. You did not give any language examples. And just because it seems ambiguous to you, means nothing. I see the entire thing as quite clear. Yet, there are those that wish it was more ambiguous. That is the re-write agenda. Re-write it until, like any concept it becomes meaningless.

Sorry, but both 'due process of law' and 'cruel and unusual punishment' are both 'language examples'. Or are you saying both are narrowly, or even widely, defined by the Constitution? They're not, of course.

 

[justanotherbozo]

Now we're onto jingoistic Love It or Leave It, Foreigner! drivel? I gave the most common criticism of the AC: lack of rigidity. It also happens to be touted as one of its superior qualities too. I'm flat-out being trolled by invalids.

so your answer is to insult? ...who is the invalid here, lol?

if you had cogent arguments rather than ambiguous bullshit you'd use them.

...and you STILL fail to offer an alternative, lol.

 

[Dr Kynes]

It lacks rigidity, which is what has lead to the various modes of constitutional interpretation (e.g., weak originalism, exclusive originalism, and pragmatism). Fairly common examples are:

Due Process of Law
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Equal Protection

Come on, guys, some things are common knowledge, not really in need of elaboration.

quoth the framers of the constitution on the 3000+ year longstanding ban on abortion worldwide.

from the hippocratic oath to royal decrees to parliamentary laws abortion has banned since the attic period in western society as an abomination and an affront to nature (even by non christian groups such as the greeks romans, and celts)
the framers of the constitution simply assumed that the current laws (which made abortion illegal in all 13 colonies) would remain sacrosanct, and the constitution would (as intended) be a set of club rules for the union of sovereign states for when they got together as a group to discuss common issues between them.

some states had official religions, others did not, Massachusetts officially recognized "Congregational Protestant Christianity" as the state religion until 1833, which required all men to be members of some christian church. this was NOT precluded by the constitution since it applied only within Massachusetts, and had no bearing on any of the other several states.

some states prohibit the ownership of certain firearms except by special permit/license from the state. this has no effect on neighboring states thus it is not prohibited by the constitution.

some states prohibit wearing a bathing suit on "the sabbath" (which depending on your religion could be friday, saturday, sunday,, or NO day)this too is irrelevant to the constitution.

there is only one criminal statute in the entirety of the constitution and it is only to describe define and prohibit treason against the newly founded national union. this was required by the framers since there could otherwise be NO treason in their view, as the united states had previously never existed, thus there was no prohibition on consorting with the british forces. their view of law was one of liberty within a framework of law, and the presumption was, barring an existing law to the contrary, EVERYTHING was permitted until legislation prohibited it. abortion, state religions and a legal requirement that all men POSITIVELY own arms at their own expense were all well settled at the time, and only the fog of history can create the ambiguity you claim as "common knowledge"

the republicans viewed the uniuon (as they do today) as a group of sovereign states made up of sovereign citizens who are ruled by no-one save by their mutual agreement on laws set down to establish and protect the society and it's citizens. under this world-view there is no criminal act unless the act at question is FIRST declared a crime by the society and then the violation of that statute is proved to a jury of your PEERS, not a random selection of idiots who will do as commanded and rubberstamp the judge's opinion. this is why we have a republic, not a national parliamentary oligarchy

the federalists viewed the newborn nation in much the way modern leftists do, as a mutual suicide pact. once a territory joins and becomes a state,, it is till death do us part,, and the states are merely a giant mormon style harem of submissive sisterwives who serve every whim of big daddy fed and breed up the progeny who tend to the chores around the federal plantation. the federalists LOST but since egotism and authoritarianism are notoriously bad sports, they have been slowly trying to coax the union into the federalist oligarchy they wanted in 1791, but failed to win at the ballot box.

all the vague handwaving about ambiguity in the constitution presumes the constitution is a permissive document, a list of the things we the people are permitted under the benevolent gaze of our betters in washington. this could not be farther from the truth, the constitution was created as a restraint on the encroachments of government power and the tendency to slowly ease into despotism shown by EVERY government in history, no matter how well meaning at the start.

the constitution is the chain around the wolf's neck. just because you and many other fools think Fenris has learned his lesson, and thus will NOT attempt to slay Odin, eat the sun and bring about Ragnarok doesnt mean the rest of us will join you in sawing at the monster's collar. it is in the nature of Fenris to slay Odin and eat the sun, it is his Weird and his Doom. all the "good vibes" and wishful thinking in the world will not change the weave the fates have made, nor can you restrain him once he is free. the rest of us will maintain that you and your fellow hacksaw wielding members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Loki's Children, and your fellow travellers in the Jotun's Party for Midgard's Doom are insane.

but im probably racist since all of Niffelheim is on your side, and opposition to your agenda is clearly simply a reaction to the Svartalf in Chief's pigmentation not his stated aims.

 

[abandonconflict]

the constitution is the chain around the wolf's neck

The condensed version...the conservative view in the US epitomized into a single statement. The conservative view is that the federal gov't is limited by the constitution. The counter view is that it is empowered by the constitution.

 

[cannabineer]

It lacks rigidity, which is what has lead to the various modes of constitutional interpretation (e.g., weak originalism, exclusive originalism, and pragmatism). Fairly common examples are:

Due Process of Law
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Equal Protection

Come on, guys, some things are common knowledge, not really in need of elaboration.

Let's be fair.
It is a document that proposes a social contract, and as society includes and contains the orneriest of us, a rigid document would be some combination of exclusive and impracticable.
I am generally a big, huge fan of very specific instructions and precise text. It works in science and engineering. When we get to contract law however, we are presented with both the bewildering ambiguity of language in general, and the amazing energy people put into riddling advantage from the text. Overprecision in a contract is easy pickings for the manipulators, who have an effect of changing the terrain to which the original contract conformed. This fluidity of the human terrain is both consequence of, and a prime reason against, rigid contracts that cannot adapt.

So i conclude that a rigid Constitutional document could not have succeeded for any real length of time.

We remain at the mercy of the goodwill of appellate court justices. They are charged with translating the document(s) into currently applicable procedures. It's a lousy system, but so far has anyone come up with a practical, durable and somewhat equitable alternative? cn

 

[abandonconflict]

Let's be fair.
It is a document that proposes a social contract, and as society includes and contains the orneriest of us, a rigid document would be some combination of exclusive and impracticable.
I am generally a big, huge fan of very specific instructions and precise text. It works in science and engineering. When we get to contract law however, we are presented with both the bewildering ambiguity of language in general, and the amazing energy people put into riddling advantage from the text.

So i conclude that a rigid Constitutional document could not have succeeded for any real length of time.

We remain at the mercy of the goodwill of appellate court justices. They are charged with translating the document(s) into currently applicable procedures. It's a lousy system, but so far has anyone come up with a practical, durable and somewhat equitable alternative? cn

I do believe that someday our species will not need any laws.

 

[cannabineer]

I do believe that someday our species will not need any laws.

You know I disagree. I do hold hope however that a species of posthumans (to whom we will have been the wild-type midwives) will be able to build a true utopian society without formulated law. cn