If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE

"The Constitution is a living doccument"

edited 2011-07-23 00:57:34 in Politics
Frankly no. Why would it be in the way most people mean it in? if the constitution is supposed to change when the meaning of a word changes it could mean anything within a century or two and be completely different from how it was supposed to be written. I know I know before you even clicked but this has just been eating at med. The framers wouldn't make it in such a way because for all they knew the word "we" would eventually mean "rape". I know that's an extreme example but it gets the point across there is no way that in such an understanding of the document the whole point couldn't be lost. Take the word "regulate" for example in the context of the time the clauses containing the word were ratified it meant "to make regular". Not "to restrict" or "to prohibit" or anything close to the modern day meaning so how can you argue for a living document when a word can change so radically?
«1

Comments

  • Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day.
    Haven't you made this thread before?
  • edited 2011-07-23 00:59:44
    I don't recall I just need to get it off my chest don't mind me it's been bugging me for a while. There's just no logic behind reading a doccument like that because of the very nature of Have A Gay Old Time.
  • no longer cuddly, but still Edmond
    Pretty much agreeing with what Tnu said. The only interpretation that counts is what our founding fathers meant, and frankly I have no patience for these semantic wordgames that politicians try to play.
  • -shoots the Constitution with a shotgun-

    There. Now it's a dead document. Will that do ya?
  • edited 2011-07-23 01:03:24
    Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day.
    if the constitution is supposed to change when the meaning of a word
    changes it could mean anything within a century or two and be completely
    different from how it was supposed to be written. .... The framers
    wouldn't make it in such a way because for all they knew the word "we"
    would eventually mean "rape"

    The living document thing doesn't exactly apply to language, it applies to culture, technology, things like that.  Things like video games or the internet that the founding fathers couldn't have foreseen. 

    Take the word "regulate" for example in the context of the time the
    clauses containing the word were ratified it meant "to make regular".
    Not "to restrict" or "to prohibit" or anything close to the modern day
    meaning so how can you argue for a living document when a word can
    change so radically?

    But pretty much the only way to regulate is to restrict.

  • edited 2011-07-23 01:08:12
    actually Moe there is also a bit of an issue with Original Intent as well. mainly that there were many different framers with varying and often opposing intentions. You could try to read their writings as a form of conjecture  but that's just shifting the problem to how to interpret their writings. the most logical way is to examine each word carefully and look at exactly what it meant at the time of ratification.  Actually no for example regulating commerce between the several states was added to prevent restriction of commerce between the states (i.e. banning interstate commerce) while a well regulated militia means a well maintained militia. Also keep in mind that in the modern understanding of "regulate" this would mean that the militia is restricted not the people. So they're not even using that correctly.
  • «Pretty much agreeing with what Tnu said. The only interpretation that counts is what our founding fathers meant, and frankly I have no patience for these semantic wordgames that politicians try to play.»
    This is why I don't really agree with the idea of the Constitution.  It disenfranchises living voters at the expense of dead voters.
  • No it doesn't. See Article V.
  • and Amendments IX and X
  • I'm a damn twisted person
    Tnu, didn't you say you were going to stop making political threads in order to stop putting your foot in your mouth?
  • I had to make this one Crake I couldn't help myself and I said nothing about foot in mouth. I regret nothing.
  • no longer cuddly, but still Edmond
    This is why I don't really agree with the idea of the Constitution. It disenfranchises living voters at the expense of dead voters.


    See, that's a good thing.

    The guys who wrote it were alive at a time when the values of the Constitution were clear and stood for something.

    The living voters are mostly a bunch of uneducated peons who can be easily misled into believing things that aren't constitutional, are, have largely forgotten the embodiments of those values and live day-to-day so easily that the things that brought about the constitution have been largely forgotten. This is the atmosphere that allows shit like No Child Left Behind and the PATRIOT Act to happen.

    Frankly, the living voters need to have dampers put on them or they'll run the country into the ground.
  • Also we're not a democracy. We're a Republic.
  • Those were quite frankly abominations just unforgivable should neve rhave existed.
  • The Constitution of the United States (Of America? (I really don't know the full title. (Saying that, I really resent Americans calling it The Constitution of there was only one, I think France wants a word with you.))) Is a bit like fossil fuels. Absolutely wonderful things that have done quite a lot of good in the world but now it's time to stop using them because they're outdated and a little bit rubbish.

    I think it's time American's stopped hinging on the words written by a group of racist, sexists, classist men 300 years ago.
  • then what do we base our system of government off of? how will we define a strict system to keep it in check?
  • By simply not being lazy. When the government is doing something it shouldn't, stand up and say "No". Don't just sit there and expect a magic bit of paper to fix everything and don't use the magic bit of paper as an excuse for anything.


  • well without a framework how do you know it's doing somthing it shouldn't? The US Constitution has changed before 18 times. If it needs to change it will.
  • By using your common sense? By looking at something and deciding "I don't like this".

    And wait a minuet, Tnu. Your entire first post was about how the only interpretation of the Constitution that counts is the Founding Father's one, and now you're saying that it can be changed. Make your mind up bro.
  • edited 2011-07-23 04:35:04
    Yes it can be changed. See Article V. As well as Amendment X for simpler changes in local governments.
  • So then it is a Living Document then?
  • Not in the way that people use the term no. When people use the term they mean "well now this word means X so  we can do Y according to to the modern meaning of said word" but Article V allows a change to take place after a lengthy and complicated process so it will only happen if it's absolutely necessary.
  • Oooh, see I was under the impression that the idea of a living document was that it can (and should) be changed to fit modern sensibilities. 

    But I can see where you're coming from.
  • no longer cuddly, but still Edmond
    To be honest, politics kind of gets on my nerves. It seems to me that there are only two kinds of governments that really work.

    The first kind is the one where the rulers have absolute control. Yes, its harsh and it sucks to live in one if you're not one of the higher-ups, but they tend to remain economically stable (just for an unpleasant and oft-unmentioned historical anecdote, the Nazis actually succeeded in taking Germany from the verge of ruin to economic superpower in less than a decade).

    The other kind is the kind that reinvents itself once a century. That is, a revolution happens, and the government is entirely reinvented from scratch, and goes along smoothly. Then the cracks begin to appear, and when they get too bad, another revolution happens and totally replaces it.

    The problem with America is that its trying to do the latter while in the trappings of the former, and it really isn't working, but due to tradition-worship people want to turn a blind eye to the problems. What America really needs is a from-the-ground-up remodling of its entire system, not just putting wax in the cracks here and there.
  • «This is the atmosphere that allows shit like No Child Left Behind and the PATRIOT Act to happen.»
    I'll take the U SAP AT RIOT act over slavery every time, though.
  • a little muffled
    @Tnu1138:
    Also we're not a democracy. We're a Republic.
    Many republics, including the United States, are democracies.
  • Creature - Florida Dragon Turtle Human
    Protip: "Republic" just means that we have elected representatives being legislators.  "Democracy" means that we extend the right to vote to all (or most) people.

    Since we are a country where most people (barring people under 18, non-citizens, and felons) are allowed to vote, and we use this voting to elect representatives as our legislators, yes, we're a democratic republic.
  • Glaives are better.

    RAPE THE PEOPLE

    Sorry, couldn't help myself.

  • Oh noez, zombie documents!
  • No rainbow star
    I can't help but think, "I want to we someone" now
Sign In or Register to comment.