Politics Thoughts, Theories and Ponderables

[Big Blue Owl]

What about the rest of it? Amendments and the things that didn't exist when it was created?

Have a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism

And Obama specialized in constitutional law. Just sayin. Not too many other Presidents can claim that.

[Big Blue Owl]

Nothin'?

Mmm-hm.

[CygnusX1]

^^^

One word - Wikipedia. LMAO

Don't use it for term paper research, that's for sure. hahahahaha

(Wiki is admin'd by Barney Frank and Harry Reid.)

I'm kidding....

You make a good point, BBO. The framers DID leave room for changes,
and successors took advantage of it, too.

[CygnusX1]

Chuck Norris makes a good point here:

"How much more will Americans take? When will enough be enough? And
when that time comes, will our leaders finally listen, or will history need
to record a second American Revolution?

We the people have the authority, according to America's
Declaration of Independence, which states: "

'That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these
Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute
new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing
its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments
long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes;
and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more
disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by
abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long
Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object,
evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their
Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new
Guards for their future Security.'

It was this type of thinking that led me to utter the tongue-in-cheek
comment on Glenn Beck's radio show that I may run for president of
Texas. I'm not saying that other states won't muster the gumption to
stand and secede, but Texas has the history to prove it."

As most know, Texas was its own country before it joined the union as the
28th state. From 1836 to 1846, Texas was its own republic."

-- Chuck Norris

[Big Blue Owl]

~ponderable~

Dollar goes up, stocks go down
Stocks go up, dollar goes down

[CygnusX1]

~ponderable~

Dollar goes up, stocks go down
Stocks go up, dollar goes down

Ain't that how it always goes?

The talking heads made a good point yesterday....

We should manipulate our monetary value like China does.

China has SILLY surplus money from doing just that.

They're importing MUCH less than they're exporting.

Some trade parity would definitely help.

[Big Blue Owl]

Right on!

[awip2062]

Nothin'?

Mmm-hm.

Not nuthin', just wanted to give it a read and then a thought or two.

Re. the article you indicated:

Originalism:
The 'original intent theory,' which holds that interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it.

The 'original meaning theory,' which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have declared the ordinary meaning of the text to be.

Either of these is fine with me.

The primary alternative to originalism is most commonly described as the Living Constitution; this is the theory that the Constitution was written in flexible terms whose meaning is dynamic.

I can't buy this one. For one thing, if we just change meaning as we see fit we are not in a Representative Republic, we are in a form of legalized anarchy in which the legislators and judges make laws regardless of their constitutionality.

In addition, if this whole system was meant to be "dynamic" or "flexible" that would have been mentioned in the Constitution. It was not. However, amendments were allowed so that as things changed in the culture and society, the Constitution could change as needed as well.

I think that, yes, we should follow the amendments. They ARE a part of the Constitution, not separate from it. They may not all have been thought of by the writers of the document, but they were provided for by them.

[Big Blue Owl]

Good stuff, t. There are a few things I'd like to put out there.

A constitution itself is silent on the appropriate method of constitutional interpretation. For example, had the framers intended for the U.S. Constitution to be interpreted in a specific manner they could have indicated as much in the text of the Constitution itself. The framers themselves, most of whom were lawyers and legal scholars, would presumably have known the confusion their lack of doing so would cause. The absence of any such guidance suggests either implicit support for contemporary interpretation, or that they could not agree on the correct method, neither of which should bind future generations.

And this bit should really hit home with anybody who wasn't one of the elite, white, rich-'ish' males who created the constitution:

Originalism leads to unacceptable results. For example, interpreting the 14th Amendment only to protect liberty recognized at the time it was ratified provides no protection to groups who were discriminated against at that time, such as women and homosexuals. With originalism, the courts are extremely limited in their power to protect against discrimination.

Moreover, if one is then to look at the interpretation--or, 'meaning'--which inheres at the particular time period, the question becomes: why is that reading the essential one?. Or, restated, an essential reading, then, is owing to whom? Is it owing, then, to the meaning derived by the average person at that time? The collective intent of the voters who passed it? Or is it possible that they indeed entrusted the framers with the authority to draft the constitution, i.e., that the intent of the drafters should remain relevant? Originalism faces hermeneutic difficulties in understanding the intentions of the Founding Fathers, who lived 200 years ago (original intent), or the context of the time in which they lived (original meaning).

An alternative form of the above argument is that legal controversy rarely arises over constitutional text with uncontroversial interpretations. How, then, does one determine the original "meaning" of an originally broad and ambiguous phrase? Thus, originalists often conceal their choice between levels of generality or possible alternative meanings as required by the original meaning when there is considerable room for disagreement.

It could be argued ? as, for example, Justice Breyer has ? that constitutions are meant to endure over time, and in order to do so, their interpretation must therefore be more flexible and responsive to changing circumstances than the amendment process.

[Walkinghairball]

I don't totally agree with this interpretation thing. Here's my quickdraw 2 penny meaning on it.


If a police man, whom we trust to uphold his position crosses into the interpretation of the "Protect and Serve" "Uphold the Law" and decides to be judge jury........... ............... is this not wrong?

I do feel this is kind of the same with the Constitution being morphed into something it wasn't.

And what if it was made to be set in stone? Who are we to change that?

Am I missing something?

[Big Blue Owl]

Yes, just a bit.

And what if it was made to be set in stone? Who are we to change that?

Everything I chose for the above post is an argument that it would have been highly unlikely that it was carved in stone, aside from literally, like cavemen

But specifically, this part:

For example, had the framers intended for the U.S. Constitution to be interpreted in a specific manner they could have indicated as much in the text of the Constitution itself. The framers themselves, most of whom were lawyers and legal scholars, would presumably have known the confusion their lack of doing so would cause. The absence of any such guidance suggests either implicit support for contemporary interpretation, or that they could not agree on the correct method, neither of which should bind future generations.

[Walkinghairball]

So there is absolutely no chance that people of today are looking too hard at it to make it so? You know, then your in a desert and out of water, you will see some goofy stuff. Just like at night. You look at a tree at night for too long, it will dance for you.

Just because they were lawyers holds no water for me bro. Look at the frivilous shit they do today.

IDK, mayhaps the framers should have included............."This is how it is, no bitchin no bitchin."

[Big Blue Owl]

And perhaps, to make it a completely legit, fair, viable document to live by in present day earth/America the framers should have included a woman, a gay, a black, a white man, a native American and so on....

Otherwise, only white rich-ish lawyer-types have rules to live by. Sounds like chaos to me, but then, that's what I see every time I turn on the news.

[CygnusX1]

Hey, do you think WE should be allowed tax waivers with no penalites or
interest, like some on both sides of the aisle in office right now?

Hell yeah, I do!

What's fair is fair, right?

Jus' sayin' y'all.

I hope they bring the hammer down on this past practice once and for all.

They have to take their pants down to shit just like we do.

[Walkinghairball]

And perhaps, to make it a completely legit, fair, viable document to live by in present day earth/America the framers should have included a woman, a gay, a black, a white man, a native American and so on....

Ok, good point.

They have to take their pants down to shit just like we do.

Nope, they have someone do it for them.