US Politics Balboa (VII)

[AndyP]

[quote name='Triskele' post='1754125' date='Apr 13 2009, 23.26']This is why I found Bush supporters to be some of the most belligerent folk of all. They were honestly not smart enough to make the connection that there would actually come a day when Bush was out of office and a Democrat was in power.[/quote]
That was my original objection to the Patriot Act. For the same reason I have never understood most liberals reliance on a "living document" interpretation of the Constitution. It never seems to occur to them that a very conservative court might use the "living document" to shrink rights instead of expand them.

[Shryke]

[quote name='AndyP' post='1755454' date='Apr 14 2009, 23.30']That was my original objection to the Patriot Act. For the same reason I have never understood most liberals reliance on a "living document" interpretation of the Constitution. It never seems to occur to them that a very conservative court might use the "living document" to shrink rights instead of expand them.[/quote]

Better then being shackled to the antiquated ideas of a bunch of dead guys.

In the words of one of said dead guys:
[quote]It is the living, and not the dead, that are to be accommodated. When man ceases to be, his power and his wants cease with him; and having no longer any participation in the concerns of this world, he has no longer any authority in directing who shall be its governors, or how its government shall be organised, or how administered.[/quote]
-Thomas Paine

I've never understood the American Obsession with their Founding Fathers who were 100% right the first time.

[The Progressive]

[quote name='AndyP' post='1755454' date='Apr 14 2009, 20.30']For the same reason I have never understood most liberals reliance on a "living document" interpretation of the Constitution. It never seems to occur to them that a very conservative court might use the "living document" to shrink rights instead of expand them.[/quote]

Is this serious?

[Shryke]

The fact that you can change the damn thing pretty much shows that your Founding Fathers viewed it as a living document. Hell, if you dig more into their thoughts on it, most (as I remember) thought people would be changing the thing every generation or 2.

[Fatuous]

[quote name='Triskele' post='1755543' date='Apr 15 2009, 02.23']I think it is and AndyP is pretty good so please engage. I want to see what comes of it. Am I wrong that there is a provision somewhere in the amendments that strongly supports the "living document" argument?[/quote]

Yes, the fact that Amendments are added to clarify and modify previous laws is a good starting point but I'm going back to AndyP's original quote because I don't believe that was his intent:

[quote]That was my original objection to the Patriot Act. For the same reason I have never understood most liberals reliance on a "living document" interpretation of the Constitution. It never seems to occur to them that a very conservative court might use the "living document" to shrink rights instead of expand them.[/quote]

I thought so; We're back to Intepretation yet I wouldn't use the word "reliance" myself; Times change, people change and documents chnage as well, in both words and they way it can be read. The term I would use is "accepting reality".

It has occured to me that a very conservative court will do whatever it takes to do whatever it wants. If they want to use the "living document" Constitution to shrink and deny rights then they will do so but it can also be done by a strict reading of the Constitution as done by "Original intent".

The very idea that they could assume what the "original intent" was of people dead for more than 180 years is...

I'm at a loss for words here. They believe they can do it and they think they have achieved it time and again but they are not them and they never will be them. My belief is that they project their own views on words writtten 220 years ago and then they call it the "original intent" of the Founding Fathers to justify their own biased {there's nothing wrong with that, by the way} rulings.

Oh, they're hypocrites. That was something of an obvious conclusion, wasn't it?

[TrackerNeil]

[quote name='AndyP' post='1755454' date='Apr 14 2009, 23.30']That was my original objection to the Patriot Act. For the same reason I have never understood most liberals reliance on a "living document" interpretation of the Constitution. It never seems to occur to them that a very conservative court might use the "living document" to shrink rights instead of expand them.[/quote]

And those courts, stocked with "originalist judges" have already done so, despite their belief that the Constitution is a dead document. It all comes down to interpretation, really, no matter what your position on the political spectrum. John Quincy Adams has regaled me with tales of conservative judges who have made...interesting interpretations of the Constitution, their conservatism notwithstanding. So it doesn't really matter if you view the Constitution as living or not; judges will interpret it as they will.

[Tempra]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1755547' date='Apr 15 2009, 02.39']The fact that you can change the damn thing pretty much shows that your Founding Fathers viewed it as a living document. Hell, if you dig more into their thoughts on it, most (as I remember) thought people would be changing the thing every generation or 2.[/quote]



No. The idea behind the living document is that JUDGES can make changes to the constitution (i.e. Griswold v. CT/Roe v. Wade). The amendment process does not support the living document theory.

[Tempra]

[quote name='Fatuous' post='1755714' date='Apr 15 2009, 09.01']I thought so; We're back to Intepretation yet I wouldn't use the word "reliance" myself; Times change, people change and documents chnage as well, in both words and they way it can be read. The term I would use is "accepting reality".

It has occured to me that a very conservative court will do whatever it takes to do whatever it wants. If they want to use the "living document" Constitution to shrink and deny rights then they will do so but it can also be done by a strict reading of the Constitution as done by "Original intent".

[b]The very idea that they could assume what the "original intent" was of people dead for more than 180 years is...[/b]

I'm at a loss for words here. They believe they can do it and they think they have achieved it time and again but they are not them and they never will be them. My belief is that they project their own views on words writtten 220 years ago and then they call it the "original intent" of the Founding Fathers to justify their own biased {there's nothing wrong with that, by the way} rulings.

Oh, they're hypocrites. That was something of an obvious conclusion, wasn't it?[/quote]

One of the great virtues of the founding father is that they were prolific writers, especially when it came to the Constitution. Now, that is not to suggest that the answer to every question can be answered by looking to the founding fathers. That brand of Originalism died awhile ago.

[Shryke]

[quote name='Tempra' post='1755975' date='Apr 15 2009, 13.12']No. The idea behind the living document is that JUDGES can make changes to the constitution (i.e. Griswold v. CT/Roe v. Wade). The amendment process does not support the living document theory.[/quote]

So you don't think the Supreme Court should be able to interpret the Constitution? (A power, I believe, that is given to them in said Constitution)

Or are you just trying to pretend that "Original Intent" isn't just another form of interpretation by the Supreme Court?

[Tempra]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1755992' date='Apr 15 2009, 13.21']So you don't think the Supreme Court should be able to interpret the Constitution? (A power, I believe, that is given to them in said Constitution)[/quote]

Of course they can interpret the constitution. The Supreme Court serves no function without interpretating the constitution. For example, it is perfectly fine for the USSC to interpret whether pornography is protected by the first amendment. Not so fine for the USSC to go "Well, i'll take a bit of the first, fourth, fifth, ninth, and fourtheen amendments and pretend that all of them together create a right to privacy." That is judicial activism. Now, i AGREE with the outcome, but not the means of those decisions. That is judicial usurpation of legislative prerogative and is meant to be left to the amendment process.


[quote]Or are you just trying to pretend that "Original Intent" isn't just another form of interpretation by the Supreme Court?[/quote]


I sit on the fence in the debate between originalism and living document theorists. Either side taken to the extreme is dangerous. As to your question, it would depend on the judge/ruling. Originalist judges are not infalliable because they espouse originalist views. But take DC v. Heller(2nd amendment case) for example. You had the anti-gun contingent crying "MILITIA MILITIA MILITIA!" everytime the second amendment was mentioned. Why would we NOT look at the original intent of the 2nd amendment to determine whether the 2nd amendment was an individual or collectivist right? All 9 judges, BTW, agreed that the 2nd amendment was an individual right.

[Shryke]

But "original intent" is largely irrelevant because shit CHANGES. ALOT.

The 2nd Amendment is a perfect example. People focus on the "Militia" part because that, to many, seems to be the purpose of it. And yet, could your Founding Fathers have conceived of the kinds of weapons that would be available to it's government in this modern age and how these weapons would fundamentally change the way war works? I don't think so.

Should we be looking at the specific historical context of the Constitution, which would be the original intent? Or should we be looking at the original intent of that historical context?

Were your Founding Fathers trying to establish a Gun-Wielding Militia? Or were they trying to establish a Militia that was capable of something, and at the time guns were the way to accomplish that?

[The_BlauerDragon]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1756033' date='Apr 15 2009, 10.45']But "original intent" is largely irrelevant because shit CHANGES. ALOT.

The 2nd Amendment is a perfect example. People focus on the "Militia" part because that, to many, seems to be the purpose of it. And yet, could your Founding Fathers have conceived of the kinds of weapons that would be available to it's government in this modern age and how these weapons would fundamentally change the way war works? I don't think so.

Should we be looking at the specific historical context of the Constitution, which would be the original intent? Or should we be looking at the original intent of that historical context?

Were your Founding Fathers trying to establish a Gun-Wielding Militia? Or were they trying to establish a Militia that was capable of something, and at the time guns were the way to accomplish that?[/quote]
At the time? I think that they were trying to ensure that the people would never again have to live in fear of their government. Unfortunately, it would appear that they grossly overestimated the intelligence of future generations.

[The_BlauerDragon]

[quote name='Triskele' post='1756054' date='Apr 15 2009, 10.57']I have an AK-47 that I sleep with every night. Each night before I go to bed I remind myself that this could be the night that they finally come for all of us and I've got to be ready. I'm freedom's front line I tell myself.[/quote]
Yuck it up fuzzball... Now that my government has named me as a member of a "Terrorist Hate Group" because I have had the audacity to criticize their actions and question their motives, I find the issue slightly less humorous than you do. Tonight literally could be the night that they come for me.

[TrackerNeil]

[quote name='Tempra' post='1756022' date='Apr 15 2009, 13.38']Of course they can interpret the constitution. The Supreme Court serves no function without interpretating the constitution. For example, it is perfectly fine for the USSC to interpret whether pornography is protected by the first amendment. Not so fine for the USSC to go "Well, i'll take a bit of the first, fourth, fifth, ninth, and fourtheen amendments and pretend that all of them together create a right to privacy." That is judicial activism. Now, i AGREE with the outcome, but not the means of those decisions. That is judicial usurpation of legislative prerogative and is meant to be left to the amendment process.[/quote]

Tempra, I suggest that anyone who uses the term "judicial activism" needs to re-think this entire issue. That term is a right-wing invention used to legitimize displeasure with this or that ruling. I am certain that some were similarly displeased with [i]Brown vs. Board of Education[/i], but that didn't stop George Bush, who supposedly hates "judicial activism", from praising that decision fifty years after its passage. I know a few attorneys who were shocked to see a conservative Supreme Court apply equal protection to an electoral recount, but conservatives got behind the results of [i]Bush vs. Gore[/i] all the same. It seems, therefore, a decision is judicial activism only when one disagrees with it.

[Shryke]

[quote name='the Blauer Dragon' post='1756069' date='Apr 15 2009, 14.10']Yuck it up fuzzball... Now that my government has named me as a member of a "Terrorist Hate Group" because I have had the audacity to criticize their actions and question their motives, I find the issue slightly less humorous than you do. Tonight literally could be the night that they come for me.[/quote]

They didn't name you a member of anything. They just sent a memo saying "Hey, remember Domestic Terrorism? You know, the crazy guys who blow us up that AREN'T Muslim? Yeah, check into them too".

[The_BlauerDragon]

[quote name='Triskele' post='1756078' date='Apr 15 2009, 11.18']Which "terrorist hate group" have you been named a member of and why specifically?[/quote]
On April 7, Janet Napolitano's Department of Homeland Security sent a nine-page warning memo to law enforcement offices across the country titled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."
[quote name='Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment']"Right-wing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), [b]and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.[/b] It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."[/quote]
To put it softly, because I am a conservative, and have espoused disapproval of the actions taken by my government, and because I have stated repeatedly that I would like to see the size and reach of the Federal govermnet reduced, I am in the group described. Now I think I know why they didn't close Gitmo down, they were saving it for use on Americans.

[Shryke]

You'd better get down in your Bomb Shelter man, the GOVERNMENT IS COMING!~!!@!@!!!@!@!~!~#!!!!~!1

[DanteGabriel]

Every word you post on these forums just incriminates you further for Obama's jackbooted ACORN welfare-sucking Black Panther Muslim ninjas.

[The_BlauerDragon]

They have NINJAS?!?!?!? YIPES!!! Maybe I will go start digging a bomb shelter!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DG,

[quote name='DanteGabriel' post='1756097' date='Apr 15 2009, 14.31']Every word you post on these forums just incriminates you further for Obama's jackbooted ACORN welfare-sucking Black Panther Muslim ninjas.[/quote]

I guess I'm glad I got my passport before the memo was issued given my, very public, views regarding Federal v. State power.