U.S. Politics, 15

[Fez]

Which is why they provided mechanisms to change them.

Yeah, but we never use them. Instead we just argue over what they 'would've thought' and semantics about sentence structure. It would be funny if the stakes weren't so high.

[Lord O' Bones]

Damnit! I want my random idiots shooting at local council members ready militia!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Fez,

I think the point is that there are mechanisms for changing the existing law. If we just let the law mean whatever we want it to mean at the time it's meaningless.

[Fez]

Fez,

I think the point is that there are mechanisms for changing the existing law. If we just let the law mean whatever we want it to mean at the time it's meaningless.

Why? Shouldn't the law reflect what our values are? And isn't it better if we get to decide our own values rather than having to keep the ones of those who came before?

[Lord O' Bones]

Fez,

I think the point is that there are mechanisms for changing the existing law. If we just let the law mean whatever we want it to mean at the time it's meaningless.

Adamantly disagree. If we, as a nation decide that murder should be legal, it should be.

I am aware of the

here your Euro commie bastards.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Fez,

So, if we no longer value freedom of speech or freedom of religionwe should just pretend those rights aren't expressly protected by the Constitution? Further, if we don't like such protections or if we want to expand the power of the Federal Government why not amend the Constitution and change what we want to change?

After all if the document can mean anything it essentially means nothing, even the stuff we like. I have to ask, in that case, why have a written Constitution at all?

[Lord O' Bones]

why have a written Constitution at all?

So editors and people in touch with current reality still have jobs?

[Fez]

Fez,

So, if we no longer value freedom of speech or freedom of religionwe should just pretend those rights aren't expressly protected by the Constitution? Further, if we don't like such protections or if we want to expand the power of the Federal Government why not amend the Constitution and change what we want to change?

After all if the document can mean anything it essentially means nothing, even the stuff we like. I have to ask, in that case, why have a written Constitution at all?

If we, as a people, no longer value those freedoms than frankly we deserve what we get. But I'm not saying lets constantly change it, just once every several decades. That way long-term value changes can be incorporated while avoiding sudden "shifts in the wind" changes.

There was a time when laws were on the books that homosexual relations were classified as sodomy and were illegal, now there are none (though not until 2003, kinda disgraceful). Do our laws on other sex crimes now mean nothing because we've changed what is covered under their scope?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Fez,

I don't disagree. However, if we are going to change use the mechanisms built in don't play the "living document" game.

[Lord O' Bones]

I don't disagree. However, if we are going to change use the mechanisms built in don't play the "living document" game.

Are we no longer concerned with the Founding Fathers' intent?

I don't think the "living document" is a game or I'd fess up to playing it.

[Fez]

Fez,

I don't disagree. However, if we are going to change use the mechanisms built in don't play the "living document" game.

I don't believe I did. I called them slave owning hypocrites, I really don't care what they'd say about the internet or abortion or modern healthcare or anything else.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

LoB,

I don't think original intent should be the only factor the Court considers. However, I also don't like using the Court to bypass the amnendment process as occured in the Wickard case.

[Lord O' Bones]

LoB,

I don't think original intent should be the only factor the Court considers. However, I also don't like using the Court to bypass the amnendment process as occured in the Wickard case.

The "court" and the "constitution" are so divorced at this point, the whole thing should be re-evaluated by a third party.

[Lord O' Bones]

Oh lord. But if necessary...

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Who would be the neutral arbitrator?

[Swordfish]

I would.

[Lord O' Bones]

Who would be the neutral arbitrator?

I wish I knew. But my ignorance does not negate the necessity.

[MinDonner]

I am aware of the

here your Euro commie bastards.

Am I being really dumb? The significance of the link escapes me. Maybe just too tired.

But anyway, Scot, you're moving goalposts like nobody's business. The concept of "freedom of <whatever>" is, and should be, totally independent from the subject of whoever thought of it, I'm not sure why anyone would argue otherwise (unless seriously proposing that they are some kind of infallible deity). This whole argument only came up because Tormund made some point about spinning in graves, and the sensible response to this is "so what?".

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Min,

Well, I brought that up because those freedoms and the idea of enumurated powers were written into the Constitution by those hypocritcial racists. Given that those hypocrits aren't to be looked to because they are so unsavory I wondered if that made all their ideas suspect?

And yes, it was a rather snarky sarcastic question.

[BloodRider]

I'll just leave this here:

http://gawker.com/5713041/judge-who-ruled-health-care-reform-unconstitutional-owns-piece-of-gop-consulting-firm