Let's talk about Constitutional Amendments

[witesoxfan]

So speak.

[maggsmaggs]

I am not sure if this is the kind of discussion you meant, but I believe the Constitution is a living and breathing document and should be interpreted as such. The Framers of the Constitution could not have possibly imagined what society would look like today and interpreting the Constitution with a strictly originalist view is, to me, kind of asinine. Perhaps on some issues, looking at the Framers' intent is helpful to discern underlying values in the our society at the time, but to use 18th values in shaping the fabric of society in 21st Century America just doesn't make much sense to me.

[Texsox]

I am not sure if this is the kind of discussion you meant, but I believe the Constitution is a living and breathing document and should be interpreted as such. The Framers of the Constitution could not have possibly imagined what society would look like today and interpreting the Constitution with a strictly originalist view is, to me, kind of asinine. Perhaps on some issues, looking at the Framers' intent is helpful to discern underlying values in the our society at the time, but to use 18th values in shaping the fabric of society in 21st Century America just doesn't make much sense to me.

^^ ^^

 

Saved me from typing it.

[StrangeSox]

Abolish The 3rd

[kapkomet]

Abolish it all... because your side already has.

 

If the Constitution has issues and needs to be modified, there's mechanisms in place to do so. No one cares anymore that there is a legitimate process to change it... so it is "morphed" into whatever you want it to be? Messed up.

 

[Balta1701]

Abolish it all... because your side already has.

[Texsox]

Abolish it all... because your side already has.

 

If the Constitution has issues and needs to be modified, there's mechanisms in place to do so. No one cares anymore that there is a legitimate process to change it... so it is "morphed" into whatever you want it to be? Messed up.

 

Do you mean the Patriot Act? That was not exactly a liberal policy. Do you mean rendering a free press worthless? That would be conservatives trying that one. Do you mean trying to take away the role of judges as defined by the constitution? That would be the GOP as well.

[kapkomet]

Do you mean the Patriot Act? That was not exactly a liberal policy. Do you mean rendering a free press worthless? That would be conservatives trying that one. Do you mean trying to take away the role of judges as defined by the constitution? That would be the GOP as well.

 

 

You can't be serious.

[bmags]

I got a concussion from facepalming Kaps responses.

[DukeNukeEm]

The Constitution is like jaywalking. Sure its a law, but nobody cares and nobody bothers to follow it.

 

 

[bmags]

My god.

[Texsox]

 

You can't be serious.

100%. Dead serious and probably the #1 reason I all but abandoned the Republican party.

 

The GOP believes guns are our best defense against a tyrannical government, I believe a free press to watch over the government and courts to overturn any laws that are unconstitutional are much more effective. But the GOP has waged a three decade war against both the press and the courts trying to stop the watchdogs and the judges. They label any decisions they do not like as activist judges, regardless of the law. They want the public to dismiss any negative reporting by calling it liberal bias. So what happens when the press is ignored and the courts are powerless to stop unconstitutional laws? We hand over the keys to the country to the currently elected representatives and they can do whatever they wish.

 

Willing to read a well reasoned and intelligent reply.

 

 

[Texsox]

 

You can't be serious.

100%. Dead serious and probably the #1 reason I all but abandoned the Republican party.

 

The GOP believes guns are our best defense against a tyrannical government, I believe a free press to watch over the government and courts to overturn any laws that are unconstitutional are much more effective. But the GOP has waged a three decade war against both the press and the courts trying to stop the watchdogs and the judges. They label any decisions they do not like as activist judges, regardless of the law. They want the public to dismiss any negative reporting by calling it liberal bias. So what happens when the press is ignored and the courts are powerless to stop unconstitutional laws? We hand over the keys to the country to the currently elected representatives and they can do whatever they wish.

 

Willing to read a well reasoned and intelligent reply.

 

 

[farmteam]

The general dilemma, in my view, is that every civilized society needs a set of rules to work under. These are the ones we have. We can add amendments, or even create a new Constitution, but good luck on getting anyone to agree on what the amendment(s) or new Constitution would say, especially in these antagonistic times.

[Jenksismyhero]

100%. Dead serious and probably the #1 reason I all but abandoned the Republican party.

 

The GOP believes guns are our best defense against a tyrannical government, I believe a free press to watch over the government and courts to overturn any laws that are unconstitutional are much more effective. But the GOP has waged a three decade war against both the press and the courts trying to stop the watchdogs and the judges. They label any decisions they do not like as activist judges, regardless of the law. They want the public to dismiss any negative reporting by calling it liberal bias. So what happens when the press is ignored and the courts are powerless to stop unconstitutional laws? We hand over the keys to the country to the currently elected representatives and they can do whatever they wish.

 

Willing to read a well reasoned and intelligent reply.

 

This is crap, frankly. Both sides cry foul when they lose a case, and for both it's because of activist judges. Scalia, Alito and Thomas are just hard line conservatives that hate gays, women and freedom in every decision they make. And liberals whine incessantly about Fox News and how awful and biased they are. b****ing is part of the American way and everyone does it. I despise the fact that people think that's one sided.

 

 

[Y2HH]

This is crap, frankly. Both sides cry foul when they lose a case, and for both it's because of activist judges. Scalia, Alito and Thomas are just hard line conservatives that hate gays, women and freedom in every decision they make. And liberals whine incessantly about Fox News and how awful and biased they are. b****ing is part of the American way and everyone does it. I despise the fact that people think that's one sided.

 

It's the most hilarious part of the argument...because you can tell when a person has gone too far into one side or the other, because they believe exactly this.

[bmags]

To be fair, it's pretty clear that Scalia does hate gays.

[Jenksismyhero]

To be fair, it's pretty clear that Scalia does hate gays.

 

I think he views that as a social issue that should be decided by the states, not 9 people in robes. He's pretty consistent with that general philosophy in his opinions.

[BigSqwert]

...and he hates gays.

[StrangeSox]

I think he views that as a social issue that should be decided by the states, not 9 people in robes. He's pretty consistent with that general philosophy in his opinions.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Laugh all you want, there are exceptions to every rule, but he almost always want to defer to state legislatures to decide social issues like that. i think even in his abortion decisions he's said it's not the supreme court's role to decide if there is some right to an abortion or not

[StrangeSox]

Scalia's only consistency is in consistently finding ways to fit the law to the conclusions he'd prefer. He's a standard reactionary conservative and judges that way.

[Jenksismyhero]

Scalia's only consistency is in consistently finding ways to fit the law to the conclusions he'd prefer. He's a standard reactionary conservative and judges that way.

 

Name me a judge that isn't like that. That's the only way to be a judge.

[bmags]

I think he views that as a social issue that should be decided by the states, not 9 people in robes. He's pretty consistent with that general philosophy in his opinions.

 

I don't think you could read his comments or opinions in cases like lawrence and not come to the conclusion that he believes that gay acts are immoral.

[StrangeSox]

Name me a judge that isn't like that. That's the only way to be a judge.

 

It's funny because of his whole supposed judicial philosophy that explicitly claims he doesn't do that.

 

I don't think someone like Thomas, for example, is the same as Scalia in that sense. I agree with probably even less of what he says, but he's at least consistent. Scalia simply makes s*** up as he goes to justify his conclusions and even tosses in tangential political rants into dissents at times.