Calling the Constitution a living document is typical leftist propoganda. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. No federal or state law can violate the Constitution. The only way it can be amended is by 2/3rds approval from Congress and 3/4ths of the states, or by Constitutional Convention and 2/3rds of the states.

In the Federalists Papers Thomas Jefferson said "The Constitution on which our nation resides shall be administered according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by a plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of adoption. A meaning to be found in those advocating, not those who oppose it". James Madison said "The explanations are preserved in the publications of the time. Do not seperate the text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government".

If the Comstitution were a living document, and the meaning were to change every time political sentiment changes any law at any time could be deemed unconstitutional. This would lead to total chaos. The limitations on the powers of government are clearly spelled out for a reason. It is done so to keep judges, presidents, and congressman from manipulating law to fit their political agenda.

Since the 1930's the Supreme Court has been interpreting law to determine what they believe to be constitutional, and what is not. This goes against what the founders intended for the Supreme Court. The constitution does not grant the Supreme Court the authority of judicial review.

The Constitution is not open to interpretation. It means exactly what it says, and the ways of amending what is says are clearly defined. False interpretations of the Constitution have lead to the bloated monstrosity of a government we have now. It's no wonder we are in the mess we are in when even our own president disregards the constitution, and distorts it to fit his own political agenda. The framers of the Constitution knew this would happen, and gave congress the power to stop it. It's to bad we don't have a congress with enough backbone to stand up and say enough.

 

acook02, you made this thread and posted it at 1:37 p.m., it is now 8:01 p.m., yet you zero responses.

Why is that?

Is the U.S. Constitution something none of the leftists want to discuss?, is it like holy water, the forbidden fruit, a silver bullet, or is it that they dont like to be challenged on the actual reason for the creation of the U.S. Constitution, which was to limit the power of the federal fucking government?

Big federal fucking government leftists.....................COME.

 

Letter to James Madison
Thomas Jefferson

Paris

September 06, 1789

On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished them, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/letter-to-james-madison-17/

 

The man was expressing his thought, no harm in that, BUT, let me tell you what he actually meant by this, it is 180 degrees opposite of what you leftists are interpreting;

It had everything to due with ''property law'',any constitutions which are built upon a basis of social justice need not apply to the United States of America, we have rights which are inalienable by social justice.

The U.S. Constitution was not to be disregarded every 19 years, and another adopted, as you leftist/progressive/democrat/communist/socialist/dictator/nanny state might think.

 

There is nothing sacred about the United States Constitution. Those who wrote and signed it did not claim Divine inspiration. They did not have it.

Old constitutions are replaced with new constitutions all the time. The reason the U.S. Constitution has lasted as long as it has is because it is vaguely worded, and thus it has been able to flex in response to changes in popular opinion.

If the majority of the voters favor a policy, that is what matters, and not what you and other reactionaries think the so called "Founding Fathers" would have thought of the policy. Most of these so called "Founding Fathers" owned slaves. I am confident that all or virtually all thought that women and non whites should not be allowed to vote.

I am certain that all of these so called "Founding Fathers" would have disapproved of the reforms of the New Deal. That does not matter. This is what matters:

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.5 Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

- Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1954 letter to his brother Edgar
Document #1147; November 8, 1954
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x350935

 

It took a constitutional amendment to give women and former slaves the right to vote.

 

The government no longer respects the constitution whatsoever. Nor do they have any respect for the American slaves that are in a police state because the people failed miserably at keeping the government in line.

 

'' Ma'am, you have a Republic, for as long as you can keep it''

Ben Franklin.

 

That's exactly how you leach leftist see it, it needs to be abolished according to you low-life form leftist. The U.S. Constitution is the Law of land, the 39 that signed this ''SACRED DOCUMENT'' knew that you big government idiots would encroach on personal liberties in a manner as they have today.

The U.S. Constitution is not vaguely worded, it's worded in a manner that can be interpreted rather easily by the 'individual' as it was intended.

The big government intellectuals/academic idiots are always twisting and manipulating the interpretations by taking phrases and terms totally out of context, hence; ''general welfare'' clause.

That would be a 'democracy' the U.S is not based on a democracy, it is based on a constitutional republic, just another example of simpleminded non thinking leftists manipulating history.

Just another example of leftist ignorance, comparing today to 200+ years ago, the founding fathers were hell bent on abolishing slavery, I have presented thorough, factual evidence to you, yet you pulled the typical DL, and chose to ignore that presented evidence, due to your weakness and shallow closed mind.

Women did not play any roll outside of the home, they did nothing but care for the family, and the home.

They did in fact disapprove of big federal fucking government socialism, because the founding father created the ultimate form of government; ''CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC'' that was intended to promote personal responsibility, liberty, individualism, restricting the powers of a central government.

YES, in the eyes of a big government leftist leach, it doesn't matter, that is proven on a daily basis, by spouting this type of bullshit that you do.

Buying the voters.

 

All I need to know about how valuable your opinion is now marked in red. If you don't know that Thomas Jefferson did not write any of the Federalist Papers (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay did); If you don't know that the Constitution has been interpreted since the first Congress in 1790 and that the Supreme Court has been judging constitutionality since 1801, there is no reason to pay attention to anything else you say on the subject.

 

Reactionaries think they know more about the U.S. Constitution than the President of the United States, Congressional leaders, Supreme Court Justices, and the American electorate. They are like people who think that God speaks to the personally, when it turns out that everything they think God tells them is what they want to believe anyway.

 

Not to bother quoting another bonehead above, but clarifying: THE CONSTITUTION WAS NOT WRITTEN TO RESTRICT THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, BUT RATHER TO EXPAND ITS POWERS IN ORDER TO BETTER COORDINATE AND BENEFIT THE NATION AS A WHOLE AFTER THE DISASTER THAT WAS THE CONFEDERATION GOVERNMENT PRECEDING, WHICH HAD A WEAK, VIRTUALLY POWERLESS, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. While it is true that the framers of the Constitution did not want a supreme power at center that would potentially be dictatorial, to say that the Constitution was a step to further limit national authority is just ignorant.

 

There are those who could reasonably argue that the 10th Amendment clarifies the point that the Constitution limits the powers that are granted the federal government.

 

You mean to emphasize what I said about not wanting the central government to have too much power? Agreed. There is a difference between EXPANDING the powers of a central government (which the Constitution was INTENDED to do, and DID) and not expanding that power too much.

 

This is a matter of semantics, is the application of limits really a means of expansion? By telling someone that they can do these 10 things, are you expanding their rights because they previously were allowed to do only 8 things?

Here you've got me, I have always believed that the intention of the US Constitution was first and foremost to insure that the people were granting certain powers to the federal government through it, not vice versa.

 

Your strong opinions do not compensate for your lack of knowledge.

 

Amendment VIII - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

What is "excessive bail?" What are "excessive fines?" "What are cruel and unusual punishments?"

 

Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany
Thomas Jefferson
Monticello
August 26, 1816

The full experiment of a government democratical, but representative, was and is still reserved for us. The idea (taken, indeed, from the little specimen formerly existing in the English constitution, but now lost) has been carried by us, more or less, into all our legislative and executive departments; but it has not yet, by any of us, been pushed into all the ramifications of the system, so far as to leave no authority existing not responsible to the people; whose rights, however, to the exercise of fruits of their own industry, can never be protected against the selfishness of rulers not subject to their control at short periods. The introduction of this new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure of government
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/letter-to-isaac-h-tiffany/

 

I pointed out that most of those so called "Founding Fathers" owned slaves. I am sure many were the fathers of some of their slaves. Several slave owners, like Jefferson, felt guilty about slavery, but not guilty enough to free their slaves. Jefferson did not, not even in his will. Not one of these so called "Founding Fathers" advocated the abolition of slavery. Even Abraham Lincoln did not advocate that when running for President in 1860.

 

It worked because most of the voters wanted it. The Democrats have unfortunately let the tax issue get away from them. In his book The Emerging Republican Majority, published in 1969, Kevin Phillips said that the programs of the New Deal were politically sustainable because they taxed the richest ten percent of the country very heavily to play for benefits enjoyed by the rest of the country. He said that the War on Poverty was not politically sustainable because it taxed most Americans to pay for benefits going to the poorest ten percent.

When most Americans got more from the government than they paid in taxes the Democrats dominated the country.