Originalism: the narrow, fixed in time interpretation of the US Constitution is flawed and wrong

[Nationalist]

On 8/31/2024 at 8:49 PM, Rebound said:

Dum Dum, the constitution does not say the President has the power to break ANY law.  If you could read, you’d know it. 
 

You know perfectly well that if the Founders intended to let the President break any law, the Constitution would say so.  But a President who can break any law is not President of a democracy, he’s a dictator. If Congress attempts impeachment, the President “officially” dissolves Congress, or arrests 1/3 of them.  That’s how dictatorships operate. 

What law might we be talking about here?

BTW...how many Republicans have been treated to prosecution now?

You bet your limp dick we can prosecute 1/3 of them. You traitors showed us how. Set the precedent. 

After thought: People like Pelosi, Schumer and the like, better pray they stay in office. Once out, they become targets of the law.

Edited September 2, 2024 by Nationalist

[User]

7 hours ago, myata said:

A closed group that is bent on exclusive access to the Constitution and interpretation of its meaning. Priests, in the times of pharaohs. Unelected too. With no way for the public to decide what their Constitution should mean and how it should be read. Define elitism.

Separation of Powers. The Executive appoints the Judiciary with Senate Confirmation. The people can elect both the Executive and Senate. Congress can impeach the judiciary. States and Congress can pass Amendments to the Constitution. 

There is not closed exclusive access to the Constitution. 

This stuff is taught in grade school for crying out loud. This is basic civics. 

 

 

 

Edited September 2, 2024 by User

[suds]

7 hours ago, myata said:

WTH? Referendums are wrong now? Where? Its a staple, normal and regular thing in many advanced democracies. Where are we heading in time, seriously? And who was saying that elitism was oh so wrong only a moment back? Just look where the folk-loving elites chastising agenda (ostensibly, can't be all about just elect me, can it?) will get you in a flash, if not watching closely.

I've no problem with referendums in general, sometimes it's a good idea and sometimes it's not. Referendums are the perfect example of direct democracy and happen at the state level all the time. But they're not exactly 'final' because the U.S. Supreme Court has the power of judicial review. What you clearly want is the ability to hold  referendums on U.S Supreme Court decisions and making it 'final'. Well good luck with that.... you'd better get rid of Article 3. The U.S. was created as a representative democracy and not a 'direct democracy' for good reason. For one thing, too much democracy may come at the expense of rights and freedoms as the founders feared. To put it more simply, one of government's most important roles is protecting the rights and freedoms of all citizens, while democracy suggests government should function strictly by the will of the majority. Btw....  how did brexit turn out?

[suds]

8 hours ago, Nationalist said:

So...you don't like Democracy.

Understood.

I don't think you do. I like liberal democracies, constitutional democracies, representative democracies, but not a big fan of direct democracies.

[Nationalist]

1 minute ago, suds said:

I don't think you do. I like liberal democracies, constitutional democracies, representative democracies, but not a big fan of direct democracies.

So majority rule...what is commonly known as "democracy"...is an obstruction to your purpose.

Got it.

[suds]

40 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

So majority rule...what is commonly known as "democracy"...is an obstruction to your purpose.

Got it.

It should be obvious to anyone by now that the term 'democracy' can be seen in a number of different ways.  Is there a direct (majority rule) democracy in effect anywhere in the world today?  And what exactly is 'my purpose'?

[Nationalist]

6 minutes ago, suds said:

It should be obvious to anyone by now that the term 'democracy' can be seen in a number of different ways.  Is there a direct (majority rule) democracy in effect anywhere in the world today?  And what exactly is 'my purpose'?

Lol...democracy. A political format with elections and majority rule.

Your attempts to obscure that simple and correct interpretation and definition, is only necessary for enemies of democracy.

[suds]

4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Lol...democracy. A political format with elections and majority rule.

Your attempts to obscure that simple and correct interpretation and definition, is only necessary for enemies of democracy.

Look bud, I'm not about to start playing silly little word games. If you can't understand what I'm trying to convey in response to Myata's posts then I'm finished with you.

[Nationalist]

Just now, suds said:

Look bud, I'm not about to start playing silly little word games. If you can't understand what I'm trying to convey in response to Myata's posts then I'm finished with you.

I'm not your "bud". My "buds" treasure democracy and will shut you fascists down every time.

It's you playing word games...trying to obscure the meaning of democracy with pure chickenshit.

But ya...run along now sonny. You been had.

[suds]

14 hours ago, myata said:

A closed group that is bent on exclusive access to the Constitution and interpretation of its meaning. Priests, in the times of pharaohs. Unelected too. With no way for the public to decide what their Constitution should mean and how it should be read. Define elitism.

Generally I'm not a big fan of elitism either. We vote for federal MP's, city councilors, mayors, school board trustees, provincial MPP's, and it's fairly egalitarian as far as I can see. But when it comes to our justice system,  our Courts, and especially the Supreme Court, I think I'd start being a little picky and prefer those who were skilled in matters of the law and constitution. But that's me. You on the other hand want 'the people' to have the final say. And maybe to reduce the backlog, we can get Freddie the bootlegger to fill in and do some brain surgery in his spare time                         

[myata]

12 hours ago, suds said:

I think I'd start being a little picky and prefer those who were skilled in matters of the law and constitution. But that's me. You on the other hand want 'the people' to have the final say.

I would disagree that it's a matter of individual preferences. The problems are both real: the trend to close the circle where important or critical decisions are made can be dangerous. Without accountability and effective oversight, many examples where it led to bad consequences are known in history. On the other hand, granted, allowing layman populism fix any issues on the spot, can be risky as well. So should there be some balance between these extremes, where neither is allowed to dominate? Indeed, this is my opinion. Citizen oversight is needed everywhere, in every domain and office of democracy, as long as it lasts. There has to be a responsible, reasonable process for citizens to have their say in the constitutional matters as well. There's nothing new or radical in that, it's a standard practice in many modern democracies. And without it the system is incomplete and in my opinion, cannot be in principle.

[CdnFox]

13 hours ago, suds said:

Generally I'm not a big fan of elitism either. We vote for federal MP's, city councilors, mayors, school board trustees, provincial MPP's, and it's fairly egalitarian as far as I can see. But when it comes to our justice system,  our Courts, and especially the Supreme Court, I think I'd start being a little picky and prefer those who were skilled in matters of the law and constitution. But that's me. You on the other hand want 'the people' to have the final say. And maybe to reduce the backlog, we can get Freddie the bootlegger to fill in and do some brain surgery in his spare time                         

Well you hit it exactly. Politics is definitely the realm of personal opinion and popularity and so on. But the judicial system should not be. That needs to be decided purely on competence and experience and Skill.

Most of the lefties forget this, but harper came up with a brilliant little model for making sure judges were hired using an extremely fair and nonpartisan process that involved not only the government of the day but also the opposition, police, and experts from the legal community. All would have a say on the short list of candidates provided to make sure as many people as possible we're on board. It was the first thing Trudeau threw out and then went back to the party in power deciding the judges unilaterally.

But at the end of the day being a judge should not be an electable position.

[User]

53 minutes ago, myata said:

There has to be a responsible, reasonable process for citizens to have their say in the constitutional matters as well.

There is... for crying out loud, stop cowardly ignoring me. 

"Separation of Powers. The Executive appoints the Judiciary with Senate Confirmation. The people can elect both the Executive and Senate. Congress can impeach the judiciary. States and Congress can pass Amendments to the Constitution. 

There is not closed exclusive access to the Constitution. 

This stuff is taught in grade school for crying out loud. This is basic civics."

[Deluge]

On 8/31/2024 at 6:12 AM, myata said:

The proposition that the meaning of the Constitution was intended to be literal, fixed in time and has to be interpreted as such is based on two assumptions that are entertained by the judges and pundits who adopt and promote it today:

First, that formulation of general foundational principles guiding the evolution of the legal framework of the society isn't possible. This postulate is overturned by logic and the factual record in the history: it is obvious to any intelligent being that the state of a society cannot be captured and frozen in time; it changes continuously and so should be any literal and frozen constitutional framework. Then, the US constitution has survived for over two centuries, based mostly on the general principles coined centuries back so an expression of general norms and principles guiding the society was possible back then. So, what the proponents of this idea want to tell us, we are less smart, regressing in time relative to the democracy and constitutional thought of our ancestors and founders: while they, back then, dared to think and form general foundations and principles, we here can only think of coining, copy-pasting them in fixed and literal terms.

What would be the point of codifying a rule or precept that is specifically related to a certain unique event that may not happen again, ever? No, doesn't make any sense: if someone, anyone would be non-smart enough (is there a better word?) to think that, they would be saying that our ancestors, the creators of this system that we used for centuries, were no smarter than them. Wrong. Not true. They were intelligent, daring and willing to think and create and history itself is the proof and testament of that.

But then, one cannot escape the conclusion that in this interpretation, of narrow, literal, coined meaning of the Constitution there has to be a functional, efficient process of changing an updating it as and when needed. Disagreeing with it would imply that a society can be frozen in time: and how non-smart would that be?

One couldn't logically avoid this double dumb dead end: if the founding fathers were no smarter than us, then we have to assume that society doesn't and shouldn't change. Back to horsepower. What is electricity? What Internet?

That this non-starter idea could capture such a following itself can be an indication, a symptom of intellectual degradation, regress. Why and how not?

That is a stupid opinion. 

There are universal truths that will never bend for leftoids. It's why we have a Constitution in the first place - so that pervert degenerates like you can't change it to meet your selfish desires. 

Edited September 3, 2024 by Deluge

[Deluge]

On 8/31/2024 at 8:41 AM, Rebound said:

Originalism is nonsense, because it’s just a way for judges to apply their political opinions to the law. 
 

Besides that, America is an infinitely different nation than it was in 1787.  What kind of fool thinks we should manage the existence of the Internet and air travel the way they did in 1787?  What would that even mean? Interstate commerce was done over horse cart, not via instantaneous electronic transactions. 

Why don't you point out where the Constitution is "outdated"? 

[gatomontes99]

If we are going to continue talking about this and some are going to support the.living document b.s. then:

What meaning can the Constitution have if the meaning can change at a whim?

[User]

Just now, gatomontes99 said:

If we are going to continue talking about this and some are going to support the.living document b.s. then:

What meaning can the Constitution have if the meaning can change at a whim?

That is what they want. 

[myata]

The last non-trivial amendment was passed in the 1970s. That was before the Internet, and at least two generations have grown since. With the Congress hopelessly divided there's little to no chance of future changes, even most needed ones.

Dead brains won't see the reality the moment it begins to contradict their dogma. They'll strike their dead heads on the door frame or lie boldface and in the eyes. What else can be expected, when admitting the reality is not an option?

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, myata said:

The last non-trivial amendment was passed in the 1970s. That was before the Internet, and at least two generations have grown since. With the Congress hopelessly divided there's little to no chance of future changes, even most needed ones.

Dead brains won't see the reality the moment it begins to contradict their dogma. They'll strike their dead heads on the door frame or lie boldface and in the eyes. What else can be expected, when admitting the reality is not an option?

What you seem to be saying is that people won't support a change. 

That's how democracy works, and the system was put in place to ensure that there had to be real appitite for change before it happened. 

The 70's is within living memory. 'That's modern history.  

IF they want to change it they can change it and if they don't then that tells you something too. 

"I WANT TO CHANGE THE CONSITITUTION TO SAY WHAT I WANT!!!" - Myata

"Nobody else does, you're the only one" -  Everybody else

"THATS UNDEMOCRATIC!!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAHHHH"  - Myata. 

[User]

28 minutes ago, myata said:

The last non-trivial amendment was passed in the 1970s. That was before the Internet, and at least two generations have grown since. With the Congress hopelessly divided there's little to no chance of future changes, even most needed ones.

Dead brains won't see the reality the moment it begins to contradict their dogma. They'll strike their dead heads on the door frame or lie boldface and in the eyes. What else can be expected, when admitting the reality is not an option?

What are these most needed ones?

Sounds like you are just upset there is not enough desire for whatever amendments you want to push it through the proper process. 

So, instead of dealing with that, you are on here playing dumb about how this all works. 

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

What you seem to be saying is that people won't support a change. 

That's how democracy works, and the system was put in place to ensure that there had to be real appitite for change before it happened. 

The 70's is within living memory. 'That's modern history.  

IF they want to change it they can change it and if they don't then that tells you something too. 

"I WANT TO CHANGE THE CONSITITUTION TO SAY WHAT I WANT!!!" - Myata

"Nobody else does, you're the only one" -  Everybody else

"THATS UNDEMOCRATIC!!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAHHHH"  - Myata. 

Nailed it. 

[myata]

Between the two options: a closed group claiming exclusive access to the sacred texts, the right to read and interpret them, first claiming it should be read literally, letter by letter then turning around to find there something it obviously does not say (what "special circumstances", where is it written?); and citizens involved in maintaining their basic law via a responsible and involved process I would chose the reason-based one without much hesitation. Voodoo dancing around the fire in shamanic robes is the thing of the past. It has led to many problems every single time it was tried.

[gatomontes99]

19 minutes ago, myata said:

Between the two options: a closed group claiming exclusive access to the sacred texts, the right to read and interpret them, first claiming it should be read literally, letter by letter then turning around to find there something it obviously does not say (what "special circumstances", where is it written?); and citizens involved in maintaining their basic law via a responsible and involved process I would chose the reason-based one without much hesitation. Voodoo dancing around the fire in shamanic robes is the thing of the past. It has led to many problems every single time it was tried.

Lol...really? After I smacked down this b.s. thesis, you still stand by it?

[myata]

Every time someone, anyone is claiming the privilege and prerogative to read the intent that was not expressed explicitly, it's a symptom of at least one of the:

- They consider the original creators inferior to themselves (they couldn't formulate the norm explicitly, in a clear and transparent language)

- They seek the exclusive control over the reading and interpretation of the text.

Either of the claims is plainly outlandish, and one can be particularly dangerous.

Edited September 5, 2024 by myata

[User]

2 hours ago, myata said:

Between the two options: a closed group claiming exclusive access to the sacred texts, the right to read and interpret them, first claiming it should be read literally, letter by letter then turning around to find there something it obviously does not say (what "special circumstances", where is it written?); and citizens involved in maintaining their basic law via a responsible and involved process I would chose the reason-based one without much hesitation. Voodoo dancing around the fire in shamanic robes is the thing of the past. It has led to many problems every single time it was tried.

Those are not the two options. Again...

"Separation of Powers. The Executive appoints the Judiciary with Senate Confirmation. The people can elect both the Executive and Senate. Congress can impeach the judiciary. States and Congress can pass Amendments to the Constitution. 

There is not closed exclusive access to the Constitution. 

This stuff is taught in grade school for crying out loud. This is basic civics."

25 minutes ago, myata said:

Every time someone, anyone is claiming the privilege and prerogative to read the intent that was not expressed explicitly, it's a symptom of at least one of the:

- They consider the original creators inferior to themselves (they couldn't formulate the norm explicitly, in a clear and transparent language)

- They seek the exclusive control over the reading and interpretation of the text.

Either of the claims is plainly outlandish, and one can be particularly dangerous.

Again, you are having trouble here... 

"Separation of Powers. The Executive appoints the Judiciary with Senate Confirmation. The people can elect both the Executive and Senate. Congress can impeach the judiciary. States and Congress can pass Amendments to the Constitution. 

There is not closed exclusive access to the Constitution. 

This stuff is taught in grade school for crying out loud. This is basic civics."

[myata]

Book is not a replacement nor alternative to the reality that is staring us in the eyes. That idea can also be dangerous.