Poll: How do you interpret the Constitution?

[NoStateofMind]

After voting please take the time to leave a comment. I'll refrain from voting at this time.

EDIT:

In hindsight the options should have been

Its a living document meant to change with the times, no Right is safe from being removed/legislated.

Its a document with a set of Rights that cannot change. Outside of those its fair game.

So its kind of unfair to those who voted already. But I would still like to see how this changes your opinions, if at all. So I'll wait a little longer before responding. My apologies folks.

 

[fskimospy]

Everyone views it as a living document, it is only a matter of to what extent. You can't really look at it any other way.

The second amendment for example. 'Arms' in 1789 were muskets and such. No one really thinks the definition of 'arms' shouldn't evolve with the times. In a dead document the only arms protected are arms as defined when it was written. If you want everything but flintlocks banned, this is allowed without the Constitution being amenable to interpretation in a modern sense.

Same with the 4th amendment. What would the drafters think about spy satellite tech as it relates to an unreasonable search? Who knows? Our understanding of what is reasonable has to evolve with tech.

 

[soulcougher73]

I voted its a living document, but i think its a bit of both. I think there are some things that should never be changed in it, but the rest is up to change with the times. Im not going to get into specifics to break it down, but im sure most here probably feel the same way.

 

[soulcougher73]

Everyone views it as a living document, it is only a matter of to what extent. You can't really look at it any other way.

The second amendment for example. 'Arms' in 1789 were muskets and such. No one really thinks the definition of 'arms' shouldn't evolve with the times. In a dead document the only arms protected are arms as defined when it was written. If you want everything but flintlocks banned, this is allowed without the Constitution being amenable to interpretation in a modern sense.

Same with the 4th amendment. What would the drafters think about spy satellite tech as it relates to an unreasonable search? Who knows? Our understanding of what is reasonable has to evolve with tech.

The fact we even have "amendments" means its living

 

[sm625]

If the constitution is a living document then the Internal Revenue Code is a 400 ton tumor on it.

 

[irishScott]

You realize you just put an option that would say amendments are rules that cannot change, right? Logic. Get some.

 

[nehalem256]

The second amendment for example. 'Arms' in 1789 were muskets and such. No one really thinks the definition of 'arms' shouldn't evolve with the times. In a dead document the only arms protected are arms as defined when it was written. If you want everything but flintlocks banned, this is allowed without the Constitution being amenable to interpretation in a modern sense.

I think your interpretation of "living document" is ridiculous.

By the same token freedom of the press would not protect things printed on a laser printer

No one has ever defined "Arms" as narrowly as you did. And you are only trying to do so to make the idea of "living document" seem reasonable.

 

[Incorruptible]

The Constitution is an eternal document and really shouldn't be changed. There are some people who want to interpret it to only fit their views but are against it when it conflicts with their views

 

[Londo_Jowo]

It's a living document to a certain extent. It's great that it has set rules on what has to be done for amendments to modified, added, or removed.

 

[Farang]

The living/dead question is a false choice. It is living by anyone's standard, the Constitution as applied (and as the only way it could conceivably ever be applied) is by the interpretation of those reading it. Those people change. Further, the system we have gives weight to precedent of decisions on its interpretation from well after the time it was written.

The Constitution is merely the basis of the set of rules that evolves over time based on the interpretation (precedent) of those who read it over time.

As to what your question is really getting at, I don't agree with the Godlike reverence placed by some on the Founders in terms of applying their every move to our society today. Our country will not be best served by being ruled by a set of men who lived farther and farther in the past, and themselves had major flaws.

 

[finglobes]

The Constitution allows for changes to be made but the "living document" thing and the "penumbra" thing are often abusive interpretations. The main spirit of the Constitution is to ensure the people are sovereign, and the government and extension of them - not vice versa. That's why Obama ridiculous interpretation that the Constitution is failed because it doesn't force things like welfare redistribution shows you what a poor job Harvard does these days.

 

[fskimospy]

I think your interpretation of "living document" is ridiculous.

By the same token freedom of the press would not protect things printed on a laser printer

No one has ever defined "Arms" as narrowly as you did. And you are only trying to do so to make the idea of "living document" seem reasonable.

Yes, no one has defined arms in that way because everyone interprets it as a living document to at least some extent. I was showing you the consequences of not doing that.

That is why this is a silly argument, a totally dead Constitution is just an illogical mess.

 

[thraashman]

I feel a pretty good rule of thumb is to wait until Incorruptible chimes in ... then go another direction.

 

[Incorruptible]

I feel a pretty good rule of thumb is to wait until Incorruptible chimes in ... then go another direction.

According to your idiotic logic then we should get rid of the 1st Amendment then

We need the 1st Amendment

 

[MomentsofSanity]

The Constitution is an eternal document and really shouldn't be changed. There are some people who want to interpret it to only fit their views but are against it when it conflicts with their views

So what do you call it when you lobby to limit the freedom of people to wear what they choose since it doesn't conform to your tolerences?

You just love you some Constitution though.

 

[Anarchist420]

Given that all three men who wrote the Federalist papers believed in the living document view I'd say it was meant to be a living document.

The question is whether the Constitution is legitimate. I'd say it was not because it became legal only after it took effect and after Rhode Island was threatened with an invasion.

The Federalist Party was monarchist and the Federalist Papers were nothing more than lies and propaganda.

 

[Incorruptible]

So what do you call it when you lobby to limit the freedom of people to wear what they choose since it doesn't conform to your tolerences?

You just love you some Constitution though.

The burka itself is a violation of freedom since many of them are forced to wear it.

Its funny how the ignorant only want to obey the Constitution when it suits them, Your alright with the burka and income taxes which violate the Constitution

 

[MomentsofSanity]

The burka itself is a violation of freedom since many of them are forced to wear it.

Its funny how the ignorant only want to obey the Constitution when it suits them, Your alright with the burka and income taxes which violate the Constitution

You want to ban all people doing someone because you feel they are forced to do so. Many muslim women are proud of their culture and it's customs and do so with pride.

People like you make me sick. You wave the Constituion around screaming how no one else respects it while at the same time showing a complete disregard for it yourself. Meanwhile you are here bitching about how others do exactly that.

 

[lotus503]

Its a living document that by design should be very difficult to change.

 

[NoStateofMind]

You realize you just put an option that would say amendments are rules that cannot change, right? Logic. Get some.

Reference this post later for response.

 

[etrigan420]

Its a living document that by design should be very difficult to change.

Nailed it.

 

[JimKiler]

Its a living document that by design should be very difficult to change.

Nailed it.

Agreed thus i did not vote, i do not think either option was very good in how the constitution should be treated.

 

[werepossum]

The Constitution is a document meant to change only through the Amendment process, which is part of the Constitution itself. To claim that the Constitution is a "living document" which essentially means whatever we say it means is to negate the existence of the Constitution; if it says whatever we want it to say at the moment, clearly it says nothing at all. Unless one thinks that the State should have whatever power it wants to have, that's extremely troubling.

 

[werepossum]

Its a living document that by design should be very difficult to change.

But if by "living document" you mean it can be interpreted however we wish to interpret it, there is no point in ever changing it - it already says whatever we want it to say.

 

[fskimospy]

The Constitution is a document meant to change only through the Amendment process, which is part of the Constitution itself. To claim that the Constitution is a "living document" which essentially means whatever we say it means is to negate the existence of the Constitution; if it says whatever we want it to say at the moment, clearly it says nothing at all. Unless one thinks that the State should have whatever power it wants to have, that's extremely troubling.

So congress may ban all arms other than muskets? Or do you believe that the founders meant whatever arms were appropriate at the time?