Poll: How do you interpret the Constitution?

[mizzou]

Hands down, one of the best legal documents ever created outside of religion. Any historian worth their grain of salt will admit that.

So...treat it as such.

 

[nextJin]

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

This,

It's a living document that should be changed with to the times by Congress. When people say "living" they apply current verbiage or actions and apply them to aspects which obviously were not intended.

It shouldn't be interpreted any differently than what the original intent was, if it fails to work as 2/3 of the people (Congress) need it to in current times then vote amend it to make it perfectly clear what the intent is.

It's a poor poll in that it should ask a more varied question on the term "living". As it reads right now everyone should vote that it's living.

 

[Incorruptible]

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.

Pathetic. Why are you defending the burka? You are PC and wont dare say anything about radical Islam or the burka but you probably have no problem attacking Christians

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Pathetic. Why are you defending the burka? You are PC and wont dare say anything about radical Islam or the burka but you probably have no problem attacking Christians

Lol you really are sad. I'm not defending anything. I don't have to. It's their choice.

What I'm doing is attacking your holier than though hypocritical bullshit by pointing out, yet again, that you talk out of your ass. Notice you completely ignored the freedom to choose you want to remove from individuals? I'm certain everyone else did even of you intentionally try to ignore it.

You're a fucking joke. Just a sad sad person. May Allah have mercy on your soul.

 

[Fern]

I think it more the latter of the two choices the OP provides. However, it can change, there's an amendment process specifically for that purpose.

One of my biggest problems with "how it's viewed" is that too many people seem to think the answer to every question can be found in the Constitution if you look hard enough. It is a finite well-defined set of standards and if the subject matter falls outside of those, like legalized pot, it should get kicked down to the states to decide. Instead of recognizing the obvious (the states were set up to be little laboratories) we have people finding the answer to such questions as legalized pot in places like the Interstate Commerce Clause when the issue never even involved interstate commerce.

Fern

 

[NoStateofMind]

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 at all. So I'll wait a little longer before responding. My apologies folks.

 

[Orignal Earl]

I thought this guy over at reddit did a nice summary

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/...ill_revere_the_constitution_so_highly/c8jlp0z