Poll: How do you interpret the Constitution?

[NoStateofMind]

I have asked the other thread to be locked due to the previous poll not being clear enough.

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 in the other thread. 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.

EDIT: If your response is the same please copy paste your answer as this adds to the conversation. I appreciate your patience.

 

[shira]

Your choices are too extreme. Maybe YOU view the two choices you offer as being enough, but that just demonstrates that you're a black-and-white thinker.

How about:

The Constitution is a living document, requiring continual re-evaluation to ensure that its interpretation remains relevant to a rapidly changing world.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Your choices are too extreme. Maybe YOU view the two choices you offer as being enough, but that just demonstrates that you're a black-and-white thinker.

How about:

The Constitution is a living document, requiring continual re-evaluation to ensure that its interpretation remains relevant to a rapidly changing world.

We will discuss this further in a future time. However given your response you should vote option 1.

 

[werepossum]

Your choices are too extreme. Maybe YOU view the two choices you offer as being enough, but that just demonstrates that you're a black-and-white thinker.

How about:

The Constitution is a living document, requiring continual re-evaluation to ensure that its interpretation remains relevant to a rapidly changing world.

So, why even have a Constitution if we can simply re-interpret away our rights? What good is any guarantee of rights if it is being continually re-evaluated for relevancy, without need for the intentionally difficult Amendment process?

 

[Orignal Earl]

The first attempt at creating a new government after declaring independence was the Articles of Confederation. Inherent in this first attempt was a great disdain and distrust for the government. Consequently, they kept many powers out of the government, and the government suffered for it. It was unable to do many things, and it became readily apparent that this new government was ineffective.
When the time came to write the new Constitution, there two basic schools of thought. One school recognized that the Articles of Confederation created too weak a government to actually govern and survive. The new government under this new Constitution would have to be stronger and more capable. More capability, however, carried with it more power and authority.

Third, you have to understand what the Constitution is, who it's speaking to, and what it's saying.
The Constitution represents the framework of our (assuming you're American from here on out) government and, consequently, our society. It lays out the branches of government; it assigns basic roles, responsibilities, duties, and, perhaps most importantly, limitations.
The Constitution is a document directed at the government itself. It is not speaking to you or me. It is a set of rules the government must follow; it is not a set of rules the people must follow. If the Constitution doesn't allow the government to do it, or if the Constitution limits the government in a fashion, the government cannot do something.
For example, the First Amendment does not grant the citizens the freedom of speech. Rather, it prohibits the government from making any law restricting our free speech. In other words, we already have an inherent freedom of expression, and the government cannot restrict it. But private citizens can.

What the founding fathers did was to create a system that was flexible; it is limited yet strong. It has the ability to meet the changing needs of a dynamic country and the changing times. It gives the government various duties to perform, and it, importantly, gives the government the power to perform those functions while simultaneously keeping the power vested in the people.
The citizens have the authority and the ability to replace, remove, or otherwise deal with representatives that are not representing the constituents properly.

Stolen from an impressive post at reddit
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/...ill_revere_the_constitution_so_highly/c8jlp0z

 

[Agent11]

So, why even have a Constitution if we can simply re-interpret away our rights? What good is any guarantee of rights if it is being continually re-evaluated for relevancy, without need for the intentionally difficult Amendment process?

*If* the supreme court was packed full of whackadoo's who decided to start 'reinterpreting' wholesale to the detriment of our rights it would be a major test of our people and government in general.

 

[werepossum]

Stolen from an impressive post at reddit
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/...ill_revere_the_constitution_so_highly/c8jlp0z

Impressive indeed. However, a significant and growing part of our population believes there is no Creator and therefore no inherent rights, but only rights granted to ourselves via government. In that belief system it makes perfect sense to view the Constitution as a living document subject to our current whims, because there is nothing greater or grander than ourselves at this moment. Not G-d, not the Founding Fathers, not the country itself. Further, much of the Constitution explicitly opposes the progressive agenda. Free speech only enables hate speech; the right to bear arms only empowers the individual when we should be empowering the collective at the expense of the individual. No less than Barack Obama himself famously said the problem with the Constitution is that all our guaranteed rights are "negative rights", what government cannot do to you, when they should be "positive rights", what government must do for you. We elected this man to lead us twice, so this is hardly a fringe position.

It's debatable whether the Constitution means anything today; I think few Americans believe it will mean anything a generation or two from now. Or rather, few Americans believe the Constitution will mean anything other than the whim of those in power at the moment.

 

[Brainonska511]

The world is not black and white and your poll choices suck. Why does your binary poll need qualifiers attached, beyond the obvious reason that you are trying to paint one side (of many, not two) into a corner?

 

[NoStateofMind]

The world is not black and white and your poll choices suck. Why does your binary poll need qualifiers attached, beyond the obvious reason that you are trying to paint one side (of many, not two) into a corner?

What other choices are there? You either believe there is room to change it all or room to change part. How hard is that for you to understand? Please explain a different position! THANK YOU!

EDIT: Unless you want me to add an option for "you cant change a thing" I hardly see another avenue.

 

[Agent11]

Impressive indeed. However, a significant and growing part of our population believes there is no Creator and therefore no inherent rights, but only rights granted to ourselves via government. In that belief system it makes perfect sense to view the Constitution as a living document subject to our current whims, because there is nothing greater or grander than ourselves at this moment. Not G-d, not the Founding Fathers, not the country itself. Further, much of the Constitution explicitly opposes the progressive agenda. Free speech only enables hate speech; the right to bear arms only empowers the individual when we should be empowering the collective at the expense of the individual. No less than Barack Obama himself famously said the problem with the Constitution is that all our guaranteed rights are "negative rights", what government cannot do to you, when they should be "positive rights", what government must do for you. We elected this man to lead us twice, so this is hardly a fringe position.

It's debatable whether the Constitution means anything today; I think few Americans believe it will mean anything a generation or two from now. Or rather, few Americans believe the Constitution will mean anything other than the whim of those in power at the moment.

Doesn't take belief in a creator to feel that there are rights inherent to a fellow human being, that no man should be allowed to take away.

This however leads to the discussion of at what point punishment is cruel and unusual, is it kinder and more in keeping with American values to kill a criminal or to lock them in a cage for life?

 

[drebo]

Your choices are too extreme. Maybe YOU view the two choices you offer as being enough, but that just demonstrates that you're a black-and-white thinker.

How about:

The Constitution is a living document, requiring continual re-evaluation to ensure that its interpretation remains relevant to a rapidly changing world.

That's why a method to ammend the Constitution was written in. If a portion truly is no longer relevant, it can be ammended.

If, as you say, we can simply "reinterpret" the Constitution to match our particular views at that point in time, then there exists no reason for the ammendment process, or even the Constitution itself. The government becomes one of whim and its leaders become tyrants.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Bump, would like to see the people from the other thread way in.

 

[lotus503]

Bump, would like to see the people from the other thread way in.

I suspect if they were interested you wouldn't need to bump it.

 

[Jaskalas]

Its a document with a set of Rights that cannot change.

I like "cannot change" better than the "living document" crap, but what about constitutional amendments? Those are literally meant to alter the Constitution when there's an overwhelming super majority determined to see something done.

With that in mind, however much I want the Bill of Rights to be immortal, there is a way to change it.

Maybe you're referring to judicial review of the Constitution. I'd go with "orignal intent" but that would open the door to assaulting the citizenship of millions born to illegals. Very messy stuff. I may have no other choice than to pick strict constructionism.

 

[sourn]

If it was a living document it wouldn't be as hard to change.

It's pretty clear that those are our rights and are not to be changed. Without a lengthy process.

Though while I value the constitution it's only a piece of paper. And unless the American people are willing to fight and die for it, it means nothing. Sadly in this age I think the politicians can keep snipping away at it and nobody will ever do anything about it.

 

[NoStateofMind]

I suspect if they were interested you wouldn't need to bump it.

How do you know they are aware?

 

[cybrsage]

I voted for the second choice, but only because I view the amendment process as part of the constitution itself and using it is not changing the constitution. I viewed the first choice as saying a law can be written to remove something from the constitution and that a full blown amendment is not needed.

 

[zinfamous]

Your choices are too extreme. Maybe YOU view the two choices you offer as being enough, but that just demonstrates that you're a black-and-white thinker.

How about:

The Constitution is a living document, requiring continual re-evaluation to ensure that its interpretation remains relevant to a rapidly changing world.

this

 

[zinfamous]

So, why even have a Constitution if we can simply re-interpret away our rights? What good is any guarantee of rights if it is being continually re-evaluated for relevancy, without need for the intentionally difficult Amendment process?

his description includes the Amendment process. that's how I interpret it.

OP's 1st description is patently absurd--it suggests that rights can be flipped, dumped, created at the drop of the hat for those that believe that it is a living document.

that's idiotic.

Well, it is a living document--it was written to be a living document. Any thought otherwise is a bit stupid, really.

But the rights guaranteed therein where never meant to be tossed aside so freely and cheaply; which is why a super-majority is necessary, as is the incredibly difficult ratification process.

To suggest that the constitution is a dead document which should not be openly discussed is to outright reject the purpose of this country.

 

[NoStateofMind]

this

Which part?

 

[zinfamous]

I voted for the second choice, but only because I view the amendment process as part of the constitution itself and using it is not changing the constitution. I viewed the first choice as saying a law can be written to remove something from the constitution and that a full blown amendment is not needed.

same. that's why the options are flawed.

 

[NoStateofMind]

same. that's why the options are flawed.

Then you wouldnt mind answering this

What other choices are there? You either believe there is room to change it all or room to change part. How hard is that for you to understand? Please explain a different position! THANK YOU!

EDIT: Unless you want me to add an option for "you cant change a thing" I hardly see another avenue.

 

[fskimospy]

Impressive indeed. However, a significant and growing part of our population believes there is no Creator and therefore no inherent rights, but only rights granted to ourselves via government. In that belief system it makes perfect sense to view the Constitution as a living document subject to our current whims, because there is nothing greater or grander than ourselves at this moment. Not G-d, not the Founding Fathers, not the country itself. Further, much of the Constitution explicitly opposes the progressive agenda. Free speech only enables hate speech; the right to bear arms only empowers the individual when we should be empowering the collective at the expense of the individual. No less than Barack Obama himself famously said the problem with the Constitution is that all our guaranteed rights are "negative rights", what government cannot do to you, when they should be "positive rights", what government must do for you. We elected this man to lead us twice, so this is hardly a fringe position.

It's debatable whether the Constitution means anything today; I think few Americans believe it will mean anything a generation or two from now. Or rather, few Americans believe the Constitution will mean anything other than the whim of those in power at the moment.

I didn't see this before, but what's interesting is how twisted the interpretation of the Constitution has become over time.

The rights protected by the Constitution have basically always been considered as rights in service to a greater collective good. Look at free speech for example. That does not exist so that any crazy person can shout whatever they want, in fact we have large numbers of laws restricting exactly that. Hell, no less than John Adams himself signed the Alien and Sedition Acts which today would be totally unconstitutional. We appear to hold such rights in far higher regard than they did.

While the founding fathers were anything but monolithic, I find the ideas of what principles they supposedly held in relation to civil liberties to be pretty outlandish.

 

[Munky]

We do have a means of changing it via amendments, and it has been amended numerous times in the past. However, that's quite different from claiming "Back then they used muskets, and therefore the 2nd amendment no longer applies today." Or "Gee, you still follow that barbaric ancient relic? Look how progressive our enlightened comrades in Europe are!"