Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Documentation AT THAT TIME PERIOD is now just history because, as I've stated ad nauseum, we don't live in the late 1700s. Rules that are necessary today mean that the Constitution needs to be interpreted based on the language, and then based on reasonable context. Parts of the Constitution are antiquated. That's reality. In order for the Constitution to be functional, it has to be interpreted and read to incorporate today's social and political reality. Or do you want us to live under literal 1776 law? Maybe you think that things like Net Neutrality shouldn't happen because Tom Jefferson didn't include it.
|
there is NOTHING in the constitution that can't equate today without making it a 'living' constitution. They put in a process to amend it and it wasn't to have 9 touchy feely black robed morons negate or reinterpret crap because it's now 2007. A 'living' constitution provides the perfect stepping stones to tyranny, something that YOU yourself were afraid of under GW, if you'll remember.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
|
this article is the perfect example of that slippery slope. you know it, I know it. you should freely admit it. To promote this 'living' constitution crap is to ensure that the only constitution that exists is one that 9 black robed individuals have created and who knows what freedoms you'll be lucky to be given then.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ubertuber
So... Ron Paul??
I heard he raised some money. That's got to be worth talking about.
|
agreed. i'm done with the constitutional berate.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
Last edited by dksuddeth; 11-07-2007 at 02:00 AM..
Reason: Automerged Doublepost
|