Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
so the set up appears to be:
"liberals" tend to see the constitutional system rather than the constitution.
"liberals" probably won't like this latest neo-fascist anti-migrant law.
|
being a constitutional libertarian, I tend to group conservatives within the same sphere of 'living' document theorists because of their support for the war on drugs, the war on terror, and 'advanced interrogation', in other words, torture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
"strict constructionists" tend to see the constitution rather than a constitutional system.
|
how is there a difference? especially considering that the constitution defines that constitutional system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
and the operative premise:
this az nonsense wouldn't have happened under strict construction premises.
permutation:
"liberals" might find this situation one in which they could see strict construction as offering them protections against the same thing that conservative strict constructionists do...namely laws they don't like.
|
this is but one example. I've stated numerous times how the living document theory is not only wrong, but how it sets up the advantage of the government over the people in order to advance ideological theories that were in no way intended by the framers of this country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
problem is that there's any number of ways to frame the az situation and its not obvious that strict construction is relevant. except insofar as it's relevant for you personally when you think about this kind of thing. but is there a reason beyond that to import this interpretive framework into this issue?
could you explain that more please?
|
I've already stated that, but I'll do it again.
The 14th Amendment clearly states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
normally, liberals would use the 'living' document theory to advance their own ideological agenda's like gun control saying that a 'well regulated militia' is either the national guard or something no longer needed because we have a strong standing army and police force to protect us, like we're no longer post revolutionary having to defend against the UK anymore. Now, it's on the other foot with wrong headed conservatives in AZ trying to advance an ideological theory of their own with anchor babies, saying that the crafters of the 14th Amendment could not conceive the idea of 'anchor babies', or in the words of the article, it's no longer the 1800s.
In short, my opinion is that the 'living document' theorists latch on to this recent idea so they may enact change in this nation without having to go by prescribed methods because they see it as too difficult, but now that maybe they see this employed by the other side, would they be willing to reconsider their theory or not? If not, explain why, and if so, the same.