Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
It's the other way around. Laws have been passed and are being enforced preventing religious fundamentalist parents from endangering their kids. The country we both live in limits constitutional freedoms. That's the United States of America. You're welcome to go and found the Absolutist States of America should you choose.
|
have you agreed wholeheartedly with every single court decision and federal law EVER!!!!!!!!! made, according to their view of the constitution?
---------- Post added at 11:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:41 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
Right, well, this doesn't have anything to do with what I said. Though I suspect if I tried to interpret your words, I'd know what the hell they had to do with that I wrote. However, I'm going to go the dksuddeth route and "not interpret" and so you should just pretend I'm looking at you incredulously, slack jawed, wondering what waking up in the morning and stopping at stop signs has to do with interpreting the constitution.
|
it shouldn't be that difficult to figure out, that is unless you don't choose to.
you say that the constitution MUST be interpreted because the plain text of words has lost their meaning. this would indicate that there is nothing of any other kind of written text by the framers to explain what they meant by their words in the constitution.
so, that in mind, how is the word 'stop' accepted to be just what it says, stop? it's because you were taught what the word meant, and that it would mean that for your entire lifetime. well that's what happened with the constitution. before it was ratified, commentators went to all 13 colonies and told the people exactly what it all meant, before they voted on it. there were no hidden surprises.
so, does the constitution mean what it meant when it was written, or do you want to change it to suit your own ideals?
---------- Post added at 11:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:45 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
I've mentioned this before. If we were to take the Constitution in its current form and present it as though it were new and for consideration to be enacted today, I strongly believe it would be ridiculed for its vagueness and awkward constructions. If this weren't the case, people would never bother to consider the framers' intent or the Federalist Papers. They'd just say, "Hey, it's all right in there in the Constitution. It's clear, cogent, and prescriptive. I don't know what your problem is. I don't even know why we bother with the Supreme Court and Constitutional scholars."
|
read the above.