A Brief Primer on the US Constitution, for Essence and Others

You are fighting an uphill battle, COG. You cannot educate the uneducable.

The founding fathers were very wise men with uncommon wisdom.

If a Constitution is to endure it must live and it must adapt to changing times.

A Constitution is like the foundation of a house.

. . . Provision must be built-in to permit future growth or it will stagnate.
Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

Yea right, you wouldn't want your foundation to stagnate. If your foundation stagnates, does it smell bad? This is what's called a mixed metaphor.

Here are some other examples:

"So now what we are dealing with is the rubber meeting the road, and instead of biting the bullet on these issues, we just want to punt."

"'Obviously, it's been a very difficult two days for us,' Nelson said. 'We kind of saw the writing on the wall Friday night. It's just apples versus oranges, and it's not a level playing field by any means.'"

"I knew enough to realize that the alligators were in the swamp and that it was time to circle the wagons."
(attributed to Rush Limbaugh)

http://grammar.about.com/od/qaaboutr...ixmetaphor.htm

Yea right, you wouldn't want your foundation to stagnate. If your foundation stagnates, does it smell bad? This is what's called a mixed metaphor. Originally Posted by joe bloe

'Tis funny how Fast Goon wants the foundation of his house to be structurally unsound. He's probably looking for prime sink-hole property in Florida at this very moment.

James Madison, principal author of the U.S. Constitution and often called the "Father of the Constitution". Said this: "I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that is not the guide in expounding it, there may be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense.


The idea of a "living, changing" Constitution was repugnant to Madison. The Constitution is the foundation for our liberty. If the foundation is "living" or shifting according to the political whims of the time, it will crumble and crack.



The Christian holy writings speak of a time when Jesus compared two foundations, those of sand and those of stone. A house built on sand would quickly fall, whereas a house built on the rock could withstand storms and other calamities.


We have now placed our Constitution on the shifting sand of "living constitutional analysis", which essentially means that we can interpret the Constitution to mean whatever we want it to mean. Kind of a Cheshire Cat approach to government.


This is the sole reason why America is in decline. We now have a "living" Constitution. It's funny, it wasn't until the 1920s that we noticed the Constitution was living. I wonder why?


It might be because the people voted for a fraud in the 17th amendment. Can you imagine how different things would be if states had a say in the laws passed by Congress? Well, the first thing you would notice is that the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution would still be strong.


But once we opened the Senate to popular vote, we paved the way for limitless government expansion. States now had no recourse to policies from Washington which forced them to behave in a particular manner, or expend funds on projects not desired by the people of that state. So now the doors were wide open to enact legislation, and buy votes through government giveaways.


Well, we still had that pesky Constitution in the way, so in the 1920s, legal scholars began advancing this notion that the Constitution was a "living" document, meant to change with the times. Of course, what they meant was, we have to get the constitution out of the way so we can spend all we want.


Here's what we have now, courtesy of our "living" constitution. A far overreacheingof the federal government into nearly all aspects of a person's daily life. Fewer and fewer decisions being made at the state level. Government now believes it is the grantor of rights, not their protector.


I've already posted quotes from CJ John Marshall, the shaper of constitutional jurisprudence, and there was no room for a "living" constitution in his opinions. No, the idea behind a "living" constitution is simply that it is easier to manipulate, and the effect is to simply nullify the constitution.


The Constitution was not written as a set of guidelines or ideals. It was written to RESTRICT the power of the federal government to only those enumerated in the Constitution itself. Well, we know that part is dead.


Ironic, isn't it? That as the Constitution becomes more alive, the deader it is.

That's exactly right. The surest way to kill the Constition is to accept the living document nonsense. If the founders had intended for us to reinterpret the Constitution to make it more relevant, they wouldn't have provided for the amendment process.

Since you seem unable to spell, I am not certain you can read either, but I will try to help you since you appear to be drowning in an enormous sea of ignorance as is your compadre, Joe Blow.

The provisions in the US Constitution are there for those who can read and understand with an open mind, not preconceived notions.

I will give you only one example since I need to rush off to work. (Do you remember work?)

Consider when the Constitution speaks of "Just Compensation" as one example of just how carefully it is worded.

A wise judge would understand that just compensation today does not mean what it meant 200 years ago.

. . . The Constitution is intended only as a framework that will be used as a basis to form a sound and fair working government.

Where is that provision in the Constitution, Fast Gunn. Please point it out to me. Thank you in advance. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Just compensation means exactly what it meant 200 years ago. Just compensation is relative to the market. Jesus, FastGoon.

But, as it turns out, 5 members of the SCOTUS are just as stupid as you. So it really doesn't matter. The Constitution means nothing at this point. It's become a non-issue. We have no Constitution, except as a museum piece.

Since you seem unable to spell, I am not certain you can read either, but I will try to help you since you appear to be drowning in an enormous sea of ignorance as is your compadre, Joe Blow.

The provisions in the US Constitution are there for those who can read and understand with an open mind, not preconceived notions.

I will give you only one example since I need to rush off to work. (Do you remember work?)

Consider when the Constitution speaks of "Just Compensation" as one example of just how carefully it is worded.

A wise judge would understand that just compensation today does not mean what it meant 200 years ago.

. . . The Constitution is intended only as a framework that will be used as a basis to form a sound and fair working government.
Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

How is that search for an unstable house foundation going, Fast Goon? After hurricane Debby, you should be able to find just what you are looking for in Florida.

Where is that provision in the Constitution, FastGoon. Please point it out to me. Thank you in advance. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

That is as stupid as people who say the bible is god's word because the bible says it is god's word.

Idiocy has no limits.

Unfortunately for us, 5 members of our Supreme Court are as stupid about the Constitution as you are, Nonsense. It's a sad day for freedom.

That is as stupid as people who say the bible is god's word because the bible says it is god's word.

Idiocy has no limits. Originally Posted by essence

Your interpretation of law is stupid. Your interpretation is much like that of a burglar who believes that what's his is his, and what's yours is negotiable. Fact is, a law is a law until it is amended or repealed, and a law is the law for everybody, or it isn't a law for anybody. You are also stupid for interjecting religion and equating law with religion.

IBH, you do not understand the question, let alone the answer.

The question is whether the constitution, and the law, is a living thing or not.

To debate current issues on the basis of an unswerving belief in the unchanging words of the constitution is a religious belief, just as much as if it was done on the basis of ancient understandings of the bible.

Get over it.

Your interpretation of law is stupid. Your interpretation is much like that of a burglar who believes that what's his is his, and what's yours is negotiable. Fact is, a law is a law until it is amended or repealed, and a law is the law for everybody, or it isn't a law for anybody. You are also stupid for interjecting religion and equating law with religion. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The best I can tell, Essence claims to be a medical doctor, originally from Europe. If that's the case, he's living proof of how bad socialized medicine is. Can you imagine this imbecile making life and death decisions? My guess is he might have been an orderly at some point, and probably not a very good one.

You're wasting your time, IB. He's an idiot.

Oops, I outed you again.

The best I can tell, Essence claims to be a medical doctor, originally from Europe. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Err no. I think you have me confused with somebody else (liberaldevil ?). Another hole in your credibility. Woops, there isn't anything between the holes.