Johnny Coli Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Well, not me personally, but those of us who think the US Constitution should be a "living document." Johnny Coli is an idiot People [this means you, Coli (added by editor)] who believe the Constitution would break if it didn't change with society are "idiots," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says. I got a kick out of his referring to himself in the third person...like Bob Dole, or a mental patient. "Scalia does have a philosophy, it's called originalism," he said. "That's what prevents him from doing the things he would like to do," he told more than 100 politicians and lawyers from this U.S. island territory. While I don't think the US Constitution would break, I do think it should be interpreted with some flexibility when looking at it in the context of today. I do not think the founding fathers meant it to be an inflexible document that would rigidly stand the test of time. I believe the Constitution should evolve with the nation, using the original as a framework to be added to. Not evolving intio an executive branch power grab, like the current administration and half of the Supreme Court think, though. I'll ask the Founding Fathers myself in a few years when we get the whole cloning thing down (May 25, 2009, but you didn't get that date from me). Discuss... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Well, not me personally, but those of us who think the US Constitution should be a "living document."Johnny Coli is an idiot I got a kick out of his referring to himself in the third person...like Bob Dole, or a mental patient. While I don't think the US Constitution would break, I do think it should be interpreted with some flexibility when looking at it in the context of today. I do not think the founding fathers meant it to be an inflexible document that would rigidly stand the test of time. I believe the Constitution should evolve with the nation, using the original as a framework to be added to. Not evolving intio an executive branch power grab, like the current administration and half of the Supreme Court think, though. I'll ask the Founding Fathers myself in a few years when we get the whole cloning thing down (May 25, 2009, but you didn't get that date from me). Discuss... 604843[/snapback] Sorry, but I don't discuss things with idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Johnny Coli is an idiot604843[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 I'll ask the Founding Fathers myself in a few years when we get the whole cloning thing down (May 25, 2009, but you didn't get that date from me). Discuss... 604843[/snapback] Even when you clone the Founding Fathers, their original memories won't be embodied. Therefore, you still won't get a straight answer, since the clone's answers will be based on the clone's experiences in the modern world and not the original's, therefore their interpretation of the Constitution will be different, and Scalia will think them idiots... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 I think there's validity in strict interpretation. There is a mechanism to change the Constitution: the amendment process. And rightfully so, that process is frought with peril. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Well, not me personally, but those of us who think the US Constitution should be a "living document."Johnny Coli is an idiot I got a kick out of his referring to himself in the third person...like Bob Dole, or a mental patient. While I don't think the US Constitution would break, I do think it should be interpreted with some flexibility when looking at it in the context of today. I do not think the founding fathers meant it to be an inflexible document that would rigidly stand the test of time. I believe the Constitution should evolve with the nation, using the original as a framework to be added to. Not evolving intio an executive branch power grab, like the current administration and half of the Supreme Court think, though. I'll ask the Founding Fathers myself in a few years when we get the whole cloning thing down (May 25, 2009, but you didn't get that date from me). Discuss... 604843[/snapback] I don't think any strict constructionist will argue that the constitution is an inflexible document. It is flexible and can be changed. The originators of the document even provided a means to change the document. It has been changed through the ammendment process many times in the past. Why don't you try the process they provided? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Why don't you try the process they provided? 605061[/snapback] Because doing so, wouldn't be idiotic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted February 16, 2006 Author Share Posted February 16, 2006 I don't think any strict constructionist will argue that the constitution is an inflexible document. It is flexible and can be changed. The originators of the document even provided a means to change the document. It has been changed through the ammendment process many times in the past. Why don't you try the process they provided? 605061[/snapback] I'm not talking about changing the written document. Just the interpretation. I should have been more clear, or maybe talked in the third person, like Scalia. Let's be clear. Johnny Coli loves the Constitution. Johnny Coli loves the amendment process. But Johnny Coli thinks interpreting that documant should be flexible with regards to evolving civil rights and liberties. Don't do drugs, and stay in school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Let's be clear. Johnny Coli loves the Constitution. Johnny Coli loves the amendment process. But Johnny Coli thinks interpreting that documant should be flexible with regards to evolving civil rights and liberties. Don't do drugs, and stay in school. 605093[/snapback] Wrong, again. If you don't like the inflexible nature, gather enough opposition to amend the darn inflexible document. You're just crying about the executive/judicial interpretations because they run counter to your views. I bet you would have been perfectly happy with the set up during the JFK/LBJ era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Disclaimer: I didn't read the thread, just its title. Conclusion: I agree with Scalia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 I'm not talking about changing the written document. Just the interpretation. I should have been more clear, or maybe talked in the third person, like Scalia. Let's be clear. Johnny Coli loves the Constitution. Johnny Coli loves the amendment process. But Johnny Coli thinks interpreting that documant should be flexible with regards to evolving civil rights and liberties. Don't do drugs, and stay in school. 605093[/snapback] What is an example of an evolving civil right or liberty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 What is an example of an evolving civil right or liberty? 605139[/snapback] All of 'em? Particularly the rights of minorities (or, more specifically, blacks) since the 15th. Last I checked, the rights enjoyed by blacks today evolved through Rosa Parks and Brown v. Board of Education from the 15th Amendment over the course of several decades, and not overnight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 All of 'em? Particularly the rights of minorities (or, more specifically, blacks) since the 15th. Last I checked, the rights enjoyed by blacks today evolved through Rosa Parks and Brown v. Board of Education from the 15th Amendment over the course of several decades, and not overnight. 605164[/snapback] See, it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 See, it works. 605177[/snapback] If the 15th "worked" that well, Brown v. Board of Edumacation wouldn't have been necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 All of 'em? Particularly the rights of minorities (or, more specifically, blacks) since the 15th. Last I checked, the rights enjoyed by blacks today evolved through Rosa Parks and Brown v. Board of Education from the 15th Amendment over the course of several decades, and not overnight. 605164[/snapback] good answer. I am about to exercise my 21st amendment rights in about 30 minutes. Those were absolute, abolished, then reappeared. It's my favorite amendment. One I can celebrate with my 15th amendment brothers and that 19th amendment crowd too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 What is an example of an evolving civil right or liberty? 605139[/snapback] 8th Amendment and Youth executions. Over time shifting moral standards tended to view those under 18 as children rather than adults, or minority age was a factor that reduced culpabitity and made capital crimes for young teens "unusual" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 If the 15th "worked" that well, Brown v. Board of Edumacation wouldn't have been necessary. 605264[/snapback] Wasn't that argued on the basis of the 14th amendment? Wasn't there at least a constitutional basis for the argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts