So... What about The Constitution?

[dpd3672]

What's the late 1700's equivelant to a Liberal?

I'm not sure what group, in the 1700s, was running around championing the causes of abortion, gay marriage, green energy, class warfare, big government, affirmative action, wasteful spending...I guess the closest thing would be royalty.

Back to the original topic. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. The Constitution is simply a piece of paper. To actually apply it to our everyday lives, it must be "interpreted." Whether or not this wording is found in it does not make it untrue; it's common sense. The Constitution was written broadly enough, by the FF, that it would remain relevant as time passed; but its relevancy is dependent on the wisdom of those who study and apply it.

The SCOTUS is responsible for interpreting laws, including the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. It's in every civics textbook I've ever read, 90% of the Google hits I get, and as close as you can get to common knowledge. Legislative branch writes laws, judicial branch interprets them, Executive branch enforces them...ask any schoolkid, in any city in America, and that's what they'll answer (if they did their homework).

The fact is, it's not your, or my, opinion of what the Constitution means that matters. We're just people with opinions, and for every one that says "A," you can find another that says "B." The only ones whose opinions matter, officially, at least, are our elected officials, and by extension their appointees, who have standing to say what it means or doesn't mean. It's great when "our" guy wins, and it sucks when he loses, but that's what you get in a represtative democracy...it's the very essence of the American way.

[timshufflin]

What's the late 1700's equivelant to a Liberal?

A Tory, I think that would be the most freedom robbing position.

[Punch The Clown]

All kidding aside, DPD does have his points. The Constitution provides for the establishment of a Supreme Court but does not define it's powers or responsibilities. Basically, over the years the Court decided on its own what its function was. That being said it seems the Court's powers are limitless as it can contort and twist to accommodate the Justices personal views.

However, I believe, many people still believe that the Constitution is similar to the Ten Commandments. Both are not open to debate. Keeping the Sabbath is not optional and doesn't need interpretation. Whether or not Dred Scott was chattel or a man was debatable in the 1800's but the Bill of Rights was not. That should be the role of the Supreme Court.

[seaninmich]

The Constitution is simply a piece of paper. To actually apply it to our everyday lives, it must be "interpreted." Whether or not this wording is found in it does not make it untrue; it's common sense. The Constitution was written broadly enough, by the FF, that it would remain relevant as time passed; but its relevancy is dependent on the wisdom of those who study and apply it.
.

You obviously have not read the document. How can we have an intelligent conversation when you refuse to do your part of the work. With very few exceptions (hunting being the only one that comes to mind), I have not been more than 10' from my Constitution in at least 5 or 6 years. I read it ALL THE TIME. It is not written broadly AT ALL. The exact opposite, in fact. It is written very, very specifically and very, very clearly. There is no grey area.

[seaninmich]

The SCOTUS is responsible for interpreting laws, including the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. It's in every civics textbook I've ever read, 90% of the Google hits I get, and as close as you can get to common knowledge. Legislative branch writes laws, judicial branch interprets them, Executive branch enforces them...ask any schoolkid, in any city in America, and that's what they'll answer (if they did their homework).

SCOTUS is not responsible for interpreting the Constitution. Stop saying that as you have failed to prove that point even remotely. Whether they actually DO, or not, is not the issue here. The issue is what they are LEGALLY charged with doing under the Constitution as written.

Civic books? really? you're going to use the propaganda materials of the socialist movement to try and prove your point? History books also portray abraham lincoln as some great president, when in fact he was one of the worst we've eve had (certainly in the top 6). He wiped his ass with the U.S. Constitution and slaughtered thousands of people in the process. The only good thing he ever did was go to the theater.

[timshufflin]

I'm not sure what group, in the 1700s, was running around championing the causes of abortion, gay marriage, green energy, class warfare, big government, affirmative action, wasteful spending...I guess the closest thing would be royalty.

Back to the original topic. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. The Constitution is simply a piece of paper. To actually apply it to our everyday lives, it must be "interpreted." Whether or not this wording is found in it does not make it untrue; it's common sense. The Constitution was written broadly enough, by the FF, that it would remain relevant as time passed; but its relevancy is dependent on the wisdom of those who study and apply it.

The SCOTUS is responsible for interpreting laws, including the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. It's in every civics textbook I've ever read, 90% of the Google hits I get, and as close as you can get to common knowledge. Legislative branch writes laws, judicial branch interprets them, Executive branch enforces them...ask any schoolkid, in any city in America, and that's what they'll answer (if they did their homework).

The fact is, it's not your, or my, opinion of what the Constitution means that matters. We're just people with opinions, and for every one that says "A," you can find another that says "B." The only ones whose opinions matter, officially, at least, are our elected officials, and by extension their appointees, who have standing to say what it means or doesn't mean. It's great when "our" guy wins, and it sucks when he loses, but that's what you get in a represtative democracy...it's the very essence of the American way.

You are correct when you say that any public school kid will give the answer you are suggesting. I went to two different schools though. The liberal union run public school agreed with you Sir. The private school agreed with me. My College not only agrees with me but believes once you go into this "interpret" nonsense, the Constitution has NO remaining relevancy.

It is now common sense that the work week is 40 hours
It is now common sense that when you retire you get social security
It is now common sense that everyone is covered by health care and health care is a right
It is now common sense that the more you make, the more taxes you should pay
It is now common sense that minorities cannot be racists
It is now common sense that you have to wear a seat belt in a car
It is now common sense that you cannot smoke in a private business
It is becoming common sense that you have to wear a helmet to ride a simple bicycle

I reject out of pocket your "common sense". I reject it and refute it because the very premise that makes your "common sense" have legal standing is upside down. The US Constitution is not some toilet paper to be interpreted, it is meant to limit the government and NOT me. The supreme court is supposed to check the executive and legislative branches when those two serpents seek to circumvent the Constitution. The supreme court is supposed to protect the people not by interpreting the Constitution but by simply reading it and ruling on the proposed legislation by what the Constitution actually says.

The Constitution needs no interpretation. By the way, your 1st amendment argument has more holes then the head of a democrat.

I warn you all, do not ever perpetuate the myth that the Constitution needs interpreting, it is exactly the myth that union school teachers want us to believe.

My Battle Tested Brethern, I offer you my summation;

I give the actual Constitution as my "proof". There is no system of "interpreting" listed in the Constitution, not one reference.

dpd3672 gives recent tradition and public school folk lore as proof that the Constitution does not mean what it says and would have you believe that the US Constitution is simply a piece of paper.

I rest, you draw your own conclusions. Whatever your conclusions are though, you must agree with the letter of the Founders. Arguing this point is akin to arguing if water is wet.

[timshufflin]

All kidding aside, DPD does have his points. The Constitution provides for the establishment of a Supreme Court but does not define it's powers or responsibilities. Basically, over the years the Court decided on its own what its function was. That being said it seems the Court's powers are limitless as it can contort and twist to accommodate the Justices personal views.

However, I believe, many people still believe that the Constitution is similar to the Ten Commandments. Both are not open to debate. Keeping the Sabbath is not optional and doesn't need interpretation. Whether or not Dred Scott was chattel or a man was debatable in the 1800's but the Bill of Rights was not. That should be the role of the Supreme Court.

Correct Sir, the Constitution does not and did not define what a "man" was. The Bill of Rights Does say how a man should be treated though. Very good example.