A "Living" Constitution?

We were not supposed to have a fucking 'living' constitution.  Laws and their meaning don't change with time.  It is the job of our judges to interpret the law, not to legislate from the bench.  The law is also not meant to be flexible, it is meant to be strict and have specific meanings.  We need judges who will follow the textual meaning of the constitution and give us rulings based on what the law SAYS, not what they think it should say.

To quote the Massachusetts state constitution: 

"In the government of this Commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: The judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws, and not of men."

This gets right to the heart of the debate.  Should the courts be 'legislating from the bench?'  Should their job be to make up the laws as they go along?

OR, should the job of the judiciary be to *INTERPRET* the laws that were enacted by our legislators?  Clearly, if we do not want to have a nation of men rather than a nation of laws, it would require that we have judges on the bench who recognize this, for if we don't have judges who recognize that their job is merely to *interpret* the constitution (as opposed to legislating from the bench), you would no longer have a nation of *laws* and you would have a nation of *men.* 

Some call those who legislate from the bench judicial activists, or 'activist judges.'  For the reasons I have outlined above, I think it is important that we ensure only strict constructionist judges who will faithfully and accurately interpret the meaning of the constitution get the nomination.  The judiciary was not meant to be able to write laws, we were supposed to have a divided government in which the legislative branch of government writes the laws, the executive signs them, and the courts interpret them.  We are supposed to have three branches of government to help limit the powers of government, and judicial activism represents a departure from and a threat to our Republican form of government as we know it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8sYgwW7Ph4

The only "living" part of constitutions in the US is that they can be changed.  Since changing them legally is a big effort, the Gay-Assed Liberals prefer to legislate from the bench instead.  After all, if you can't get rid of the Second Amendment, for instance, you can just pretend that you have the right to ban firearms and then be a prancing Nancy in court about it.

>>3
Yeah.  Isn't it funny how we once needed a constitutional amendment at one time to ban alcohol (see the 10th Amendment of the constitution!), and now all these liberal judges with their loose or lax interpretation have defined the commerce clause so fucking broadly they don't need to amend the constitution to regulate drugs, ban guns, etc?  The whole mindset of the nation seems to have changed.  At one time, we actually had to comply with the constitution, and we had LIMITED GOVERNMENT. 
mms://archives.gsradio.net/livefire/lf09-01-07.mp3
http://www.soundwaves2000.com/livefire/

mms://archives.gsradio.net/livefire/lf09-01-07.mp3

http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Constitution-Guides/dp/1596985054/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-8106314-3948643?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191397811&sr=8-1
Here's the book they were talking about in the audio link I posted. 

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."
- Hitler

"We must get rid of all the guns."
- Sarah Brady, Phil Donahue Show, 1994

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."
- U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden (Democrat presidential candidate)

ACLU: "The Union agrees with the Supreme Court's longstanding interpretation of the Second Amendment that the individual's right to keep and bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a 'well-regulated militia'. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected." ACLU policy statement #47 (1986)

"I, William Jefferson Clinton, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." January 20, 1993

President William J. Clinton (D): "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles...that we are unable to think about reality." USA Today, March 11, 1993

"When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly.... [However, now] there's a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there's too much freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it." - Bill Clinton

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D): "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." CBS-TV's "60 Minutes", February 5, 1995

"Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?" - Joseph Stalin

"One man with a gun can control 100 without one.  Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms." - V.I. Lenin

"If the opposition disarms, well and good.  If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves." - Joseph Stalin

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." - Mao Tse Tung

"This year will go down in history.  For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration!  Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the rest of the world will follow our lead into the future!" - Adolf Hitler, April 15th, 1935

The founding fathers clearly stated on numerous occasions they want us to shoot people who infringe on the constitution.

"Gun violence won't be cured by one set of laws. It will require years of partial measures that will gradually tighten the requirements for gun ownership, and incrementally change expectations about the firepower that should be available to ordinary citizens." - New York Times, December 21, 1993

"The only way to discourage the gun culture is to remove the guns from the hands and shoulders of people who are not in the law enforcement business." - New York Times, September 24, 1975

And, not surprisingly enough, NYT is owned by a Jew.

What is so hard to understand about the fundamental right to bear arms? I really don't understand why people try to subvert it.

"We are inclined to think that every firearm in the hands of anyone who is not a law enforcement officer constitutes an incitement to violence. Let's come to our senses before the whole country starts shooting itself up on all its Main Streets in a delirious kind of High Noon."--- Washington Post, August 19, 1965

"As you probably know by now, Time's editors, in the April 13 issue, took a strong position in support of an outright ban on
 handguns for private use."--- Time Magazine, Letter to NRA, April 24, 1981

"Every civilized society must disarm its citizens against each other. Those who do not trust their own people become predators upon their own people. The sick thing is that haters of fellow Americans often think of themselves as patriots." - Phila. Inquirer, May 17, 1981.

Corporate media? Yeah right.  More like LIBERAL media.  Far-left fascist gun-grabbing media.

The Hitler quotes were fake, and fascism does not imply disarming its citizens. Fail for reusing wartime propaganda as facts. Nazi Germany gave Germans the right to bear arms to protect themselves, especially in the midst of frequent violent Communists uprisings in 1933-1934. That in no way means gun control is not fucking evil, since I'm virulently pro gun. But no need to lie about history, LOL. But jews were disarmed though, yes. And now they seem to be disarming us.

>>15
Fascism does indeed imply disarming citizens.  The stringent socioeconomic government controls and centralization of power that are present with most fascist regimes imply that the government would not want the people to keep and bear arms - or at least not the citizens that the fascists don't like at the moment, such as the Jews in Nazi Germany.

>>15
This quote IS authentic: 

"[The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.]
-- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942. [Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)"

Federalist Paper #73 specifically mentions the idea of a Living Constitution.

It says - Tl;Dr, "The Constitution shall be interpreted by temporal and social context."

You have to remember, the founders knew that this Government had to stand the test of time instead of being only applicable to the 18th Century.

>>18
Look, Liberal moron, there is no temporal or social context that allows you to transform "shall not be infringed" into "shall be infringed".  You have to amend the US Constitution, first.  So ... have you written your Senators and Rep to start the process?  Get crackin', Liberal moron!

Of course, you're not going to get crackin', are you?  No, you'll just vote for Hyperliberal judges who legislate from the bench.

>>18
Can you point out where the constitution clearly states "You must suck federalist cock."? If not then your argument has no merit and you are some kind of demented statist.

>>20
>>19

Is a gun then the same as a gun now? Is the press now the same as the press then?

What about wire tapping? Does that violate the 4th Amendment? Howard Taft didn't think so, because "it was different" than what the constitution set up. Taft also thought that automobiles aren't part of your house and therefore they're suspect to warrantless searches as well.

You call me a Liberal Moron, but who is the moron that insists telecommunications and automobiles don't apply to the 4th Amendment because it never mentions cars and 3rd party communication?

Liberal Moron back. I was wrong, it was Federalist Paper 84.

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

This is implied there are liberties granted best when not enumerated as enumerating them already sets a limit on their scope. It's a craft argument, but what it means is there exists a flexibility in the constitution because the constitution bullet points out what is and what is not a right, that takes away rights, as seen in 4th Amendment arguments by Taft.

Taft didn't consider this argument, he just said -- "Oh wait, Cars don't count as persons or houses therefore 4th doesn't apply, don't want to be a LIBERAL ACTIVIST JUDGE!"

>>22
(didn't read anything of the thread, but why the Federalist papers?)
Here's the Anti-Federalist papers dealing somehow with 84.
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus01.htm
http://www.constitution.org/afp/dewitt02.htm
http://www.constitution.org/afp/pennmi00.htm

>>23

I use the Federalist Papers because all scholars and even the lay person go to them to learn the foundations of the constitution. These papers written mainly by Hamilton and Madison detail an account for why the constitution will work.

On the issue of a "Living Constitution," Federalist 84 by Hamilton says that if you set the Bill of Rights into stone, that is DANGEROUS as he mentions because then by enumerating rights, you already set limitations on them thereby compromising the mission of establishing universal and inaliable rights.

I use the example of Justice Taft in which Taft did not consider the automobile a "persons" or a household and thereby justified the opinion that the automobile can be subject to warrantless searches and seizures (something the 4th Amendment protects citizens against).

I want to argue that a living consitution should be accepted because of this, and that Judges might grant liscense to limitations on the interpretation, such as our friend Taft and automotives being excempt from 4th Amendment procedures of officers.

Technology will radically change, and with those changes the society will change in accordance with technological progression. Because of this, I find there to be validity in a living constitution, although even a "Liberal Moron" that there may be grievances that have merit due to judges extending their authority without proper prejudice.

>>24
You're a retard aren't you? The constitution is divine and laid down by god as it complies completely with all science and logic. If you change it you go against the very nature of reality and thus whatever you do won't work. The only reason someone would want to change the constitution is because they hate American and it's freedoms and want to enslave you.

>>25

You're not by chance is a class taught by a professor by name of Gibbons are you? This was the subject of my lecture which I just got out of.

No, the Consitution does not even try to make peace with Natural Law, but it appeals to Positive Law (Laws of Man, made by Man) and not the pre-modern conception of law which you have properly trolled the position of. (Divine Moral Order)

Anyways, yeah good troll of what pre-modern political thinkers really believed before they understood the failings of comprehensive political doctrines.

>>24
While reading the Federalist Papers is vital to understanding the Constitution, so is reading the Anti-Federalist Papers. Especially in the strange case of 84, where the AFP 84 (linked below) actually made a difference.

http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/afp84.html

Hamilton seems to have been ignorant of the 9th amendment -- and so are you.

Read this too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

>>21

You are a completely and utterly retarded Liberal moron.

Is a gun then the same as a gun now? Is the press now the same as the press then?

Yes, a gun is the same.  The standard weapon sold in stores is enough of a start at hunting and self protection.  HOWEVER, automatic rifles (the standard military issue) are needed in order to function as an operating member of the militia.  The "enemy" is now armed with automatic weapons; so must the militia be.

As for the press, YES, it is also the same.  Information merely comes in faster.  Information is still collected by people who investigate events, and then it's reported to you via media mechanisms that require you to pay.  If there's anything that's different, it's the advertising basis of modern media.  However, original news media in the USA was highly partisan, so it appears that our news media are RETURNING to the original form.

AT ANY RATE, the Second Amendment is quite simply too clear for you Liberal fucktards to counter.  "Shall not be infringed", fucker!  If you don't like that, then rely on the "living" part of the Constitution and AMEND THE MISTAKE.

The text of the 4th Amendment:  "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Note, it says 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, AND EFFECTS, against unreasonable searches and seizures, etc etc'

Clearly the 4th Amendment could reasonably be interpreted broadly in such a way that it would encompass a person's private automobile.  Could you not consider an automobile to be recognized under the rather open-ended word 'effects'? Personal 'effects' could be practically everything a person owns, including their automobile.  Thus, I'm going to have to agree that the 4th Amendment should be interpreted a bit more broadly. 

However, I firmly stand by Redcream that you liberal fags need to stop trying to 'interpret' entire Amendments out of the fucking constitution, and stop defining the commerce clause so fucking broadly so as to allow the Federal government to regulate whatever the fuck they want.  Oh yeah, and you also need to stop telling me that the Federal government can tell me I can't have guns in 'gun free zones' because that could have some EXTREMELY fucking distant effect on interstate commerce (if it would have ANY effect at all, which I personally doubt).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

Based on this, and the fact that we have a major Second Amendment Supreme Court case coming up possibly, I really think I wish we still had good old Rehnquist on the Supreme Court instead of that moderate-conservative Kennedy.  It's a shame Reagan had to appoint O'Connor, but I have to give him credit for putting Rehnquist up for Chief Justice.  Hopefully in the coming years if the Republicans win the presidency we'll get some more pro-constitution strict constructionists on the bench who will put a stop to the abuse of the commerce clause, stupid gun control laws, and laws that aim to hinder grassroots political organizations like the NRA, GOA, or Wisconsin Right to Life from airing advertisements critical of their legislators.  Kinda funny how the democrats always like to say the support free speech, then all the liberal judges turn around and fuck the 1st Amendment up the ass by upholding bullshit Campaign Finance laws that stifle political speech.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=252

...Why would you not want to protect yourself?

There seems to be a simple misconception that people without guns can tell people with guns what to do.

If Bill (Howdy) pulls a gun on Steve (Pisspants), who has the decisive power? Steve (Pisspants) can bitch all he wants about the gun, but it doesn't really matter because pisspants can't do anything about it.

The only way you will take guns away are to use bigger guns.

>>30

*boom* 10 years in prison

this is my gun, it's called the law, motherfucker.

Law won't help you when you are dead. Motherfucker.

is the second amendment is subject to interrpuritation then i guess all the other ones are to like the 1st amendment

"yes protestors you can have your little protest"

"just as long as it is in the "free speech zone" "

which is the cattle carral and if you dont like it they are more then eager to mace you
even though they have no right

but your unarmed and defenless so how will you secure your god given rights

you wont bitch

"the strongest reason for the people to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to resist tyranny in government"-Thomas jefferson
(aka the guy on the 20)

>>33
so you did some armed resistance lately then?

>>34
Send tanks and troops down my street, and FIND OUT, bunky!

clikCHAK