And Obama wants more taxes?

[Pablo]

[Pablo]

[raekuul]

So, would you be a strict-constructionist (where the Government is severely limited by the words of the Constitution), or a loose-constructionist (where the Government is allowed to make and use their own interpretation of the spirit of the Constitution)?

[Silverfire]

There may not be people who believe in "not respecting the Constitution," but there are certainly many people who believe in interpreting the Constitution in ways other than finding out what it was actually meant to say. Of course, reasonable people may disagree on what the Constitution was meant to say, but some people oppose this goal itself.

For example, many people want to "reinterpret" (read: misinterpret) the Constitution to conform with modern values. The Constitution contains within it, clearly spelled out, a procedure for changing it to conform with modern values: amendment. Some people respect this, some don't.

[Pablo]

[extropalopakettle]

I don't think it's at all possible to make sense of the Constitution without getting into interpretation of the spirit and intent. Some obvious examples:

2nd amendment, right to bear arms - To me it's clear that a literal interpretation of

[Pablo]

I completely agree with all of that. But I still would like to stay committed to the original spirit of it, and we can't do that with the current level of ignorance of the document that we have.

I would bet that less than 50% of Americans with high school diplomas could name the three branches of government, and of those who could, less than 50% could offer a rough idea of what each is supposed to do.

Again, I'm good with interpretation AND amendment, as long as we have a level of knowledge and history as a foundation to work from.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays.

[Scurra]

Maybe that is indeed the core of the problem - that the notions behind the Constitution and which drove it to be created are what has been lost. As I have said, I admire the US Constitution and a lot of the structures that it led to, but I too can bemoan what it has become. Our differences are over what the role of government should be, and I am not at all convinced that the Constitution is actually helpful in that discussion. (Not to mention that as I am not a US citizen I don't really have any "right" to say anything anyway!)

extro...; On the subject of the second amendment (sorry folks!) Do you keep a nuclear bomb under your bed? Would you feel that you are entitled to do so? Would you object if someone else did? Is that "arms" and if not, where does the line come? And that's without getting into the argument about whether the (clearly) unequivocal second clause can actually be considered independently of the first clause (I think not, you may disagree.)
_________________
_{still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon}

[Pablo]

Well-regulated militia.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays.

[Zag]

[raekuul]

[Mackay]

[Pablo]

When I read that article, I didn't pay any attention to who wrote it. I found myself reading it and thinking that it did a pretty good job of explaining what was meant by the term "well regulated militia"....not in today's lingo, but as the term and the amendment were originally created.

[Death Mage]

So, President "Change" Obama wants to steal $1,500,000,000,000.00 from those who've earned it to give it to those who haven't. That's a great way to stimulate the economy.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!]

[Pablo]

[Scurra]

Once I had got past that initial hurdle of prejudice by the author, I too found the article to be quite insightful. It still made some presumptions that one particular interpretation was necessarily correct, but the general tenor of the piece seemed pretty balanced in historical terms.

I still don't think it addresses the problem issue (which is that it is unclear what the difference between a "well regulated militia" and an "army" actually is, and whether having one negates the other, and also whether even having a "national guard" is sufficient) but it certainly has a good stab at explaining the context of that first clause perfectly satisfactorily. It then completely dodges the second clause about bearing arms, although I was interested by the "conscientious objector" aspect, which I have rarely seen mentioned anywhere else.
_________________
_{still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon}

[Pablo]

Those are all issues that should be discussed.But I think to have meaningful discussions on those subjects, one has to have a sense of history rather than just parroting the words of an amendment.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays.

[Pablo]

[Poisonium]

[Pablo]

[Scurra]

[Pablo]

[Pablo]

[Scurra]

[raekuul]

[Pablo]

Yes, it went from 7 to 8.

Now it's 9, and the percentages are 66% and 33%.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays.

[Pablo]

We're gonna need a lot more rich people to tax!

A whole lot more.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays.

[Poisonium]

It's not like trolling ever really converted anyone...
_________________
I tried apt-get install lifebut it only returned E: Couldn't find package life