Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Sorry, this is a long article, about 5 pages, but worth the read. It's pretty interesting.

Here are a few things the framers did not know about: World War II. DNA. Sexting. Airplanes. The atom. Television. Medicare. Collateralized debt obligations. The germ theory of disease. Miniskirts. The internal combustion engine. Computers. Antibiotics. Lady Gaga.

People on the right and left constantly ask what the framers would say about some event that is happening today. What would the framers say about whether the drones over Libya constitute a violation of Article I, Section 8, which gives Congress the power to declare war? Well, since George Washington didn't even dream that man could fly, much less use a global-positioning satellite to aim a missile, it's hard to say what he would think. What would the framers say about whether a tax on people who did not buy health insurance is an abuse of Congress's authority under the commerce clause? Well, since James Madison did not know what health insurance was and doctors back then still used leeches, it's difficult to know what he would say. And what would Thomas Jefferson, a man who owned slaves and is believed to have fathered children with at least one of them, think about a half-white, half-black American President born in Hawaii (a state that did not exist)? Again, hard to say.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 45,00.html

I read the article. It amounts to a decent summary of the "living Constitution" argument as applied to several current issues. Not surprising, considering it comes from Time magazine. Doesn't delve deeply into interpretive theory, but that isn't the audience for this article anyway.

Ivytalk wrote:I read the article. It amounts to a decent summary of the "living Constitution" argument as applied to several current issues. Not surprising, considering it comes from Time magazine. Doesn't delve deeply into interpretive theory, but that isn't the audience for this article anyway.

I agree...I was thinking "so what?" Of course, I take that with a grain of salt as you could write volumes on interpretive theory. It was an interesting read nonetheless.

As much as this document has been violated by the national government it is still the most perfect document of limited government in the history of man.

citdog wrote:As much as this document has been violated by the national government it is still the most perfect document of limited government in the history of man.

More perfect than the Confederate States Constitution?

∞∞∞ wrote:

citdog wrote:As much as this document has been violated by the national government it is still the most perfect document of limited government in the history of man.

More perfect than the Confederate States Constitution?

The Constitution of the Confederate States of America IS the constitution of the 'late united states' with minor clarifications which reflect the intent of the SOUTHRON'S responsible for the nation.

It doesn't matter like it used to, and it will matter less as time goes by.

The only thing W was ever right about was "It's just a goddamned piece of paper.

houndawg wrote:It doesn't matter like it used to, and it will matter less as time goes by.

The only thing W was ever right about was "It's just a goddamned piece of paper.

the above, and the apathy that it expresses, are the main reason for the downfall of our republic to the banksters and the globalists.

citdog wrote:

houndawg wrote:It doesn't matter like it used to, and it will matter less as time goes by.

The only thing W was ever right about was "It's just a goddamned piece of paper.

the above, and the apathy that it expresses, are the main reason for the downfall of our republic to the banksters and the globalists.

Not apathy, your dogness, reality. Doesn't matter what the Constitution says when you have today's SCOTUS; the Constitution says what SCOTUS's corporate masters say it says.

houndawg wrote:

citdog wrote:
the above, and the apathy that it expresses, are the main reason for the downfall of our republic to the banksters and the globalists.

Not apathy, your dogness, reality. Doesn't matter what the Constitution says when you have today's SCOTUS; the Constitution says what SCOTUS's corporate masters say it says.

Hey, houndawg, I bet a few of those corporatists you despise anted up a few bucks for SIU's stadium. Am I right, you running dog capitalist lackey?

I will admit that I have not read the five page article linked. However, I have heard arguments such as those you describe many times. First of all, I think that it is possible to judge original understanding and infer how it applies to today's issues to a much greater extent than people who hold the point of view implied by your comments suggest. Like, for instance, I don't think there is any way they would've said that the commerce clause gives the Federal Government the power to force people to buy health insurance even if you would've schooled them completely on what health insurance is. They had certain things in mind. I really, really doubt that they were thinking in terms of giving the Federal government the power to regulate anything that AFFECTS interstate commerce.

But aside from that, there is absolutely no need for the "Living Constitution" concept as it is practiced. That is because they included a mechanism for changing the Constitution if it was necessary to do so. It's called the Amendment process. People who say that the Courts HAVE to step in and force the Constitution to address things the Framers did not contemplate are completely wrong because if the Constitution needs to be changed there is a mechanism for doing it while givng the People an opportunity to decide whether or not the change is something they want.

That's opposed to the "Living Constitution" paradigm in which the Court effectively changes the Constitution whether the People like it or not. Sure, it is a "Living Document" in a sense. But it's in the sense that the People can amend it when they wish to. Not the Courts.

houndawg wrote:It doesn't matter like it used to, and it will matter less as time goes by.

The only thing W was ever right about was "It's just a goddamned piece of paper.

You must have W confused with our failed president

http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/bush-t ... -of-paper/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;




"Barack Obama, during a 2001 radio interview, said the U.S. Constitution is flawed and the nation still suffers because of that failure."

Didn’t the Patriot Act make much of the Constitution meaningless anyways?

Bronco wrote:

houndawg wrote:It doesn't matter like it used to, and it will matter less as time goes by.

The only thing W was ever right about was "It's just a goddamned piece of paper.

You must have W confused with our failed president

http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/bush-t ... -of-paper/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;




"Barack Obama, during a 2001 radio interview, said the U.S. Constitution is flawed and the nation still suffers because of that failure."

W is our failed President.

Ivytalk wrote:

houndawg wrote:
Not apathy, your dogness, reality. Doesn't matter what the Constitution says when you have today's SCOTUS; the Constitution says what SCOTUS's corporate masters say it says.

Hey, houndawg, I bet a few of those corporatists you despise anted up a few bucks for SIU's stadium. Am I right, you running dog capitalist lackey?

Hey, so did I.

About half the project, which included renovating the basketball arena, was funded by student fee increases, a quarter by the City of Carbondale sales tax increase, and roughly a quarter by private donations.

houndawg wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
Hey, houndawg, I bet a few of those corporatists you despise anted up a few bucks for SIU's stadium. Am I right, you running dog capitalist lackey?

Hey, so did I.

About half the project, which included renovating the basketball arena, was funded by student fee increases, a quarter by the City of Carbondale sales tax increase, and roughly a quarter by private donations.

houndawg Stadium ... has a nice ring to it...

houndawg wrote:

Bronco wrote:

You must have W confused with our failed president

http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/bush-t ... -of-paper/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;




"Barack Obama, during a 2001 radio interview, said the U.S. Constitution is flawed and the nation still suffers because of that failure."

When a supporter from Time magazine calls you a Dick...you're a failed president.


Halperin : Obama was a …DICK
Hot Air ^ | June 29, 2011 | Ed Morrissey

I’ve been in radio for a few years now, and the first rule in broadcasting is this — always assume the microphones are hot and that you’re going live. (The second rule is never assume that the incoherent caller is drunk, but that’s a story for another day.) Mark Halperin apparently forgot that first rule this morning on MSNBC, and decided to give a rather blunt assessment of Barack Obama’s performance in yesterday’s press conference. Halperin’s use of language went out live, thanks to a producer who couldn’t operate the seven-second delay:

(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...

W is our failed President.

[youtube][/youtube]

Bronco wrote:

houndawg wrote:


When a supporter from Time magazine calls you a Dick...you're a failed president.


Halperin : Obama was a …DICK
Hot Air ^ | June 29, 2011 | Ed Morrissey

I’ve been in radio for a few years now, and the first rule in broadcasting is this — always assume the microphones are hot and that you’re going live. (The second rule is never assume that the incoherent caller is drunk, but that’s a story for another day.) Mark Halperin apparently forgot that first rule this morning on MSNBC, and decided to give a rather blunt assessment of Barack Obama’s performance in yesterday’s press conference. Halperin’s use of language went out live, thanks to a producer who couldn’t operate the seven-second delay:

(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...

W is our failed President.

[youtube][/youtube]

I was watching Morning Joe this morning, it was hilarious.

--
That was fast..I never heard someone apologize so many times
I thought he was going to cry
--

MSNBC Has 'Indefinitely' Suspended Mark Halperin For His 'Dick' Remark About Obama
Business Insider ^ | 06/30/2011 | Glynnis MacNicol


This morning on Morning Joe Mark Halperin, under the impression Morning Joe was on a 7 second delay, said he thought President Obama was a 'dick' in his press conference yesterday.

He quickly apologized once it became clear the remark had aired, ad did the entire Morning Joe crew.
Apparently that was not enough.


MSNBC has since suspended Halperin. Their statement:
"Mark Halperin’s comments this morning were completely inappropriate and unacceptable.　 We apologize to the President, The White House and all of our viewers. We strive for a high level of discourse and comments like these have no place on our air. Therefore, Mark will be suspended indefinitely from his role as an analyst."

(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...

Bronco wrote:--
That was fast..I never heard someone apologize so many times
I thought he was going to cry
--

MSNBC Has 'Indefinitely' Suspended Mark Halperin For His 'Dick' Remark About Obama
Business Insider ^ | 06/30/2011 | Glynnis MacNicol


This morning on Morning Joe Mark Halperin, under the impression Morning Joe was on a 7 second delay, said he thought President Obama was a 'dick' in his press conference yesterday.

He quickly apologized once it became clear the remark had aired, ad did the entire Morning Joe crew.
Apparently that was not enough.


MSNBC has since suspended Halperin. Their statement:
"Mark Halperin’s comments this morning were completely inappropriate and unacceptable.　 We apologize to the President, The White House and all of our viewers. We strive for a high level of discourse and comments like these have no place on our air. Therefore, Mark will be suspended indefinitely from his role as an analyst."

(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...

Let's see who gets a longer suspension: Ed Schultz for calling Laura Ingraham a "slut," or Mark Halperin for calling the president a "dick."