How literally should the constitution be taken?

[wildcat]

I've always been an advocate of strict construction for the most part. Loose construction seems to allow too many opportunities for the government to take control they don't need and shouldn't have... and there are examples of this happening. I admit that there needs to be enough flexibility to interpret the principles against new paradigms such as the Internet, air travel, and telecommunication, but this is as far as that flexibility should extend, and not into the realm of giving the government wholly new powers.

Flexibility is a two way street.

 

[Nocapszy]

I thought/think that you were being rude

What was rude? I'd like an exact quote of what you say was rude.

and I was a bit taken aback that you insinuated that I was stupid just because I'm a sensor!

I didn't actually, all I said was that I'm Sist. Read carefully please.
Besides, I'm not actually Sist, that's my sense of humor.

also- merely one cup of irish coffee is barely a tipsy at all, so please keep your judgements to yourself!

If it's not very tipsy then why even bring it up? If you haven't had enough to affect you, then how can you really use it as an excuse?

I appologize to everyone else who may not have quite gotten my sense of humor- I would have enjoyed the question if it were posed in reality as well since it's a subject that I actually have studied in depth so if I'd wanted to I could have given you an explanation that would have left you scratching your head for a good while! I have better things to do than give that good of an explanation to someone who's just trolling though, so if you do start the question in earnest I'd be thrilled to answer!

It being a joke, and you posting seriously are fine. However, it being a joke and you posting that I'm an asshole just because of a wrongly extrapolated Sist vibe from me (YOU'RE the one who brought up the cookies, and about you being almost drunk. I wouldn't have said anything if you hadn't... it's not really fair for you to get irritated that I use what you say against you. If you don't like that don't argue with NTPs.) which I ran with just to antagonize. You're not the only one with an abrasive sense of humor.

Are you done? Can we go on with the fun part of the thread before you start drawing false typist conclusions from what I write?

 

[Nocapszy]

I'm sorry if you took my sense of humor wrong- I got yours- it just seems a bit cruel and unnecissary to me

if you wanted to start a non-serious and mean thread the Graveyard would have been the appropriate place to go- I cut back on my non-serious comments in non-serious sectors, so I don't see why you shouldn't

You seem to be some pathetic, misanthropic person with few life experiences who feels the need to insult others in order to get your kicks, by the way, and I'm not so down with you going around and insulting people- not on my watch anyways- just consider this to be me verbally pinning you down and forcing you to eat sand while I twist your arm behind your back, ok?

What the hell are you talking about? You obviously didn't get my sense of humor. This thread was meant as a joke, but more of a tongue in cheek one. The kind where I was hoping everyone would take it seriously, because I'm interested in some discussion or debate, but it stemmed from a joke. Still waiting for you 'head-scratcher' of an analysis.

sorry Nocapz- I jumped on to attack you because I don't take kindly to people being mean to ixfjs- several good friends are that type and so is my mom, and I really admire their ability to take things seriously and feel deeply about issues- an ability that I lack- and I know that I'm more blunt and have an easier time being mean, so I happily jump in in thier defense!

Hope you watch who you mess with in the future- I'm going to work, so don't think that I'm running off from confronting you, because I'm not afraid of you at all and do beleive that I could take you in this!

At what point did I say I was attacking an IxFJ? I wasn't MOCKING Kiddo, I like him. I think he knows that, and I think that's why he didn't mind. Just because I made a joke based on something he posted, doesn't mean that it was an attack on his person. It wasn't even an attack on what he said. I was actually making fun of everyone who engages with purpose in these kinds of discussions. As if anything anyone says will be more important or somehow a logical breakthrough. These things always go in circles, which is why it was a joke.

Besides, this has nothing to do with Kiddo, and you and I both know it. You didn't start getting irritated until you thought (incorrectly) I made fun of you (by being an Sist/sexist who thinks that you're only good at making cookies. Remember that?), so don't try to put some false nobility in your actions here. I'm calling bullshit.

You're certainly right about one thing, I'm definitely a misanthrope, but it's not because I have no life experience...
Sorry Dr. Phil, but cliche/cookie cutter pop-psychology doesn't work on me.

I think you're just quick to the gun because you see that I have no hesitancy to do the same, and you don't like that in a person, so you go after me directly.

 

[Kiddo]

As if anything anyone says will be more important or somehow a logical breakthrough. These things always go in circles, which is why it was a joke.

Isn't that the nature of any argument? I don't take offense to your mocking my topic selection. You aren't the first person on this forum to call the way I choose topics into question. I understand you trying to find humor in it, but it's a joke that has been told so many times that not many people find it to be funny. Only once or twice have I encountered individuals who will converse on a higher plane, and that ultimately leads to a thread becoming a one on one conversation. Often, that even deteriorates into a flame war and petty name calling.

What is it that you want? A conclusion? An answer? A solution? There is none and probably never will be. The only meaning to it is to try to understand all the point's of view and the underlying, unconscious values that drives people to disregard each other.

 

[Nocapszy]

Isn't that the nature of any argument? I don't take offense to your mocking my topic selection.

Yes, but with these two topics, it's basically impossible. There might be a pinch of originality to someone's argument with these two topics, but at this point, because of their popularity, it's next to impossible to come up with something that hasn't already been said one way or another.

What is it that you want? A conclusion? An answer? A solution?

No. I wasn't ACTUALLY asking for anything.

There is none and probably never will be.

That's the essence of my OP. I was saying that the bible, like government (ours being the constitution) is argued over, and they NEVER gets anywhere. We're spinning wheels folks. Just like whatever and I. It's silliness. These things are too popular for any aspect to not have been covered in some discussion. Until either entity changes, the arguments won't.

Hurray! Maybe you don't like the humor, and that's fine, but at least you see what I was getting at. I don't think anyone other than you and Jennifer did, but I don't remember what everyone else posted. Actually I don't remember IF anyone else posted.

 

[miss fortune]

sorry darling- you don't get me and you really aren't worth shaving my legs for!

(or answering the question for that sake!)

I GOT the fact that you were joking and I was just doing my own little thing to piss you off since you seem to hate people so much! Sorry for you that I don't like rude people all that much

(and another appology to everyone else, I just don't feel the need for this much conflict in my life at the moment)

 

[Kiddo]

Yes, but with these two topics, it's basically impossible. There might be a pinch of originality to someone's argument with these two topics, but at this point, because of their popularity, it's next to impossible to come up with something that hasn't already been said one way or another.

True, but that wasn't the point of my thread. Understanding why people believe something is only half the battle. Understanding how they understand it is generally what I'm after. Haven't you ever noticed that a person's beliefs say more about their upbringing, experiences, and values than a test like MBTI ever could? Understanding where a person is coming from is infinitely more important than understanding what they believe. But perhaps that is the difference between task oriented types and people oriented types. All you see is mindless, repetitive squabbling over the same old topics, whereas I see an entirely new set of possibilities in understanding the way people think and feel about the world.

 

[redacted]

wow what a hilarious thread

 

[Ivy]

Maybe not, but the constitution says I have the right to.

Having the constitutional right to free speech doesn't translate into always being allowed to say everything you want to say. For example, it's kind of a bad idea to namecall and flamebait on internet forums where your presence is an implicit agreement to abide by a set of guidelines which discourage those behaviors. You will not experience any consequences from the government for doing so, but you may experience consequences from the forum's administration. *elbows the thread participants*

 

[Nocapszy]

wow what a hilarious thread

It's lawlful eh?

Having the constitutional right to free speech doesn't translate into always being allowed to say everything you want to say. For example, it's kind of a bad idea to namecall and flamebait on internet forums where your presence is an implicit agreement to abide by a set of guidelines which discourage those behaviors. You will not experience any consequences from the government for doing so, but you may experience consequences from the forum's administration. *elbows the thread participants*

Oh... did I start that argument?

 

[Ivy]

Oh... did I start that argument?

I don't know, but "she started it!" didn't work in elementary school and it still doesn't work.

 

[lazyhappy]

depends on the part of the constitution... litrally if refering to the freedom of speech thing... though my pacifist hippieness doesn't lke the right to bare arms and junk like that in the constitution. i don't quite know all the things in it, but i know some rules are stupid and some arn't on many cases, and all rules have a "what if-" side which i don't feel like getting into

 

[htb]

The United States Constitution and its amendments should be read with informed and deliberate contemplation of original meaning.

For all other matters, see Article V.

The question having been answered, mods: You have the right to close this thread.

 

[miss fortune]

I'm SO not going to comment on the "who started it" thing!

I'll give you another answer here as well in the spirit of fluffy goodwill!

Have you ever read a 19th century etiquette book? Some of the rules in it are rather outdated and really don't fit with the present time, but are we going to throw the book out the window and write ettiquette off as being antiquated? I hope not!

I see the Constitution the same way- old, but the basic ideas are still important today!

yes- simple- but sometimes simple is best!

 

[Nocapszy]

I don't know, but "she started it!" didn't work in elementary school and it still doesn't work.

I'm SO not going to comment on the "who started it" thing!

It doesn't matter who started it. I understand that. But before another person starts in on me (I'm not accusing you, Ivy, you probably never would do that to anyone, but as a preemptive measure for anyone who tried to hop on the bandwagon) I thought I'd make sure everyone had a firm understanding of what went on. I was actually hoping you, or anyone who read that would go back and read the whole interchange in effort to find out 'who actually did start it?' though my real incentive was to have everyone educated on the actual transpiration rather than being fixated on a few rude comments I made.

I'll give you another answer here as well in the spirit of fluffy goodwill!

Have you ever read a 19th century etiquette book? Some of the rules in it are rather outdated and really don't fit with the present time, but are we going to throw the book out the window and write ettiquette off as being antiquated? I hope not!

Well I hope so.

Etiquette, to me, seems like nothing more than niceties imposed by custom rather than actual honest feelings. If you appreciate someone's presence, you let them know -- why shouldn't we be able to do just the opposite? 'Because it makes people feel bad' is, I'm sure going to be what it boils down to, but my rebuttal there is 'Well it makes me feel bad having an annoying person around. I'm not going to MAKE them leave, but I'll make sure they know that I don't want them where I am.'

I see the Constitution the same way- old, but the basic ideas are still important today!

Fair enough, but the constitution serves a vastly different purpose. The analogy can only extend insofar as the situations are the same. If the document leaves room for corruption (this one does) then something needs to be done. Glad to know the founding fathers had the foresight to include the elastic clause, but unfortunately even with it the constitution is pretty rigid.

As it should be. If its foundation were infirm, then unless a collective nationwide vote were instated (instead of a republic like we have now) those people in charge would have a bit too much power -- they could jimmy-rig the document so it dictated that those in charge remain in charge until they say otherwise. The establishment might end up either destroying itself or growing to the point where it would match the chaos of anarchy, or anywhere in between.

yes- simple- but sometimes simple is best!

Damn right, if it gets the job done.

 

[miss fortune]

goodwill to everyone else- you SO aren't getting off the hook that easily Nocap!

being rude to innocent farm girls is a horrible thing to do

and I noticed how you claimed that you weren't pointing fingers and then pointed anyways.....

 

[Oberon]

Interpretation of the constitution as a "living document" has enabled lawmakers to almost do whatever they want in terms of federal legislation, which is manifestly not a proper use of the document for its intended purpose.

Case in point: The commerce clause in Article I. The Founders specifically limited the authority of federal legislation to the realm of interstate and international trade, the idea being that intra-state matters were properly under the authority of state governments, and federal authority should not apply. Yet today if you grow pot in your backyard, roll some of it into a doob in your kitchen, and smoke it on your back porch, you can be raided by the DEA and prosecuted under federal law... despite the fact that the cannabis in question never left the county, let alone the state.

The justification for this is tenuous to the point of absurdity, and yet it stands. In my eyes that represents a prima facie failure of our legislators to recognize and abide by the plain meaning of a very important part of the constitution.

To my mind, if you want to change what the constitution means so as to make it more applicable to the current times, amend it. There's a process for that. It's a difficult and time-consuming process, it's true, but it was made that way on purpose and for good reason.

 

[Ivy]

It doesn't matter who started it. I understand that. But before another person starts in on me (I'm not accusing you, Ivy, you probably never would do that to anyone, but as a preemptive measure for anyone who tried to hop on the bandwagon) I thought I'd make sure everyone had a firm understanding of what went on. I was actually hoping you, or anyone who read that would go back and read the whole interchange in effort to find out 'who actually did start it?' though my real incentive was to have everyone educated on the actual transpiration rather than being fixated on a few rude comments I made.

In case I didn't make it clear, I wasn't fixating on your comments, but the timbre of the conversation from several participants. Which is why there was a general elbowing rather than a Nocapszy-specific one. And which is also why it doesn't really matter who started it.

 

[miss fortune]

very very true- over the past 100 years the commerce clause has come to embrace everything except for carrying a gun onto school property (US v Lopez) and whether or not you can sue your rapist (US v Morrison)

kind of creepy how things can change to accomodate what the courts want for it to accomodate...

Makes you wonder at times what the founding fathers would do if they were suddenly brought back to life! On the other hand, some of the frameworks still are in place fairly well (like election rules and how the congress conducts itself and such)

 

[Oberon]

Makes you wonder at times what the founding fathers would do if they were suddenly brought back to life!

You mean, aside from screaming "GET ME OUT! GET ME OUT OF HERE! PLEASE!"...?