How literally should the constitution be taken?

[Nocapszy]

Yeah, I went there. Not only is this a parody, but it'll be another one of those repetitively endless and endlessly repetitive threads going back and forth between two sides of an argument.
This thread is where the idea came from. I'm partially mocking them, but I'm partially interested.


How literally should we take this document?

Should we use this document at all anymore?

See below for answers.

 

[Athenian200]

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.

 

[Totenkindly]

How literally should we take this document?

As literally as the Bible?

(fishing for help here)

 

[Nocapszy]

What about anarchy? Has anyone else thought of that?

 

[ptgatsby]

As literally as the Bible?

(fishing for help here)

The bible should be taken literally... if it was written as a set of governing laws. How else can you write laws but literally?

(May he who commits murder be as the sun to the moon, and may he set early and quickly so the day can rise again.)

 

[miss fortune]

ugh- I can't beleive I'm getting myself into this!

And here's a question to ask before I answer anything- are you speaking of the entire Constitution, the Bill of Rights or all of the Amendments?

 

[miss fortune]

*taps foot* well.... are you going to refine the question for me or shall I have to take my vast knowlege of the matter into the kitchen and make some cookies instead of answering this?

 

[Nocapszy]

How literally should you take my question?

Go make some cookies.

 

[miss fortune]

should I take that as the fact that you think all I'm good for as an S woman is baking cookies? if so you're definitley a sexist, Sest prick!

plus- it's not nice to knock things that people are genuinely curious about and interested in! :steam: I'm not going around making fun of the Power Rangers or whatever you're into! *stomps off in a state of rightiousness*

 

[Nocapszy]

should I take that as the fact that you think all I'm good for as an S woman is baking cookies? if so you're definitley a sexist, Sest prick!

Right, up until you get to the part about 'woman' since I didn't know. As far as me being a sexist goes... maybe, but probably not. If I am sexist, it's that I hate both sexes. And anything in between. (I know I gotta cover all my bases on these sites).

plus- it's not nice to knock things that people are genuinely curious about and interested in!

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

:steam: I'm not going around making fun of the Power Rangers or whatever you're into! *stomps off in a state of rightiousness*

You can't make fun of power rangers. It's impossible. They make fun of themselves. It would cause a black hole if you were to make fun of them.

Edit: I think they're working on an amendment right now about that aren't they? No making fun of the power rangers, if you find a way to. I might be confusing that with gay marriage.

See what I did there?

 

[miss fortune]

(suspects that since Sist isn't addressed that Nocapszy suspects that she's not smart enough to answer this question that she intends to answer tommorrow while not preparing for guests anyways!)

 

[Nocapszy]

(suspects that since Sist isn't addressed that Nocapszy suspects that she's not smart enough to answer this question that she intends to answer tommorrow while not preparing for guests anyways!)

Oh I didn't notice that remark at first. I'm Sist.

How's that? Quell your curiosity and suspicion?

 

[miss fortune]

:rolli: you're an idiot Nocapzy I'm sticking with your OP here

I think that the relevance of the constitution is a very interesting concept since it is both a historical document and the supreme law of our land. The Constitution has adapted with time to accomodate certain changes in society, such as the emancipation of slaves and the voting rights of women, but it has been argued that the constitution will never change as quickly as the public opinion on a matter does since an amendment takes a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress or a 2/3 majority of the states in order to Amend the Constitution.

The Supreme Court's function is to interpret the Constitution for us, since the times have changed and none of the founding fathers are any longer living in order to tell us what each different portion of the Constitution means. There are 2 styles of interpreting the Constitution, strict and loose interpretation. Strict interpretationists usually stick with the conventional meanings of the written words of the Constitution while the loose interpretationists are usually willing to read into the words of the constitution meanings that seem more relevant to modern life.

Both sides have thier shortcomings- too strict of an interpretation is ridgid and often fails to meet with the needs of modern society while too loose of an interpretation can erode the freedoms that the Constitution was put into place to protect.

I tend to find the Constitution to be a very important document, in that it outlines what freedoms we have and how our government is to conduct its business and I think that to toss it as being irrelevant would be a horrible and stupid mistake. It is an important document that we must hold to be so, but still has room for improvement, which will come with time.

There, is that a good enough answer for you?

 

[Nocapszy]

:rolli: you're an idiot Nocapzy I'm sticking with your OP here

I think that the relevance of the constitution is a very interesting concept since it is both a historical document and the supreme law of our land. The Constitution has adapted with time to accomodate certain changes in society, such as the emancipation of slaves and the voting rights of women, but it has been argued that the constitution will never change as quickly as the public opinion on a matter does since an amendment takes a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress or a 2/3 majority of the states in order to Amend the Constitution.

The Supreme Court's function is to interpret the Constitution for us, since the times have changed and none of the founding fathers are any longer living in order to tell us what each different portion of the Constitution means. There are 2 styles of interpreting the Constitution, strict and loose interpretation. Strict interpretationists usually stick with the conventional meanings of the written words of the Constitution while the loose interpretationists are usually willing to read into the words of the constitution meanings that seem more relevant to modern life.

Both sides have thier shortcomings- too strict of an interpretation is ridgid and often fails to meet with the needs of modern society while too loose of an interpretation can erode the freedoms that the Constitution was put into place to protect.

I tend to find the Constitution to be a very important document, in that it outlines what freedoms we have and how our government is to conduct its business and I think that to toss it as being irrelevant would be a horrible and stupid mistake. It is an important document that we must hold to be so, but still has room for improvement, which will come with time.

There, is that a good enough answer for you?

Not really. You basically just repeated what my civics teacher said. There's not really an explanation for your opinion, just an opinion, and some common rhetoric.

Besides, this was a joke thread anyway. I think the Ns knew that...

:rolli: you're an idiot Nocapzy

:rolli:

 

[miss fortune]

I answered that just because you didn't want me to! I gave a basic explanation because I assume that not everyone would understand Constitutional history quite as well as I do and I did state my opinion- my opinion is just rather centerist on the issue.

Don't post a question in a serious section unless you want a serious answer seriously- I'd think that a 5 year old would realize that :rolli:

Do you actually know people in real life?!?!

(actually sorry everyone but Nocap- I'm a bit tipsy and cranky at the moment )

 

[Nocapszy]

I answered that just because you didn't want me to! I gave a basic explanation because I assume that not everyone would understand Constitutional history quite as well as I do and I did state my opinion- my opinion is just rather centerist on the issue.

Er... I know you stated your opinion. That's what I said. Maybe you're a bit TOO tipsy.

Don't post a question in a serious section unless you want a serious answer seriously- I'd think that a 5 year old would realize that :rolli:

This is ridiculous. Where does it say that only serious discussions are permitted here? Additionally, it's not my fault that you took this the wrong way, so please don't take it out on me. Now that I've made it clear that this was a joke, it's appropriate to laugh it off as a misunderstanding. Apparently that's not an option. Don't worry I'm willing to go head to head with you for as long as you want. I did nothing wrong here. You coming on here and blasting me as if I'm some kind of criminal and an idiot for making a damn joke, even when it was apparent before I stated it explicitly (even a 5 year old could figure that out) is the real offense.

Do you actually know people in real life?!?!

I know Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. They agree with me on the issue.[/quote] I know the founding fathers themselves. They told me that this is exactly the opposite direction that they wanted it to go, and they're absolutely appalled by the current state of affairs. They also mentioned something about not liking you. They said that the 2nd amendment was put in place so that there would eventually be a law passed repealing the "right to pursue happiness" part of the constitution in cases such as yourself, allowing those who chose to bear arms to stop you people.

(actually sorry everyone but Nocap- I'm a bit tipsy and cranky at the moment )

Are you done? Have you made your point? I'm an idiot. Good. Glad to know it. I'll continue being an idiot. It'll make me especially happy if you stopped responding to idiot posts. Then I wouldn't have to deal with smart people.

 

[Kiddo]

Yeah, I went there. Not only is this a parody, but it'll be another one of those repetitively endless and endlessly repetitive threads going back and forth between two sides of an argument.
This thread is where the idea came from. I'm partially mocking them, but I'm partially interested.

Crap! They are on to me!

How literally should we take this document?

Idealistic answer: They have to tear it from our dead, cold fingers.

Realistic answer: Only until it doesn't conveniently suit our political agendas.

Should we use this document at all anymore?

I don't hear you offering any suitable alternatives. And no, anarchy doesn't count because it's nothing. If nothing worked better than something, then we wouldn't have bothered coming up with something and we wouldn't have stuck to something this long. So it's clear that up until now, the Constitution has been something better than nothing.

How literally should you take my question?

How literally should you take my answers?

I'm not going around making fun of the Power Rangers or whatever you're into!

What is wrong with the Power Rangers? I love the Power Rangers! The White ranger totally kicks ass. He was way better than the Green Ranger. He had a cool ass sword!

:rolli: you're an idiot Nocapzy I'm sticking with your OP here

You coming on here and blasting me as if I'm some kind of criminal and an idiot for making a damn joke, even when it was apparent before I stated it explicitly (even a 5 year old could figure that out) is the real offense.

If you two are going to start trading personal attacks, then let me go get my popcorn.

Seriously, this is like the oldest, most repetitive scenario from MBTI forums. INTP and ENTPs are misunderstood so they send all of us types that take them too seriously over here. Can't we all just get along? If not, then can we at least pretend to like each other...you know...like a dysfunctional family come together for the holidays? Santa is watching!

 

[Athenian200]

This is ridiculous. Where does it say that only serious discussions are permitted here? Additionally, it's not my fault that you took this the wrong way, so please don't take it out on me.

They said that the 2nd amendment was put in place so that there would eventually be a law passed repealing the "right to pursue happiness" part of the constitution in cases such as yourself, allowing those who chose to bear arms to stop you people.

Are you done? Have you made your point? I'm an idiot. Good. Glad to know it. I'll continue being an idiot. It'll make me especially happy if you stopped responding to idiot posts. Then I wouldn't have to deal with smart people.

That was a rather mean post in my opinion. And she's right that you should have posted a joke thread in the Fluff Zone or something, that's what it's for. This section is clearly labeled/intended for discussions on philosophical/spiritual issues, not just parodies. Why else would you be getting so defensive? She did try really hard to respond. It looked to me like she put a lot of work into that post. We really don't have a lot of ESTP's on this forum, and I don't appreciate your trying to scare them off with such animosity. We're supposed to be open to the styles of other types here, you know.

Her comments to you weren't intended as an attack, they were just playful criticism. Yours on the other hand were clearly serious. And I really think you should apologize.

 

[miss fortune]

I should know better than to drag out my sense of humor around here sometimes! I enjoy doing the exact thing that I know that someone doesn't want for me to do for kicks sometimes and that's what I was doing here! I was at least amused by me!

I thought/think that you were being rude and I was a bit taken aback that you insinuated that I was stupid just because I'm a sensor! I hang out with enginerds and science geeks all the time, so it gets old after a while! (note- I'm not insulting any engineering or science people here! I just get a lot of shit from these people in real life! they're my friends though!)

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

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!

 

[Nocapszy]

That was a rather mean post in my opinion. And she's right that you should have posted a joke thread in the Fluff Zone or something, that's what it's for. This section is clearly labeled/intended for discussions on philosophical/spiritual issues, not just parodies. Why else would you be getting so defensive? She did try really hard to respond. It looked to me like she put a lot of work into that post. We really don't have a lot of ESTP's on this forum, and I don't appreciate your trying to scare them off with such animosity. We're supposed to be open to the styles of other types here, you know.

Her comments to you weren't intended as an attack, they were just playful criticism. Yours on the other hand were clearly serious. And I really think you should apologize.

I will not be apologizing. I'll be as mean as I want when someone calls me an idiot. Especially when I've made clear my intentions, and the thread could have ended there, she continued to go on about it. Maybe you should read the posts a little more closely. Everything I said was in self defense. Maybe I have a mean tone, but this escalated to that because even after I said that it was a damn joke, she decided that taking digs at me would solve my 'problem' and put me in my place. Sorry, but if I'm being put down, I reserve the right to do it just as hard if not harder back.