How literally should the constitution be taken?

[Nocapszy]

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.

I understood. Just as you weren't talking specifically to me, I wasn't talking specifically to you. The remark was intended to encourage anyone who might jump at the opportunity to criticize me to go back and make sure that whatever case they tried to bring against me would be cultivated in contextually accurate soil.

I was sure you weren't attacking me.

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

What about lying? Is that any better?

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

Quote me where I pointed the finger please. I don't remember doing it.

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.

True enough. So you're under the

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.

Is the justification that, you had to have the cannabis imported at some point in order for you to grow it in the first place?

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.

Right, but it's extremely hard to really amend it. Sure, it was left as an open ended project, but it's difficult to take advantage of that.

 

[Kiddo]

Wow. Is this thread still alive?

The Constitution is just a piece of paper. The ideas expressed in it are completely dependent on people carrying them out. How literally it should be interpreted is therefore an individual decision which holds no universal significance for people in general. There, is that the boring, and completely pointless answer you were looking for?

 

[miss fortune]

Wow. Is this thread still alive?

unfortunatly, yes

 

[Nocapszy]

Wow. Is this thread still alive?

The Constitution is just a piece of paper. The ideas expressed in it are completely dependent on people carrying them out. How literally it should be interpreted is therefore an individual decision which holds no universal significance for people in general. There, is that the boring, and completely pointless answer you were looking for?

The Bible is just a book made of paper. The ideas expressed in it are completely dependent on people carrying them out. How literally it should be interpreted is therefore an individual decision which holds no universal significance for people in general.

 

[Nocapszy]

unfortunatly, yes

Why do you post here? If you thought it was such a waste of time, then you wouldn't. Unless it's not the thread that bothers you, but the creator of the thread.

Why haven't you quoted me where I pointed the finger?

Or answered any of my other questions. You don't have the 'you're not worth the time' get-out-of-jail-free card, otherwise you wouldn't have bothered with any of what you've said. If I'm worth enough time for you to tell me I'm not worth the time and then for you to elaborate on a few of my other flaws while justifying your own, then I'm worth enough time for you to answer the question fairly.

 

[Kiddo]

Why do you post here? If you thought it was such a waste of time, then you wouldn't. Unless it's not the thread that bothers you, but the creator of the thread.

Why haven't you quoted me where I pointed the finger?

Or answered any of my other questions. You don't have the 'you're not worth the time' get-out-of-jail-free card, otherwise you wouldn't have bothered with any of what you've said. If I'm worth enough time for you to tell me I'm not worth the time and then for you to elaborate on a few of my other flaws while justifying your own, then I'm worth enough time for you to answer the question fairly.

I think between this thread and the Ron Paul one, it would be a good time to remind people of the rules.

Flaming: Flaming and personal attacks are not allowed. This includes non-jocular attack-threads as distinct from flame-wars in The Graveyard. A Personal Insult, or Flame, is:
A post with the sole apparent intent to enrage another user of the forum.
A personal attack or name-calling based upon lies and/or subjective statements.
Trolls: No Trolling. Trolling is considered a post that is one of the following:
An attempt to bait a user into an off topic debate within a thread based upon a personal insult or "flame."
An attempt to make a user "go off" on the other through use of personal insult or allusion to personal insult.

 

[Nocapszy]

I think between this thread and the Ron Paul one, it would be a good time to remind people of the rules.

That's what trolling is? Not the understanding I had of it, but I guess I should ease off the pedal then. In my own defense, I was hoping that last one would end this.