Not a problem. You obviously understand how the constitution should be used. My statement was for all of the strict “constitutionalists” that feel that it should not be changed, but should be followed “as is”. Nevermind the fact that it has changed throughout its lifetime depending on the situations that the US is in. I have always felt that it was to provide a framework for the structure of the US government and not a means to an end itself. However, there are many out there that don’t share that opinion.
BTW, could you tell me which other countries have adopted this government style from the US Constitution? This is a serious inquiry, not an attack. I just find that interesting considering that we are one of the youngest nations on earth and I can’t think of any offhand. Probably because it is at the end of my workday. The brain is shutting down.
I think you’re confusing something here. A strict constructionist is NOT against changing the Constitution – at least not against changing the Constitution via the official manner of changing the Constitution, which is via the amendment process.
A strict constructionist IS against reading stuff into the Constitution that isn’t there, reading stuff out of the Constitution that is there, or generally changing the meaning of what something was understood to mean when it was written – particularly when it’s 5 out of 9 unelected judges changing something that an amendment would require be changed by supermajorities of both legislatures and 3/4 of the states…
BTW, no one has a Constitution exactly like ours, but you can find very similar systems. I guess it depends on which features you find most important in guaging similarity.[/quote]
Thanks for clearing that up BB. Much of the talk from the strict constructionist camp is as confusing as a female transgender prostitute that likes women. The only problem that I have is that many of them want to tell you what the “original intent” of the constitution without realizing that it is their own interpretation of the document that is coloring their version of the “original intent”. The only way we will know what the “original intent” of the Constitution would be to talk to the authors. Since that is not possible without a time machine, everyone’s idea of “original intent” will be different. The base idea will be the same, but someone will always put their own spin on things, either intentionally or unintentionally.
A strict constructionist IS against reading stuff into the Constitution that isn’t there, reading stuff out of the Constitution that is there, or generally changing the meaning of what something was understood to mean when it was written [/quote]
Being an evil bastard myself, I can’t help speculate what this might mean for the Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights sets out the limits of federal power, but in this case it is not unqualified. You know, the “well-regulated militia” bit and the “defense of these states” bit.
At the very least, it should require every gun-owner to show up on the town green after church on Sundays for a half-day of exercises…
It is also a question, whether the choice of weapon is entirely up to the individual? Given that handguns are entirely useless for the stated purpose, ahouldn’t at least an Armalite (or an AK-47 as a budget option)be required? Individual towns could then pool their resources and have their very own anti-aircraft batteries. It would be inspiring to see the the 1st Fargo Grandmas Tank Squadron roll across the plains.
Here are a few good law-review articles on the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment from law professor and 2nd Amendment scholar (and gun-rights advocate in the academic community) Dave Kopel:
Thanks for clearing that up BB. Much of the talk from the strict constructionist camp is as confusing as a female transgender prostitute that likes women. The only problem that I have is that many of them want to tell you what the “original intent” of the constitution without realizing that it is their own interpretation of the document that is coloring their version of the “original intent”. The only way we will know what the “original intent” of the Constitution would be to talk to the authors. Since that is not possible without a time machine, everyone’s idea of “original intent” will be different. The base idea will be the same, but someone will always put their own spin on things, either intentionally or unintentionally.[/quote]
AL,
No problem. The confusion generally arises because reporters don’t have any idea what they’re talking about – not that those interested in exercise science and nutrition would be familiar with that idea… =-)
I don’t think there is any way to remove ALL individual interpretation from the way one reads written text, which pretty much eliminates the idea that anyone’s individual interpretation could be completely removed when interpreting the Constitution (much like I don’t believe there could be an unbiased news article). However, the goal should be to minimize such individual interpretation, much as it is with high-quality academic research and interpretation. I realize you can’t remove all the “unintentional spin,” but I’d be happy with the removal of the “intentional spin.”
Essentially, w/r/t the Constitution, that means going back to research what was written at the time the various parts were enacted, to read what was debated and what the people who voted on the items thought they meant – even researching how word usage might have differed back then. Once that is accomplished, then the judge can apply principles to new factual situations that arise.
Here are a few more good 2nd Amendment articles from other Con Law professors (two of my favorites actually: Eugene Vololkh of UCLA and Glenn Reynolds of University of Tennessee):
I think the constitution is a great document. If anyone wants to know what the intent of the founding fathers was just read the thing. It is absolutely straightforward.
It is only modern legalese that is confusing the whole thing, plus all the nutjobs who think twisting its meaning in the courts is the way to circumvent and bypass the will of the people.
The Constitution really is the framework for the United States. It is the outer rules that all inner rules must follow. As such it makes total sense.
Also the idea it is hard to change, but can be changed, is a very important part. It can only be changed if most people realize it must be changed, and that keeps it from being twisted on a whim whenever the party in power feels like it.
And yes it is not perfect. For example the XIV (16 to you non Romans) Amendment for taxes. It was passed only because everyone was told only people making $100,000 a year would be taxed. An ungodly amount at that time. Everyone thought it was a stick it to the rich idea, and like all the stick it to the rich ideas it hurts the middle class the most.
Then as mentioned before Amendment XXVI - VIII (26 minus 8. Oh no math.) prohibiting alcohol. Sounds like a good idea. No drunks. But that truly backfired.
One thing they did think about was slavery. They actually thought about giving blacks the same rights, but there was serious doubt the Constitution would have been accepted back then, so for political reasons more then anything it was left out.
I believe there are other countries that have constitutions, but ignore them. Those documents are worthless. If we start ignoring ours it becomes worthless also.
The Constitution really is the framework for the United States. It is the outer rules that all inner rules must follow. As such it makes total sense.[/quote]
And yet it was changed, most drastically, through the civil war. Regardless of personal beliefs, there is no denying that the ante-bellum states rights interpretation of the constitution was rejected by means outside of due process.
[quote]BB wrote referring to 2nd amendment
[/quote]
I briefly skimmed through Kopel’s text and it seems that the early and more “Constructionist” interpretation would agree with me, i.e that militarily useful weapons are protected, but not necessarily others. Maybe the submarine should be renamed M.S Los Angeles (municipal ship).