Tiberius Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 The argument isn't for him, it's for lurkers, and otherwise bright folks who've only heard the political narrative of this discussion. It's an opportunity for them to hear the nuanced arguments presented by knowledgable folks who speak to the topic well. Without your voice, without my voice; there is only gatorman's voice. I just wish he'd explain his point about the Liberal interpretation of the Constitution Has so harmed the country. Perhaps you can tasker... Because gatormans voice can't be the only voice! Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 (edited) I just wish he'd explain his point about the Liberal interpretation of the Constitution Has so harmed the country. Perhaps you can tasker... Because gatormans voice can't be the only voice! Lol I mean it in terms of how a Judge interprets the law, not in the traditional political sense. There are many philosophies on how to interpret the constitution, from those that feel the document is an actual organism, living and breathing -- to textualism on the other end of the philosophical spectrum -- and a bunch in between. And in terms of legal philosophies, a liberal interpretation of the constitution is the absolute last thing the founding fathers would have desired. Edited March 21, 2014 by GreggyT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 If a High Guiding Document, like our Constitution, has no fixed meaning; then it makes all law meaningless. Or, to quote Washington, the Constitution is not intended to be "a blank document in it's construction"; he goes on to speak about changing the meaning through the mechanisms provided, rather than relying on the mutability of language. To illustrate my point, President Bush relied completely on a liberal interpretation of the document throughout his presidency; White House lawyers asserted that they were acting unilaterally, and that Administration interpreted the Constitution in such a way that their actions were permissible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 (edited) If a High Guiding Document, like our Constitution, has no fixed meaning; then it makes all law meaningless. Or, to quote Washington, the Constitution is not intended to be "a blank document in it's construction"; he goes on to speak about changing the meaning through the mechanisms provided, rather than relying on the mutability of language. To illustrate my point, President Bush relied completely on a liberal interpretation of the document throughout his presidency; White House lawyers asserted that they were acting unilaterally, and that Administration interpreted the Constitution in such a way that their actions were permissible. ^ | | He said it better than me. Edited March 21, 2014 by GreggyT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 I mean it in terms of how a Judge interprets the law, not in the traditional political sense. There are many philosophies on how to interpret the constitution, from those that feel the document is an actual organism, living and breathing -- to textualism on the other end of the philosophical spectrum -- and a bunch in between. And in terms of legal philosophies, a liberal interpretation of the constitution is the absolute last thing the founding fathers would have desired. First off, the authors of the Constitution and Federalist Papers could not agree THEMSELVES on how to interpret the Constitution. James Madison and Alex Hamilton interpreted it differently and formed political parties that opposed each other and appointed federal judges based on party. They wrote the damn thing! Do you know the facts of Marbury v Madison? I'm saying your argument makes no sense what so ever. Who cares what what the "Founding Fathers" would or would not like about our interpretation. They lived in a pre-industrial age that sanctioned slavery and couldn't agree themselves over the document. Of course we interpret differently, we live in extremely different times with different issues. If a High Guiding Document, like our Constitution, has no fixed meaning; then it makes all law meaningless. Or, to quote Washington, the Constitution is not intended to be "a blank document in it's construction"; he goes on to speak about changing the meaning through the mechanisms provided, rather than relying on the mutability of language. That's just nonsense. One of the strengths of the Constitution is that its meaning can change as the world changes. George Washington never saw a train in his life. George Washington didn't believe the masses should be allowed to vote either. We have been re-interpretating the Constitution since its ink was barley dry and its gotten us this far Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 You're going to have to explain your use of the word "liberal" to gatorman. He's not getting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 That's just nonsense. One of the strengths of the Constitution is that its meaning can change as the world changes. The Constitution in no way, and in no form, was created to change "as the world changes". The brilliance of the document is found in its ability to change when needed -- but there is an ocean of difference between that and changing on every whim of public opinion. We have been re-interpretating the Constitution since its ink was barley dry and its gotten us this far Again, words matter -- especially when opining about the issue of legal theory. "Re-interpreting" the Constitution is radical and not what the founders intended. Ever. None of them, not one. Refining the constitution through the appropriate mechanisms to better suit the times -- that's the way the system was designed to work. That's the brilliance of it. Willy nilly change is the thing the founders feared more than anything else. They feared it, as should we today, because they were not only brilliant men who understood history, but men who realized that if the mob rules, individual liberty dies. You're going to have to explain your use of the word "liberal" to gatorman. He's not getting it. Crap. You're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 The Constitution in no way, and in no form, was created to change "as the world changes". The brilliance of the document is found in its ability to change when needed -- but there is an ocean of difference between that and changing on every whim of public opinion. Again, words matter -- especially when opining about the issue of legal theory. "Re-interpreting" the Constitution is radical and not what the founders intended. Ever. None of them, not one. Refining the constitution through the appropriate mechanisms to better suit the times -- that's the way the system was designed to work. That's the brilliance of it. Willy nilly change is the thing the founders feared more than anything else. They feared it, as should we today, because they were not only brilliant men who understood history, but men who realized that if the mob rules, individual liberty dies. Crap. You're right. Ok, fine dude. You think it can't change. Whatever. I actually asked you what harm has been caused by this liberal interpretation, which you never defined. Tom is right, let hear it... And this mob rule...is that your sky is falling fear? You're going to have to explain your use of the word "liberal" to gatorman. He's not getting it. And in fairness to me, I did ask him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 (edited) Ok, fine dude. You think it can't change. Whatever. I actually asked you what harm has been caused by this liberal interpretation, which you never defined. Tasker's post about W's administration is the best of many examples that can be drudged up. I doubt we agree on much, but I think we both can agree that Bush's administration did more harm than good. Whatever it is you think Bush did (because I imagine your imagination is more exciting than reality), know he justified his actions by leaning on a liberal interpretation of the law. If the law can be liberally changed (liberal meaning: whenever it suits the majority's desires), then it serves no purpose other than to harm to the minority. And this mob rule...is that your sky is falling fear? I love me a good conspiracy -- and I believe there might be some truth to some of my favorites -- but I treat conspiracy theories by in large as nothing more than a good story. I don't have a "world's ending" mentality despite some of the imagery I've used in responding to you. But I also know enough history to be inherently distrustful of group-think philosophies. They never end well. Edited March 21, 2014 by GreggyT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 But I also know enough history to be inherently distrustful of group-think philosophies. They never end well. You know enough history? But you don't know that the Founding Fathers you mentioned did not agree on the very document they wrote? Then they formed, in your words, group think philosophies to support them. I did not like the Bush administration, but that supports MY POSITION. If the Democrats don't have the power then the Republicans will and they will interpret the Constitution THEIR way. Like Bush! The idea that Bush was special, unique or exceptional is just ridiculous. What politician will you vote for who will be a Simon pure Constitutionalist? I'd love to hear this! Don't worry, I'm not expecting you to answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 You know enough history? But you don't know that the Founding Fathers you mentioned did not agree on the very document they wrote? Then they formed, in your words, group think philosophies to support them. I did not like the Bush administration, but that supports MY POSITION. If the Democrats don't have the power then the Republicans will and they will interpret the Constitution THEIR way. Like Bush! The idea that Bush was special, unique or exceptional is just ridiculous. What politician will you vote for who will be a Simon pure Constitutionalist? I'd love to hear this! Don't worry, I'm not expecting you to answer :lol: Good because you wouldn't be able to hear it over my laughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 :lol: Good because you wouldn't be able to hear it over my laughter. I knew it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 :lol: Good because you wouldn't be able to hear it over my laughter. Jeez... You aren't kidding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Jeez... You aren't kidding. Since he won't answer, how about you, what politician do you feel will honor the letter of the Constitution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Since he won't answer, how about you, what politician do you feel will honor the letter of the Constitution? When the hell did you even ask that question? I thought we were talking about judges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 When the hell did you even ask that question? I thought we were talking about judges. Ummmm...you referred to Bush, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 (edited) Since he won't answer, how about you, what politician do you feel will honor the letter of the Constitution? To echo Greg, we aren't talking about politicians. Edited March 21, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 To illustrate my point, President Bush relied completely on a liberal interpretation of the document throughout his presidency; White House lawyers asserted that they were acting unilaterally, and that Administration interpreted the Constitution in such a way that their actions were permissible. So which politician out there now will you trust to have a Simon Pure Interpretation of laws and the Constitution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 So which politician out there now will you trust to have a Simon Pure Interpretation of laws and the Constitution? And quite hilariously, you've made my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 And quite hilariously, you've made my point. Sure man! lol, Sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts