Jedi Council Forums - The Nature of the American Constitution. Revised for your Comfort.

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 » - ~~Previous~~ | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: The Nature of the American Constitution. Revised for your Comfort.
LeeKenobi Registered: Aug '02	Date Posted: 10/10/05 10:20am Subject: The Nature of the American Constitution. Revised for your Comfort. - Date Edited: 10/10/05 11:32pm (3 edits total) Edited By: Ender_Sai
	Just what DO YOU BELIEVE to be the nature of the Constitution? I should like to believe that the Constitution is set in stone--the very nature of it as black and white, just as pen is on paper. Rules and laws cannot and should not be "interpreted", but either accepted or rejected by what they say letter by letter. Let's look at for example, one of what I believe to be the largest case of Constitutional Interpretation. In this case, you have the controversy over prayer in schools. We have one faction saying that it is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion by the state. The opposing faction states that school prayer is actually protected by the first amendment. I am inclined to agree with the second group--the Constitution states simply that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit free exercise thereof". (any reader if European history can understand why the Founders included this, what with the many abuses of the Anglican church by Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, the reign of "Bloody" Mary, Civil War in England which led to the Puritan execution of Charles I, and other such events) In this case, Congress has not acted to endorse religion as expressed by the Constitution, making any claims of unconstitutionality null and void. Therefore, a school administrator or student can say a prayer/invocation/what have you over a school loudspeaker and be constitutionally protected under the First Amendment. Thoughts? As Raven suggested, we'll add American to it, since your <5% of the world isn't unique in having a constitution...
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
KnightWriter Title: Administrator Emeritus Registered: Nov '01	Date Posted: 10/10/05 11:12am Subject: RE: The Nature of the Constitution. Revised for your Comfort.
	Just as the world around us changes, so too does the application and interpretation of the constitution change. New technology has a lot to do with that, as there are many challenges being dealt with now that simply didn't exist when the constitution existed. Human nature may be constant, but the things our nature deals with are ever-changing. -----signature----- Opposing Scrooge Economics since 2009
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
ShaneP Title: Lucasfilm Projects Gremlin(Manager ) Registered: Mar '01	Date Posted: 10/10/05 11:48am Subject: RE: The Nature of the Constitution. Revised for your Comfort.
	New technology has a lot to do with that, as there are many challenges being dealt with now that simply didn't exist when the constitution existed. Which is why they put in the amendment process. Someone has been listening to Justice Bryer. I'm sure he'd also say the constitution gave the 3 branches equal powers. -----signature----- Keep Your Words Sweet. You May Have To Eat Them.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DARTH-SHREDDER Registered: May '05	Date Posted: 10/10/05 12:00pm Subject: RE: The Nature of the Constitution. Revised for your Comfort. - Date Edited: 10/10/05 12:04pm (1 edits total) Edited By: DARTH-SHREDDER
	You have a very simple way of looking at this. Maybe I can give you another simple way of looking at it, but this one makes more sense. You can't take historical documents and take literaly word for word, letter for letter, you can't. It was written 250 years ago, it can't be applied to today literaly. The original constitution as it was written then said blacks were only 3/5 of a white man. That's just the times back then. That was just what made sense for that time. But now, things are different. You can't apply that today, or do you think blacks are only 3/5 of whites? You probably don't, and in that case your arguement has lost. As for gun control, again, you can't take it literaly, becuase back then they didn't have a police force, so people had to have a way to protect themselves. But now we do have a police force. Do you see how you can't apply these things to today? It just doesn't work. Times change, and if you try to preserve some historical document just for the sake of preserving it, it's gets to be just silly, and at some point you will have to realize that everything changes, including the constitution. As for prayers in schools. Actually, not only is it irrelevent what the constitution said about this 250 years ago, but you're not even interpreting the way it was written back then acccurately. It clearly says there is a seperation of church and state. If you read a prayer over the intercom, that would be forcing religion on somebody, that religion would be forced on the students, in which case, the church and the state wouldn't be very seperated, would they? But whats more important, as I've said, you can't apply the original constitution word for wor to today. If you try to apply something to today that was written for and based on a different time, they just don't agree. Very simple, isn't it? -----signature----- The bible is a pathway to many beliefs some consider to be ignorant. Only a sith deals in absolutes....or a conservative. I have a big problem with religion and rednecks. Proud tree hugger. \m/ Rock on/
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
ShaneP Title: Lucasfilm Projects Gremlin(Manager ) Registered: Mar '01	Date Posted: 10/10/05 12:32pm Subject: RE: The Nature of the Constitution. Revised for your Comfort. - Date Edited: 10/10/05 12:36pm (1 edits total) Edited By: ShaneP
	DARTH SHREDDER The original constitution as it was written then said blacks were only 3/5 of a white man. That's just the times back then. That was just what made sense for that time. But now, things are different. You can't apply that today, or do you think blacks are only 3/5 of whites? And how did that change? They amended it. And just as a sidenote: do you know specifically why the 3/5th was in there? If you say "because whitey hated the black man", you'd be incorrect. -----signature----- Keep Your Words Sweet. You May Have To Eat Them.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Vaderize03 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Oct '99	Date Posted: 10/10/05 12:35pm Subject: RE: The Nature of the Constitution. Revised for your Comfort.
	Amending the Constitution is not the only way to apply it's laws, ShaneP, and you know that . Court rulings and legislation count as well, something that many people in this country ignore. Peace, V-03 -----signature----- "Bring your pretty face to my axe....." B-O-H-I-C-A !! (that was funny DM!) "I'm what Willis was talking about"
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
ShaneP Title: Lucasfilm Projects Gremlin(Manager ) Registered: Mar '01	Date Posted: 10/10/05 12:43pm Subject: RE: The Nature of the Constitution. Revised for your Comfort. - Date Edited: 10/10/05 12:53pm (3 edits total) Edited By: ShaneP
	is not the only way to apply it's laws The way to change those laws, rulings, etc. The way to change things in the constitution is through the amendent process. It's also the most democratic. That's what you want right? What makes legislation and judicial rulings legitimate? -----signature----- Keep Your Words Sweet. You May Have To Eat Them.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Jabbadabbado Title: Senate Floor Manager Registered: Mar '99	Date Posted: 10/10/05 1:29pm Subject: RE: The Nature of the Constitution. Revised for your Comfort.
	Clearly, one of the things that has made the U.S. government continue to function for so long is a shared belief in the authority of the constitution. That cultural and political certainty is a lot more important than the details of how the text is interpreted, and by whom. Even if the power of the courts to review the constitutionality of acts of the legislative and executive branches was merely appropriated by an act of judicial power (as indeed it was), the belief in that power as a constitutional interpretation of the constitution is good enough to have held up for several centuries. I see that as the primary function of the constitution. The text itself disappears behind centuries of constitutional interpretation. But its value in giving the governed the sense that they are being governed by people who are governed by a higher legal authority is priceless in terms of the longevity of this nation. The only act of constitutional interpretation more powerful than judicial review was the Civil War. -----signature----- "As a Chicago sports fan you get used to disappointment."
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DARTH-SHREDDER Registered: May '05	Date Posted: 10/10/05 1:43pm Subject: RE: The Nature of the Constitution. Revised for your Comfort. - Date Edited: 10/10/05 1:47pm (2 edits total) Edited By: DARTH-SHREDDER
	ShaneP posted: DARTH SHREDDER The original constitution as it was written then said blacks were only 3/5 of a white man. That's just the times back then. That was just what made sense for that time. But now, things are different. You can't apply that today, or do you think blacks are only 3/5 of whites? And how did that change? They amended it. And just as a sidenote: do you know specifically why the 3/5th was in there? If you say "because whitey hated the black man", you'd be incorrect. I've had this same debate with Bruno. Amending is changing. Here is the definition from dictionary.com.It has the word change in it: "To change for the better; improve" Therefore, if you amend something, you change it.... shred edit: Ok Mr. history-textbook, why was that 3/5 comprimise in there? -----signature----- The bible is a pathway to many beliefs some consider to be ignorant. Only a sith deals in absolutes....or a conservative. I have a big problem with religion and rednecks. Proud tree hugger. \m/ Rock on/
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth_Guy Registered: Aug '02	Date Posted: 10/10/05 2:17pm Subject: RE: The Nature of the Constitution. Revised for your Comfort.
	It was in there so that the rich plantation owners could vote "for" their slaves. -----signature----- Perhaps I'll breed some sort of albino shouting gorilla.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DARTH-SHREDDER Registered: May '05	Date Posted: 10/10/05 2:20pm Subject: RE: The Nature of the Constitution. Revised for your Comfort.
	Sounds like white superiority to me. -----signature----- The bible is a pathway to many beliefs some consider to be ignorant. Only a sith deals in absolutes....or a conservative. I have a big problem with religion and rednecks. Proud tree hugger. \m/ Rock on/
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth_Guy Registered: Aug '02	Date Posted: 10/10/05 2:25pm Subject: RE: The Nature of the Constitution. Revised for your Comfort.
	Did I ever say it wasn't? -----signature----- Perhaps I'll breed some sort of albino shouting gorilla.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DARTH-SHREDDER Registered: May '05	Date Posted: 10/10/05 2:51pm Subject: RE: The Nature of the Constitution. Revised for your Comfort.
	No, but ShaneP did. -----signature----- The bible is a pathway to many beliefs some consider to be ignorant. Only a sith deals in absolutes....or a conservative. I have a big problem with religion and rednecks. Proud tree hugger. \m/ Rock on/
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
LostOnHoth Registered: Feb '00	Date Posted: 10/10/05 3:40pm Subject: RE: The Nature of the Constitution. Revised for your Comfort. - Date Edited: 10/10/05 4:02pm (1 edits total) Edited By: LostOnHoth
	Rules and laws cannot and should not be "interpreted", but either accepted or rejected by what they say letter by letter. So what do you do when there is a dispute as to the meaning of a particular statute? I know pretty much nothing about the US Constitution but if it's written anything like the Australian Constitution then much of the text can be open to varying degrees of interpretation because of the language used by the drafters. The fact that you have disputes about the meaning of particular provisions of the Constitution necessarily requires a judicial means of settling those disputes. Also as KW mentioned, technological advances bring many statutes into question. For example, we have legislation that requires certain communications to be "signed" by the author before they will be recognised as being binding on the parties for the purposes of the legislation (the specific legislation isn't unimportant) - an email is sent by one party to another and an automatic electronic signature is inserted at the end of the message. Has that communication been "signed" by the author? - we now have legislation that allows electronic signatures but prior to this legislation it was a matter for the courts to interpret the intent of the legislators to determine the issue. The same is true of any legislation, including the Constitution. All language is open to interpretation, particularly the language of the law which tends to be drafted more ambiguously than other forms of written communication. -----signature----- 'Our enemies are innovative and resourceful and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." - George W Bush
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Ender_Sai Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Feb '01	Date Posted: 10/10/05 4:30pm Subject: RE: The Nature of the Constitution. Revised for your Comfort.
	Shredder, just because someone doesn't agree with you, it does not automatically make them your polar opposite, ideologically. ShaneP is a very strong centrist/libertarian with the associated respect for civil liberties, so shoehorning him into any other category is a disservice to both of you. E_S -----signature----- In this truth he knew himself to be. From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
ShaneP Title: Lucasfilm Projects Gremlin(Manager ) Registered: Mar '01	Date Posted: 10/10/05 5:00pm Subject: RE: The Nature of the Constitution. Revised for your Comfort.
	Jabba The only act of constitutional interpretation more powerful than judicial review was the Civil War. Whoah....thems fightin' words. Darth Guy, It was in there(the 3/5ths) so that the rich plantation owners could vote "for" their slaves. Correct. And what did that do for the sectional balance of power between slaveholding states and non-slaveholding? -----signature----- Keep Your Words Sweet. You May Have To Eat Them.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 » - ~~Previous~~ | Next | Reload