Constitutionalism

There are two kinds, in fact: strict and loose. Strict takes it at face value, while loose takes it as a set of "guidelines."

Which do you like better, my fellow Americans? Well, everybody who knows the Constitution, I guess, or people with a foreign equivalent.

I'm a Ninther.

The Constitution should be considered expansively when it concerns individual liberties, and restrictively when it concerns governmental action.

edited 11th Sep '11 12:13:26 PM by SavageHeathen

Wish granted.

And, that seems rather... inconsistent. What if government action results in increased civil liberties? Hm...

I'm of the opinion its guidelines at best, and that theres legal loopholes the size of buses to drive through when necessary.

I generally oppose using the Constitution to let the courts do Congress's job—for instance, I believe that we should lobby Congress to repeal laws that oppress gay people, rather than call on the courts to declare those laws unconsitutional (particularly if the argument that those laws are unconstitutional is based on incredibly shaky premises.)

On the other hand, practicality occasionally forces me to admit that we need to let Congress pass laws on an issue, even if it's constitutionally dubious for the federal government to have power over that issue.

edited 11th Sep '11 12:53:21 PM by feotakahari

It's a flawed document that allows to much space for liberterians and anarchists.

The Constitution is the source Code of the US, it needs to be rendered infallible pure and susprme or else arr Nation loses all purpose; this was actually decided WAY back in the Madison days in Marbury v. Madison.; which although set up Judicial Review, also started what I call "The Supremacy Clause." A lot of Pubbers really need to read it before they spout crap being "unconstitutional" though. The Constitution is our Secular Bible, it is America.

Legislating from the bench. Unbelievably aggravating, that. The only thing more annoying is jury nullification.

And yes, it is our secular bible, if you want to think about it like that. I find it funny to think that the Supreme Court basically has power because they say they do, however, since the Constitution doesn't really say what they're supposed to be doing otherwise...

Also, yeah, the thing is full of holes. Mostly because we have a bad habit of just making soft laws instead of amending the thing, because we're lazy fucks who can't be bothered to go through all that horrible effort...

Rendering it infallible is a stupid idea. For one, it essentially means we need one struict interpretation we can never devate from. which makes no sense as it was designed to adapt with changing times.

For two, we'd have to decuide who gets to decide whats the "One true way" its supposed to be read.

If by horrible effort you mean its practically impossible to do because getting that much of america to agree on anything is ridiculously hard, especially nowadays when both political factions have so little brooking for compromise.

edited 11th Sep '11 2:45:12 PM by Midgetsnowman

It would fix a lot of the problems we have, if shit got added to the Constitution. For example, Social Security and/or Medicare. It would be a godsend to the Democrats, at least, and hell, those are (or at least, were...) ultra-popular, too...

Good luck.

I think the very concept of having social security encoded into the constitution would drive the constitutionalist faction of the Right-wing into suicidal rage.

Oh, wouldn't that be amusing! It would be like a robot dividing by zero.

It would at least provide something better than "this is unconstitutional/un-American," because guess what dumbass, it's in the Constitution now, and you couldn't get anymore American if it was a cowboy in a space suit fighting Nazis with George Washington and Abraham Lincoln...

...in a Ford-Chevy-GM super-muscle-car-airplane.

Just amend it, duh, the Constitution was made so hard to edit because they knew how serious that was, and only want it to happen when we can be sure it's REALLY important.

edited 11th Sep '11 2:59:37 PM by JusticeMan

You say that like amendments are easy.

edited 11th Sep '11 3:14:43 PM by USAF713

Moderately loose. Opposed to any amendment that gets SS or Medicare in, though I don't oppose the actual programs personally. Doing so would destroy the fact that the federal Constitution is supposed to be a consensus of how government should function.

The Constitution, at its most basic, is about what the government can and cannot do. Adding Social Security and Medicare would merely add a second aspect:

What the government is and is not obligated to provide for us.

there really isnt a consensus when everyone has their own interpretation of the document. Its ironically the flaw in legal documents.

edited 11th Sep '11 3:02:12 PM by Midgetsnowman

Still, it should be held in supremacy and all actions based on an interpretation of it. Dont know how you got 'Privacy" out of it. Anyway the document is pretty much the Rules of America; The Game. You can rules lawyer around it but you cant just up and ignore a piece of it you dont like.

Why should a document written 200 years ago by a group of fallible men be considered the end-all, be-all of law when we are living in vastly different world than them? It's a great foundation, but I believe it should not be considered so important as it is, when you have the most absurd crap being challenged for not being constitutional.

Because we live in a Country made 200 years ago by fallible men. It's the end-all-be-all because every aspect of american law is ultimately derived from it. If you just make it "another law" than America literally loses all standards and all meaning as an entity.

edited 11th Sep '11 3:12:59 PM by JusticeMan

Says you.

I say, its a document that was intended to be modified and had two gaping holes written into it in the form of the commerce and necessary and proper clauses for that express purpose.

No; that's the definition of a Constitution. It literally defines America. It's the rules we play by, the baseline. We cant disregard it because then our entire system of Government comes into question. If the holes were so gaping, they'd be fixed by now. They weren't because we can function as a state with these so called "holes." In incidents of necessary severity we can edit it, and guess what? THAT WORKS. See: Slavery Prohibition, Voting Rights...

edited 11th Sep '11 3:15:29 PM by JusticeMan

...I think it's the absolute law that was intended to be modified, but...

Also, that demand to vote looks a lot better with the picture.

Theyre intentional holes to get legislation through when necessary.