[paraclete]

Bill of rights

Seems these have been forgotten

Employment, with a living wage,
Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies,
Housing,
Medical care,
Education, and,
Social security

[TUT317]

It doesn't change to suit the times. it's not clay that you can mold into whatever meaning you want, it's just not.

Hi Speech,

I am not suggesting that words can mean whatever we want them to.

What I am saying is that words do change to suit the times. In other words, over time words change their meaning and may bear little resemblance. The word, 'passion' springs to mind. Two hundred and fifty years ago this word had a different meaning as to how we now understand the word. Language has evolved and continues to evolve.

In relation to 'original intent'. It is very difficult to argue for original intent when the word, 'intent' itself is difficult to define. Does it mean the founding fathers wrote the constitution deliberately, purposefully or intentionally.

One might think that it doesn't really matter because these words mean the same thing. Well actually they don't. The more we delve into the meanings of words, the less precise they become.



Tut

[tomder55]

Yup a 'Looking Glass World'

Judge Humpty Dumpty took the book and looked at it carefully. 'That seems to be done right —' he began.

'You're holding it upside down!' Alice interrupted.

'To be sure I was!' Judge Humpty Dumpty said gaily as she turned it round for him. 'I thought it looked a little queer. As I was saying, that seems to be done right — though I haven't time to look it over thoroughly just now — and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents —'

'Certainly,' said Alice.

'And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Judge Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Judge Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Judge Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

[paraclete]

If you don't know where you are going any road will take you there

[TUT317]

yup a 'Looking Glass World'

Judge Humpty Dumpty took the book and looked at it carefully. 'That seems to be done right —' he began.

'You're holding it upside down!' Alice interrupted.

'To be sure I was!' Judge Humpty Dumpty said gaily as she turned it round for him. 'I thought it looked a little queer. As I was saying, that seems to be done right — though I haven't time to look it over thoroughly just now — and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents —'

'Certainly,' said Alice.

'And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Judge Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Judge Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Judge Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

Hi Tom,

Exactly, The imprecise nature of language is what Carroll is highlighting here. It is a commentary on the variety of ways language can be learnt and the ways it can be used. It's a parody on language as much as anything else

Tut

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

All your poetry aside, SOMEBODY has to decide WHAT the Constitution says - somebody in the three co-equal branches of government... I'm NOT happy with the Supreme Court doing it, but they're much BETTER equipped than the other two.

Look. The IDEA behind a lifetime appointment is that they'll be FREE from political pressure... In some instances, that happens. In others, it doesn't. But, for SURE, the president and the congress are subject to political pressures.

I'll ask again, do you want to risk your gun rights to the political whims of the day.. I don't think you do. I surly don't.

excon

[tomder55]

I'll ask again, do you want to risk your gun rights to the political whims of the day.. I don't think you do. I surly don't.

All it takes is some judge using a 21st century definition of what a 'militia' is to do that . I'll take my chances on the popular will . At least that's democratic .

All it took was a couple judges deciding that a Texas law was wrong to set off a legal genocide of 50 million babies.

All it took was 5 judges to decide that it was perfectly OK to confiscate people's property and hand it over to developers who wanted to build condo's..

All it took was a few judges to say that a free black man was not free anymore. All that did was set off a civil war.

All it took was a few judges to decide that a farmer couldn't grow food on his own land for his own consumption without paying taxes on it as if he had sold it.

I'm not saying we don't need judges . I'm saying their power has grow far beyond what was intended where now they have become a branch with superior powers over the rest of the government . Newt is right on this one . I may not subscribe to some of his over the top rhetoric as to remedies.. But he isn't that far off.

[tomder55]

Hi Tom,

Exactly, The imprecise nature of language is what Carroll is highlighting here. It is a commentary on the variety of ways language can be learnt and the ways it can be used. It's a parody on language as much as anything else

Tut

If the Constitution is not to be interpreted in the language and intent at the time it was created then the document is meaningless. Either way ;it is way too much power for an unelected ,lifetime appointed black robed oligarch to decide.

[paraclete]

If the Constitution is not to be interpreted in the language and intent at the time it was created then the document is meaningless. Either way ;it is way too much power for an unelected ,lifetime appointed black robed oligarch to decide.

Hi Tom Can you intrept the Magna Carta in the language of the time and put it in today's circumstance. Much of it is meaningless today and no doubt those who framed the Constitution though so at that time. Today your Constitution must be intrepreted for the circumstances of today, otherwise you are contravening it every day, To argue that a 21st Century person must intrepret it according to eighteenth century meaning and customs goes beyond reason.

Anyway I agree with you the supreme court justices have become kings by any other meaning

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

Let me see. Under your scenario, your gun rights would be safe under a Republican.. But, when a Democrat is elected - down goes gun rights.. But, don't throw 'em away, because you're going to elect a Republican the next time... Unless you get raided by a Democrat lead BATF first.

These days the cops can't torture confessions out of suspects.. But, under a Republican, I'm SURE that'll be cool.. But, after we torture and convict 1,000's, we elect a Democrat who says that we can't torture anymore and lets them all out. Then he prosecutes the torturers. When the torturers are in jail, and we elect a Republican, they'll get out, and the other guys will be prosecuted... and so on, and so on...

And, it'll be WORSE than that, too.

excon

[TUT317]

If the Constitution is not to be interpreted in the language and intent at the time it was created then the document is meaningless. Either way ;it is way too much power for an unelected ,lifetime appointed black robed oligarch to decide.

Ah, if you are talking LANGUAGE and INTENT then I would see this is two different issues.

I don't want to be a party pooper but I would see, 'original intent' as a non-starter. I will go along with the claim that one author can have an original intent but I don't see how a large number delegates involved in a drafting can have an original intent. I would say the intent would be a compromise in most cases, There is no original intent in a compromise.

Secondly, I don't think judges are interested in how legislation comes about. It wouldn't really matter if the office lady prompted the delegates with a possible solution. All that matters is that you have a constitution or final product.

Which brings me to my third point. I think it would be more profitable to focus on the language aspect rather than intent. Yes, language has evolved and will continue to evolve. At the moment there is nothing we can do about that. However, it is possible to argue that while a word or phrase means something different today in some cases we can be very confident we know the historical significance of a word. While I think this pursuit would be more fruitful. However, I agree with Clete, in that this poses a problem of contravention.

I also agree on your comment about judges.

Tut

[tomder55]

I don't think judges are interested in how legislation comes about. It wouldn't really matter if the office lady prompted the delegates with a possible solution. All that matters is that you have a constitution or final product.

But that my friend is exactly the problem . We don't have an uninterested and impartial judiciary here. We have justices who are selected over their degree of empathy and (although it is denied ) their political leaning . It makes for a bad brew if they are the"final" arbiters in a supposedly intentionally divided government with equal branches .
They are not robots ;they bring the same human weaknesses into the office that everyone else has. They have not locked up wisdom and virtue. With lifetime appointments many of them are feeble physically and mentally . Many have been chosen to serve ;not because of a demonstrated understanding of the law ,but as patronage appointments .
And it is often reflected in their decisions.
Add to that ,the FACT that beyond their decisions ,they have frequently imposed solutions . That makes them more than judges but defacto totalitarian executives and legislators . I find NO evidence that the founders intended them to have such power ;and it's high time their wings were clipped .

[TUT317]

But that my friend is exactly the problem . We don't have an uninterested and impartial judiciary here. We have justices who are selected over their degree of empathy and (although it is denied ) their political leaning . It makes for a bad brew if they are the"final" arbiters in a supposedly intentionally divided governement with equal branches .
They are not robots ;they bring the same human weaknesses into the office that everyone else has. They have not locked up wisdom and virtue. With lifetime appointments many of them are feeble physically and mentally . Many have been chosen to serve ;not because of a demonstrated understanding of the law ,but as patronage appointments .
And it is often reflected in their decisions.
Add to that ,the FACT that beyond their decisions ,they have frequently imposed solutions . That makes them more than judges but defacto totalitarian executives and legislators . I find NO evidence that the founders intended them to have such power ;and it's high time their wings were clipped .

Hi Tom,

As as far as your above comments are concerned all I can say from my point of view is that you are preaching to the converted. I know the founding fathers didn't intend things should turn out this way but they have. We live in an imperfect word. What is the answer? I don't really know.

The way things are at the moment someone has to make a call. I know you will be unhappy with this but perhaps you could draw your SCOTUS judges from an international pool of judges who have served on high courts in their countries and are knowledgeable or have qualifications in the area of constitutional law. In other words, merit based selection. Tenure would be limited, but numeration would be high.

Other than that I have no other ideas.

Tut

[tomder55]

from an international pool of judges

?? No way!

Here's the deal. If the only people you can count on is an unelected judicial oligarchy and a permanent bureaucratic civil service force then democracy (or Republicanism ) is a failed experiment . We might just as well go back to a system of enlightened monarchs and their princes.

I know the founding fathers didn't intend things should turn out this way but they have.

This is my argument... They may or may not have forseen these days . What they did know is that things change and they therefore gave us a method to change the Constitution. It is a democratic way. It does not depend on anything else than what we think the power of the government should be ;and what our rights are.
If today we think that any of the amendments have not stood the test of time then we have means to change them that do NOT rely on the sole disgression of the wisdom of the only unelected branch. That includes an update to take into account the evolution of language . For that matter there is a provision to scrap the whole thing and start over.
I can state from my reading of history that the most contentious issues in our nation have been inflamed more often than not by the judiciary .

[excon]

???? no way!

Hello again, tom:

But, you want Boehner or Gingrich to do it - maybe even Obama?? They're BETTER?? Dude!

excon

[tomder55]

They are elected . I can't help it if you don't trust the electoral process. I know if they blow it they can be removed . I trust them more than Anthony Kennedy's shifting positions.

[excon]

They are elected .

Hello again, tom:

In other words, you're willing to put your rights up for a vote. I'm not.

excon

PS> Can you imagine a Republican debate AFTER your policy is adopted? The first candidate say's if suspects don't confess after 1 hour, he'll beat it out of them.. The next one says, he'll do it in 45 minutes... The next will bid lower still..

The last guy, since he can get rid of our rights to due process, say's he'll just have the cops hold court on the street.

excon

[TUT317]

???? no way!

Here's the deal. If the only people you can count on is an unelected judicial oligarchy and a permanent bureaucratic civil service force then democracy (or Republicanism ) is a failed experiment . We might just as well go back to a system of enlightened monarchs and their princes.

Somehow I knew you were going to say that.

This is my argument... They may or may not have forseen these days . What they did know is that things change and they therefore gave us a method to change the Constitution. It is a democratic way. It does not depend on anything else than what we think the power of the government should be ;and what our rights are.
If today we think that any of the amendments have not stood the test of time then we have means to change them that do NOT rely on the sole disgression of the wisdom of the only unelected branch. That includes an update to take into account the evolution of language . For that matter there is a provision to scrap the whole thing and start over.
I can state from my reading of history that the most contentious issues in our nation have been inflamed more often than not by the judiciary .

I guess that happens when you put all of your eggs in a ballot box, so to speak. I know I am not being very helpful but there are certain limitations to what voting can achieve. Sometime voting doesn't provide a solution but will exacerbate the problem.

Tut

[tomder55]

Hello again, tom:

In other words, you're willing to put your rights up for a vote. I'm not.

excon



excon

Where do you think the amendments came from in the 1st place? Hamilton argued they were not needed but the rest of the founders decided that it was best that the legislature vote on what the Bill of Rights would be ;as well as EVERY subsequent amendment.

[excon]

Where do you think the amendments came from in the 1st place?

Hello again, tom:

They were passed like any other amendment got passed. If you want to take my guns, you're going to need to REPEAL the 2nd Amendment like you repealed prohibition. I'm NOT going to let Obama or Nancy Pelosi decide if I can own a gun.

excon