What Is The Constitution?
WILLIAM
January 27, 2010 01:29:12
|
|
|||||
|
10 votes
|
|
14% | ||
|
51 votes
|
|
70% | ||
|
1 vote
|
|
1% | |||
|
11 votes
|
|
15% | |||
Is It A "Living Document", Or Is It Meant To Be Preserved?
A living document is a document which may be continually edited and updated by either a limited or unrestricted group.A living document may or may not have a framework for updates, changes, or adjustments. This type of document without proper context can change away from its original purpose through multiple uncontrolled edits.
A living document may evolve through updates, be expanded, and serve a different purpose over time. Living documents are changed through revisions that may or may not reference previous iterative changes. The rate of document age depends on the structure of the original document, or original intent of such document, or guidelines for modifying such document.
A Preserved Document is a document that must not be edited, or changed in any dramatic way. A preserved document has a particular framework to follow, and its foundations must not be fundamentally changed.
So, how do you feel about the Law Of The Land? Is it a Living Document, or is it a Preserved Document?
Share Your Thoughts, and Share With Your Sodaheads!
A living document is a document which may be continually edited and updated by either a limited or unrestricted group.A living document may or may not have a framework for updates, changes, or adjustments. This type of document without proper context can change away from its original purpose through multiple uncontrolled edits.
A living document may evolve through updates, be expanded, and serve a different purpose over time. Living documents are changed through revisions that may or may not reference previous iterative changes. The rate of document age depends on the structure of the original document, or original intent of such document, or guidelines for modifying such document.
A Preserved Document is a document that must not be edited, or changed in any dramatic way. A preserved document has a particular framework to follow, and its foundations must not be fundamentally changed.
So, how do you feel about the Law Of The Land? Is it a Living Document, or is it a Preserved Document?
Share Your Thoughts, and Share With Your Sodaheads!
More polls by WILLIAM
Top Opinion
-
Athlete January 27, 2010 01:43:21It Is Meant To Be Preserved.
+10It is meant to be preserved and our Founding Fathers intended it to be this way. We need to keep the Constitution in its original state as this is our indentity, DNA, and foundation as the United States of America. Without this in its original form, we cease to be who we are as a country.
See Votes by State
Loading map...
News & Politics
May 26, 2012 04:43:09
Hot Questions on SodaHead
-
Who's the Hottest Male Actor Over 50?
-
What Was the Best Season Finale?
-
Who's the Meanest Reality TV Judge?
- View more slideshows »
Stagnation isnt something to be feared. Roots may keep us in place, but they will ensure us a long and plentiful existence.
What is the point?
"We need to adapt to change, including the Constitution if it's no longer serving us well."
The Constitution is composed of nothing but Individual Liberty. Individual Liberty is not something that is subject to the changing times. A nation without Individual Liberty is better off dead.
This is the type of question that really shows what people know of this nation and the utter hypocrisy of the right.
You good righties just made one of the most devastating changes to US law since Dredd-Scott and have we heard anything from you? Nope. Fox and friends loves this decision, as do all your little paid-for toadies, despite what the constitution says.
Concerning Judicial Review
IF you believe the Constitution is a perfect document, needing nothing added or subtracted, the founders would call you crazy (Hint: They left instruction for amendments). I also suggest you would then need to turn the clock back to Jefferson's Presidency, when the Supreme Court grabbed the power of declaring laws constitutional or unconstitutional, which was NEVER in the constitution.
"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." - Thomas Jefferson
So you see, if what the conservatives say is true, then we broke their sacred rule 10 years in to this thing. ...
This is the type of question that really shows what people know of this nation and the utter hypocrisy of the right.
You good righties just made one of the most devastating changes to US law since Dredd-Scott and have we heard anything from you? Nope. Fox and friends loves this decision, as do all your little paid-for toadies, despite what the constitution says.
Concerning Judicial Review
IF you believe the Constitution is a perfect document, needing nothing added or subtracted, the founders would call you crazy (Hint: They left instruction for amendments). I also suggest you would then need to turn the clock back to Jefferson's Presidency, when the Supreme Court grabbed the power of declaring laws constitutional or unconstitutional, which was NEVER in the constitution.
"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." - Thomas Jefferson
So you see, if what the conservatives say is true, then we broke their sacred rule 10 years in to this thing. And the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in deciding what is constitutional. All you Jefferson/Marshall fans should know this.
What you want is the Articles of Confederation back. Why not just admit that the constitution means nothing to you unless you agree with it? Because in all honesty, if you loved the constitution, you would STFU about things like abortion. They are NOT constitutional matters, they are moral. The same holds true for corporate donations as if they were people. The right loves this stuff, but of course, none of it is constitutional.
Women? No more vote for you. Actually, as a woman, no more anything for you.
Shall we run through all the changes that have been necessary? You can go and read them for yourself. They are called amendments.
"No it is not a "living" document."
Now maybe you are home schooled (do they even do post-grad home schooling?) and honestly don't understand reading comprehension, but "No it is not a "living" document" means "No, it is not a living document." Not a whole lot of room for misinterpretation.
Man, if this is the way you guys do your Bible interpretations, no wonder you've gotten it all messed up.
Obama did say the Constitution is wrong. that it should say what govt should do for you not what it can't do. he misses the point entirely EXACTLY, the Constitution was meant to say what it CANNOT DO as in limited govt. for and by the people!
Unfortunately ever since FDR the Pres and Congress with S.C. as an accomplices have been able to do whatever they want.
This is how they have been getting around the Constitution:
"Loyalty of the law-making power to the executive power was one of the dangers the political fathers foretold!"
This quote from an article written in 1930's:
"In that special session the Congress had surrendered to the President its one absolute power, namely control of the public purse: also in creating for the New Deal those new instruments of power demanded by the President, it delegated to him a vast amount of law-making power-- so much in fact that from then on the President and the AGENCIES that were responsible to HIM made more law than the Congress. The law the made was called administrative law. Each new agency had the authority to issue rules and regulations having the force of law."
http://www.sodahead.com/un...
Obama did say the Constitution is wrong. that it should say what govt should do for you not what it can't do. he misses the point entirely EXACTLY, the Constitution was meant to say what it CANNOT DO as in limited govt. for and by the people!
Unfortunately ever since FDR the Pres and Congress with S.C. as an accomplices have been able to do whatever they want.
This is how they have been getting around the Constitution:
"Loyalty of the law-making power to the executive power was one of the dangers the political fathers foretold!"
This quote from an article written in 1930's:
"In that special session the Congress had surrendered to the President its one absolute power, namely control of the public purse: also in creating for the New Deal those new instruments of power demanded by the President, it delegated to him a vast amount of law-making power-- so much in fact that from then on the President and the AGENCIES that were responsible to HIM made more law than the Congress. The law the made was called administrative law. Each new agency had the authority to issue rules and regulations having the force of law."
http://www.sodahead.com/unite...
As a purist this govt is acting illegally! The Constitution was NOT intended to be changed so easily. The Constitution is correct in its list of "enumerated powers"
Heed this fellow patriots. We have to take our country back!
*returns to reading the Federalist Papers*
Who's trying to change that, William?
If the Constitution had no need to evolve, there would be no need for Amendments.
The Constitution is different. It is intended to be a basis for the laws of the United States of America for as long as this country shall last. As such the Constitution needs to be considered in light of new developements over the years. For instance, the Constitution makes no mention of the Internet. Does this mean that laws affecting the Internet are exempt from any form of constitutional limitation? Does the Constitution guarantee freedom of speech on the Internet? All these issues must be worked out by the courts and ultimately the Supreme Court whether we like their decisions or not. This is one way in which the Constitution evolves. Another way in which the Constitution evolves is through the process of ammendment which is written into the Constitution itself.
Also have you heard of Homeland security?
"I propose the most extensive reorganization of the federal government since the 1940's by creating a new Department of Homeland Security" ~Bush, a message to congress June 18, 2002
The above is a quote from Justice Scalia taken from an interview with National Public Radio in April, 2008. This is where the popular term "Dead Constitution" comes from. It is not something of my own invention. I have a great deal of respect for Justice Scalia but I do not agree with him on the subject of how to interpret the Constitution. If you have any real interest in the matter take some time to research the concept of the living Constitution. You probably won't change your mind but at least you might gain a little respect for those with whom you disagree.
People who have no respect for their opponents position seldom understand their own position.
That stipulation is in the document iself.
Check out Article 5:
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
So there ya go.
And the Constituion, with it's innate ability to change in order to meet changing needs, must be preserved.