Constitution of the United States

[txswinner]

Was this document written with the purpose of a conservative use or liberal useage and why?

 

[kenimpzoom]

Re: Constitution of the United States

Please define the context of the word "use".<br /><br />Ken

 

[RubberFrog]

Re: Constitution of the United States

I did not have sexual relati..... oops, wrong definition.... sorry

 

[alden135]

Re: Constitution of the United States

In reference to your query, are you using the most commonly accepted modern definitions of those terms, or those in use during the period in question?

 

[12Footer]

Re: Constitution of the United States

the answer is yes.<br />because to us, all men were created equal.<br />women , on the other hand.... just jivin

 

[Kwas]

Re: Constitution of the United States

It depends on who is interpeting it, a conservative supreme court or a liberal supreme court. At the time that it was wirtten it was considered fair for all.

 

[QC]

Re: Constitution of the United States

Your question is just plain stupid and leading, nor is it relevant to the Constitution.<br /><br />Liberal and conservative should not mean anything more than those who take a conservative (leave it alone) or liberal (change a lot and often) approach to political issues.<br /><br />Judges should be neither liberal nor conservative if they are doing their jobs right. They should rule like umpires. Ball, strike, in bounds, out of bounds, safe, out. Nothing more. In fact the very definition of their jobs is conservative. What was the original intention of the constitution or law and are we within those boundaries. AKA, leave it alone.

 

[txswinner]

Re: Constitution of the United States

QC, Thanks for your intellectual start. First the supreme court as it was first intended was nothing of the power it has developed.<br /><br />However, you are correct in that the bounds of their power was to control the laws.<br /><br />I was avoiding my opinion so as to gather info from others but since I have been so labeled as stupid by HIS MOST INFORMED QC I shall add my thoughts.<br /><br />The Constitution was written not as the rights of the people (that would be the Declaration of Independence) but rather to limit the power and direct the actions of the government with the people. It was to improve the bounds of the states but not to take away the rights of the people or the states.<br /><br />Thus the beginning "In order to form a more perfect union", however some might argue that it did take over final power as it gives the ultimate power over disagreement to the union thus federal law overpowers state.<br /><br />In short though, the Constitution appears in my eyes to be written with the intention of a liberal and living option to change with the people. It was not intended as a granite masterpiece but a document to be used as the country grew.<br /><br />It should never be used to steal from the inherent rights of the people and with a foundation in the Declaration of Independence gives the people the right to remove such government that oversteps its authority and destoyes these certain inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.<br /><br />Obviously a most Liberal document supporting the rights of the people.

 

[QC]

Re: Constitution of the United States

txs,<br /><br />I guess my reaction is more as a general one towards your troll-o-fest today . . .<br /><br />I am contributing, so that makes me a knucklehead too <br /><br />I agree the Constitution was written to allow change. I don't believe that labels it as either conservative or liberal. Just malleable. Yes, I know this is in conflict with my definition of the words liberal and conservative.

 

[heycods]

Re: Constitution of the United States

neither.

 

[Stratosfied]

Re: Constitution of the United States

This discussion could go on for days but me thinks the the writers and the brave men who signed this document intended for it to be interpeted LITERALLY, for all Americans.

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: Constitution of the United States

In short though, the Constitution appears in my eyes to be written with the intention of a liberal and living option to change with the people. It was not intended as a granite masterpiece but a document to be used as the country grew.<br />

"On every question of construction of the Constitution, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson<br /><br />I'd suggest you read the Federalists papers, the letters, speeches and quotations of our founders. There is ample information to provide the "probable one in which it was passed." <br /><br />I think it'll be useful for you to read the Websters dictionary definitions for conservative and liberal.<br /><br />"We’ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart." James Madison<br /><br />The Constitution as originally intended, as well as the Ten Commandments are the foundation of an American Conservative. <br /><br />Liberals progressed those interpetations beyond recollecting the spirit manifested in those debates. The more liberal even display contempt for them.<br /><br />To a conservative a "granite masterpiece" is something to live up to. To a liberal it is something to change and manipulate.<br /><br />And so you're only partly correct, the document isn't intended to change. <br />Yet you recognise the liberal's addictive need to change it.

 

[txswinner]

Re: Constitution of the United States

Oh but a document to protect the people from the power of the government. No change, well for one, it invited change in its coveanant not to take any action on slavery until 1808 some 20 years after written. It was at that time that slave trade (importation)was made illegal.<br /><br />The Constitution is scholarly considered a living document that changes with time based on the mores, customs and beliefs of the people. It main purpose remains to protect us and avoid the type of non-representational gov. that existed when we were a colony.

 

[DJ]

Re: Constitution of the United States

Was this document written with the purpose of a conservative use or liberal useage and why?

The document has references to a "higher power" aka, GOD. We have, as a society, desperately tried to deny that, but it remains as-FACT.<br /><br />I think the document leans toward the conservative (read EVIL). Values and morality used to be common. We've definitely blurred that.<br /><br />Welcome to the "ME" society, covered somewhat, by the anonomity of the internet.<br /><br />Personnaly, my values do not change, regardless of the venue.

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: Constitution of the United States

No change, well for one, it invited change in its coveanant not to take any action on slavery until 1808 some 20 years after written. It was at that time that slave trade (importation)was made illegal.

The Constitution and Declaration of Independence had language from the outset that prohibited slavery. <br /><br /> <br />

The Constitution is scholarly considered a living document that changes with time based on the mores, customs and beliefs of the people.

Well that settles it then. <br />You believe the scholars. I'll beleive the authors of The Constitution.

 

[18rabbit]

Re: Constitution of the United States

The Constitution was written such that anyone with an 8th grade education could read it and understand it. And for those of you that are victims of public education, that means the Constitution shall be take literally.<br /><br />The notion the Constitution is a living document or malleably subject to customs and beliefs or intended to be interpreted unique to every generation is just plain stupid talking. Ok, maybe not just plain “stupid”, but rather mega-stupid of the worst kind. The Constitution is indeed the words of wisdom written in stone. Easy to read, easy to understand, words that mean exactly what they say and only what they say.<br /><br />Notice I refrained from suggesting the words written in stone could not be changed; they can. The way to do that is thru something called a Constitutional Convention. It is basically the rewriting of the document or those parts of the document to be changed/edited/omitted. That is why the Constitutional amendment that declares a prohibition on alcohol is STILL in our Constitution. The amendment can only be removed by way of a constitutional convention. The idea you can change the document by changing it’s meaning is borne of uneducated foolery.<br /><br />What you don’t get with the Constitution is any assurance you will have neighbors that give a damn or completed the 8th grade. If your neighbors don’t care about the Constitution’s protections, none of it matters. Thinking that’s how we ended up in the mess we are in.

 

[QC]

Re: Constitution of the United States

I intended malleable to mean the Constitutional Amendment process . . . wrong word. I agree literal interpretation was intended and is correct.<br /><br /> Constitutional Amendment Process

 

[RubberFrog]

Re: Constitution of the United States

What about my morning constitutional? Anybody want to discuss that?

 

[rottenray6402]

Re: Constitution of the United States

Well said rabbit, the Nation thrived for over a hundred years following the literal meaning of the constitution. It seems to me the "scholarly" interpetations of the past 50 years or so are partly to blame for the mess we're in at this point. There are to many people in power who have only dealt in theory and not with real world results or lack of. There are a lot of theories that sound great but are total bovine excretment when put into practice. Rubberfrog, do you need some amendments for your constitutional?