Strict Interpretation Of The Constitution?

[Blackmail]

WHat do you think of the constitution party?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_...nited_States%29

Can the original ideals of the constitution be applied to modern times?

If so, who gets to pick and choose which ideals are outdated?

[BrassFusion]

"The Constitution Party advocates a strong adherence to what its members believe is the original intent of the U.S. Constitution and the principles of the U.S. Declaration of Independence."

I think that about sums it up.

[Blackmail]

Considering the party has several constitutional scholars, let's assume they have a pretty close approximation of what the intent was (alot of it isn't hard to interpret either).

So, instead of changing the topic to whether these guys know what they're talking about, let's discuss whether a strict following of the constitution is a good idea.

[Shade Everdark]

Considering the party has several constitutional scholars, let's assume they have a pretty close approximation of what the intent was (alot of it isn't hard to interpret either).

So, instead of changing the topic to whether these guys know what they're talking about, let's discuss whether a strict following of the constitution is a good idea.

Well, just because they are constitutional scholars does not mean that they are necessarily good constitutional scholars, or respected ones, in their community. I don't know, of course, whether they are good, bad, or simply mediocre, but I do think one's qualifications, in a discussion of this nature, is certainly germane to the topic. You wouldn't want a quack, whose medical ideas are not accepted by the medical mainstream, would you? Why should it be any different for constitutional interpretations?

[BrassFusion]

I'll take your scenario a step further, Shade, and submit that medical knowledge is based on study and repeatable experiments. Science, in other words.

The interpretation of any body of writing is NOT quantitative or scientific (and the first person who mentions "da vinci code" here gets my foot up his or her ass!). From reading that wikipedia article, I do not believe that the constitutional party REALLY has a grasp of what the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence guarantee. Something about "liberty" and the "pursuit of happiness." I want to be free to enjoy porn and gambling, that is. I'm not sure how they could have constitutional stance against those things.

I think it said something about not making federal anti-drug laws, which of course I agree with. Again, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Obviously you can't pursue happiness if it gets in the way of other folks' inalienable rights to L, L, and PoH, but things like gambling and porn, when policed at the level they are today in this country, don't infringe on those rights for anybody, in and of themselves.

So yeah. Constitution party = turds, a la fundamentalists who think they can tell everyone else what the Bible REALLY means by shouting the loudest that they're right.

[Steven]

So yeah. Constitution party = turds, a la fundamentalists who think they can tell everyone else what the Bible REALLY means by shouting the loudest that they're right.

tsk tsk tsk

[BrassFusion]

tsk tsk tsk

as if you don't agree...

[Steven]

as if you don't agree...

don't you bait me young lady....

[sinmantyx]

I think we are actually getting closer and closer to the intent of the Constitution in many regards, as time goes forward. We did have a few hiccups along the way, like adding "under God" into the pledge of allegiance in the 50's, but our founding fathers were basically anti-theocracy heretics...lots of deists and what-not. The fantasy-land myth of who they were - Protestant Theocrats - just isn't true; and the Constitution party smacks of this. Once my sister claimed that the founding fathers actually meant "the freedom to be any type of Christian you wanted to be" when they talked about religious freedom. This group really appeals to her.

I can handle true conservatives, and at least they aren't misusing the word as much as some other people are (even with the big-brother "social conservative" stance). I have a feeling however, that the rank and file aren't that terribly interested in the philosophy of John Stewart Mill or the bizarre theology of Thomas Jefferson - if they were, they would have a different platform.

[Scary Guy]

Why do we need a party for it, why not just follow the damned thing? It's just a name for a group of people that think the same way (examples: Democrats, Republicans, Christians, and Idiots).

[sinmantyx]

Why do we need a party for it, why not just follow the damned thing? It's just a name for a group of people that think the same way (examples: Democrats, Republicans, Christians, and Idiots).

I would say that if you got the average Democrat in the same room with a Constitutional Law party member; they would most likely NOT think the same way.

[BrassFusion]

i think he means a group of people that think the same as each other. as in, most democrats interpret the constitution the same way as other democrats, most republicans interpret the constitution the same way as other republicans, most constitution party members interpret the constitution the same way as other constitution party members...

kinda puts the party into perspective.

[sinmantyx]

i think he means a group of people that think the same as each other. as in, most democrats interpret the constitution the same way as other democrats, most republicans interpret the constitution the same way as other republicans, most constitution party members interpret the constitution the same way as other constitution party members...

kinda puts the party into perspective.

AH! Thanks for the interpretation. I would certainly agree with that.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

On-topic posts , though rare, are cool.

Reading through a few articles / books about the founding fathers its fairly easy to come to at least a lose consensus about what the original intent of the constituiton was.

I do think that the consituitonal party , despite me disagreeing with much of their ideas (and by extention many of the founding fathers ideas), does have a fairly good grasp of what Jefferson / Madison / Paine / Adams would have come up with if they had to re-write the thing today. (minus a lot of the details of specific laws, since the whole genius of the constituition is to leave vast swaths of controversial subjects untouched or only barely covered)

Anyhow , no , it would be near impossible to implement the original spirit of the constitution in modern times in all but the most losely defined was (if we think about it "losely" its already being done, and wouldnt be a point of discussion). The constitution was written at a time when many things that would be considered uncivilized / unfair / barbaric were the norm. Ideas/concepts that will probably never return to , lets call it "earthwide culture".

Do i think that many of the original founding fathers intent was good? Hell yes. Do i think if somehow magically we could wipe away a lot of what i think is bullshit from "civilized" culture? Yep.

I also think its sort of a "romatnic" idea that appeals to me on a an illogical "gee whiz" sort of level to try and re-create the mythical almost legendary magic of the original constituition. But, at any rate, its impractical and unrealistic to try and impliment a 300 year old view of culture in todays world.

[Scary Guy]

The constitution was written at a time when many things that would be considered uncivilized / unfair / barbaric were the norm. Ideas/concepts that will probably never return to , lets call it "earthwide culture".

Don't forget the flip side of that which many of the ideas and customs of today would have us burned as witches/exiled/jailed/etc back then.

[BrassFusion]

But... but... but... we're still USING the constitution. It was engineered to be changeable and that's the best thing about it, the only reason it's withstood the test of time (so far).

[sinmantyx]

But... but... but... we're still USING the constitution. It was engineered to be changeable and that's the best thing about it, the only reason it's withstood the test of time (so far).

Fuck it.

Let's switch over to parliamentary system with proportional representation. That would be so much cooler. Screw this electoral college crap too.