"Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country"

[Wllm. Legrand]

The United States Constitution is definitely a framework or base, it is also living and changeable - if you disagree with that you do not understand the Constitution at all. The thing is though that the left, almost every leftist I have heard including left wing republicans like George Bush (the current one) believe they can change this and that by tweaking laws or doing it as they see fit.

Sir, your intentions are good as evidenced by your post, which was read in full. However, some observations seem in order.

One, for the constitution to be "living and changeable" this requires that words not have meaning. I disagree. While some may disagree as to whether the Constitution is binding upon us who never approved it (Read Spooner on this point), it does clearly spell out what it means, primae facie.

Two, "left wing Republicans" is a bit of a repetition. I don't know of any "real" Constitutional loving Republicans, except perhaps Ron Paul. There is only ONE political party: the GOVERNMENT/STATIST party. It is for GOVERNMENT. It REQUIRES government. It EXISTS because of government.

I feel your pain. I was once like you. Shoot, you sound like me in the 1990s. But the problem that the political parties attempt to inculcate in the entire populace is that it is the OTHER POLITICAL PARTY that is the source of most problems. Whether the shill for the one party is a Sean Hannity or an Al Franken, the game is the same. Only when people understand that GOVERNMENT, not the other politcal party, is the problem can real understanding or the ROOTS of the political crisis in which this nation is immersed become plain.

Reaching this degree of HONESTY is, frankly, beyond most people who have been raised in ideologies that do not permit the conception of worlds where there IS less government. That is topic for another show.

 

[Wllm. Legrand]

If there is ONE THING that the people of this country can be sure of, no matter what your political stripe, it is this:

THE CONSTITUTION NO LONGER SERVES AS AN IMPEDIMENT TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE U.S.A. IT DOES WHATEVER IT WANTS, AND MANUFACTURES THE JUSTIFICATION LATER. THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION CAN BE COUNTED UPON TO EVENTUALLY ACCEPT IT, NO MATTER WHAT.

 

[Old Dog]

The Constitution? Yes, it does. Have you ever worked for the government? It's simply not that easy for government to "do whatever it wants and manufacture the justification later." It takes a bit of time and effort for government to do things, and we've still got a few checks and balances that work quite well. Would I deny that some of our Constitutional rights have been infringed and some may be in dire jeopardy? No, of course not; but the fact that we can get together and be heard about all this bodes well for the future. Look at the growing groundswell of outrage about the whole issue of eminent domain and the fact that state governments are beginning to take action to counter the Supreme Court ruling.

THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION CAN BE COUNTED UPON TO EVENTUALLY ACCEPT IT, NO MATTER WHAT.

No need to shout. But I think you seriously underestimate the American populace. Having grown up in the '60s and '70s, I've seen government challenged -- successfully -- and I see an ever-growing movement now that is beginning to understand the citizens' role in opposing unjustified, morally wrong or outright illegal government actions. Don't you believe the anti-war movement had any part of the Nixon administration's getting the troops out of Viet Nam? Don't you believe that public frustration with the Clinton administration's failures and Clinton's lying had anything to do with getting the Republican majority back in Congress? There are far more examples on the local and state levels. I've seen examples here in my state when new firearms issues have been debated in the state legislature. Public activism can work for us on any issue so long as we organize and stay focused.

Do you really believe that you -- and the rest of us -- are that powerless?

 

[yonderway]

The United States Constitution is definitely a framework or base, it is also living and changeable - if you disagree with that you do not understand the Constitution at all.

*ahem*

Scalia must not understand the Constitution at all.

 

[GRB]

Our Constitution is NOT a "living" document.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have seen what happens when .gov fools with it.

That is quite the strange statement to make if you uphold the second AMENDMENT (or change as in when the 'gov fools with it') to our constitution. I am guessing your words are driven by your dislike of liberals who want gun control. The constitution is in essence a living document, meant to be changed as needed but in order to change it the change requires a great effort and great agreement on the part of our governing officials. If you think it not living (in the sense that it was written with the idea of it being changeable), then please explain the Bill of Rights, the very first changes to the constitution. Please be careful how you think of our basic law when driven by what I hesitate to say seems like flaming emotions that have been fanned by the rhetoric of leftist extremists. Heck, if the constitution was not meant to grow and or shrink through change (like a living document), we would not be having a discussion of the second amendment at all because there would have been no second amendment. You seem to be getting caught up on the leftist extremist definition of living in that they are tryimng to make it seem as if the interpretation of our constitution can change from year to year to fit the times. That would not make the constitution a living document as how it is referred to by liberals like Schumer (although he wants you to believe such. What it really would do is to make our constitution just so much fluff to be twisted in half truths, inuendo and outright lies about its interpretation. Schumers uses the term living document to his benefit and you seemingly immediately claim oh no it is not a living document. Take a step back and look at how this evil man is trying to use you to defeat your own constitution and destroy your rights.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Please be careful how you think of our basic law when driven by what I hesitate to say seems like flaming emotions that have been fanned by the rhetoric of leftist extremists.

I keep seeing unchallenged statements like this and the more I think about them, the less sense they make. What do you mean "leftist extremists"? Does being an absolutists on the Bill of Rights a leftist extremists? Does this mean leftist extremists are ardent supporters of the right to keep and bear arms? That doesn't sound like any leftist extremists that I've ever met. By this definition, Scalia is a leftist extremist, which points out the nonsensical nature of calling Constitutional absolutists "leftist extremists." I believe such statements are nonsensical name calling, weak attempts by those who support tyranny to shame people into towing their anti-liberty party line and I am challenging them.

 

[GRB]

Lobotomy Boy,

Maybe you need to reread what I have written and control your own emotions. I was not saying what you thoguht I was saying at all, rather much the opposite. If you cannot see that, then indeed you have fallen prey to the tactics used by leftist extremists in that they try to turn words we use to their own advantage and to destroy us. They do this with their use of the term "living document" as applied to the Constitution by them. Yes the constitution is a "living document" but not as the ultra leftists, like Schumer, would lead you to believe. It is living in that it can be chaged as needed as was done by the framers of the Constitution when they wrote the Bill of Rights in order to CONSERVE our rights. That it is a living document is a good thing, that it takes an amendment and I believe a 2/3 majority of Congress to pass an amendment is a good thing - it is living but will not be changed by whim or by political fancy as Schumer and other leftists like Feinstein would like to see it changed. The leftists take this long held concept of the constitution being a "living document" (which is by no means a new concept, and by nbo means a bad thing) and try to distort the essence of our laws and rights by misuse of the concept and of those two words. They twist things around so well that even conservatives now have a problem with the constitution being called a living document (or with the concept that our Constitution can be changed or AMENDED as needed). Since it can only be changed by amendment there is nothinbg wrong with our ability to change it - that is how is was established in the first place by the very people who wrote in. If there was actually something wrong with being able to amend it - we would not even have a 2nd AMENDMENT - don't you get that! The second amendment to the constituion, the second change, the second growth or add on was the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. This change was excellent, don't you agree?

While it is changeable by amemdment, the likes of Schumer and Feinstein want it to be changeable by their whim, that of their political party, or by the whim of the high courts. That is not a good thing, that is a terrible thing, that was never meant to be by the framers of the constitution and; that is misuse of the CONCEPT, if not the exact words of "living document" as historically applied to the constitution.

If you did not see that this was my point, and if you still just do not understand what I mean, then by all means ask me politely for further explanation, or simply make a point of polite disagreement with me. Please don't call what I said nonsensical simply because you misunderstood the point of my words and; please don't make your point by mischaracterizing what I said. You never once saw me write that ultra leftists are in favor of the right to keep and bear arms as you implied! As I said, if you misunderstood then just ask or make your point politely. Thanks

 

[rick_reno]

I prefer:

"The quick brown Fox jumped over the lazy, sleeping Bush."

Longeyes - I still say Bush likes being President, he doesn't like doing President.

 

[Molon Labe]

I don't know of any "real" Constitutional loving Republicans, except perhaps Ron Paul. There is only ONE political party: the GOVERNMENT/STATIST party. It is for GOVERNMENT. It REQUIRES government. It EXISTS because of government.

I feel your pain. I was once like you. Shoot, you sound like me in the 1990s. But the problem that the political parties attempt to inculcate in the entire populace is that it is the OTHER POLITICAL PARTY that is the source of most problems. Whether the shill for the one party is a Sean Hannity or an Al Franken, the game is the same. Only when people understand that GOVERNMENT, not the other politcal party, is the problem can real understanding or the ROOTS of the political crisis in which this nation is immersed become plain.

Reaching this degree of HONESTY is, frankly, beyond most people who have been raised in ideologies that do not permit the conception of worlds where there IS less government.

Wow. ++1.

I also used to be a Republican-kind-of-guy. Was once a big fan of Limbaugh and Hannity. And then I realized everyone was just playing a game. And no one - the politicians, government, the people, the "left wingers," the "right wingers" - wants to see the game end. Reminds me of the movie "The Running Man."

I have also stopped the pathetic practice of "document worship." Personally, I couldn't care less about the 2nd Amendment... you'll never hear me bring it up when discussing my right to keep and bear arms. And I'm getting close to the point where the Constitution is irrelevant to me. It's been so utterly contorted & abused that it ceases to have real meaning.

So now I spend my time buying ammo and preparing for that rainy decade...

 

[longeyes]

I still say Bush likes being President, he doesn't like doing President.

Right. He likes doing US, though.

The Constitution isn't living or dead, it's undead. Time for another good zombie thread, this one in all seriousness. Start identifying them: you can spot 'em by how they walk and how they smell.

 

[Ezekiel]

The Constitution isn't living or dead, it's undead. Time for another good zombie thread, this one in all seriousness. Start identifying them: you can spot 'em by how they walk and how they smell.

We can all meet at the Winchester for a spot of tea!

 

[hoppinglark]

i think the best thing we can do is register 3rd party and actually become a dues paying member.

Get some attention on the issues and what we feel.

 

[hugh damright]

The constitution is in essence a living document, meant to be changed as needed but in order to change it the change requires a great effort and great agreement on the part of our governing officials. If you think it not living (in the sense that it was written with the idea of it being changeable), then please explain the Bill of Rights, the very first changes to the constitution.

If I may ... I believe that the US Constitution frames a specific form of government ... I do not believe that the Constitution is so "living" that our basic form of government changes.

The BoR was not intended to change the Constitution, it was intended to clarify it. However, I think it's fair to say that there are some who intended the 14th Amendment to alter our basic form of government, so I think the 14th may be a better example of the "living Constitution" theory.

What if, for example, the Second Amendment was replaced with something that said "a King's Army, being necessary to the security of monarchy, only the military shall bear arms" ... did the Framers intend the amendment process to be used for such a purpose?

 

[Old Dog]

Hmm ... here's what our Supreme Court's own website has to say about this ... (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/constitutional.pdf)

This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.

 

[Ezekiel]

This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.

Strikes me as the question of a "living Constitution" has been answered.

Others can debate whether it should be such.

 

[Lupinus]

It isn't a living document, however, you have to keep in mind modern things that have changed a bit since it was made, as well as be willing to add to it and adapt it where needed.

Freedom of speech is a great a sacred right, but I can't just walk up to my black boss and call him a...well I will be nice and not say it. I can't just say whatever I want whenever I want without certain consequences. I can't call certain people certain names, I can't make threats against certain people, I can't defame someone without a basis of proof. You have the right to your freedom of speech, and it shouldn't be infringed by some idiot who took offense or by a woman in the work place that was offended by a joke told to someone that wasn't even about her and she simply overheard, but you have to use it within reason.

Right to bare arms is another great and sacred right. But if someone doesn't want a gun in their home or on their property (with the exception of a owner who has leased a property, then it goes to the lessee) or in their business they have the right to tell you to get out, that is a form of infringement. If you just got released from the state pen for the god knows what time or the mental ward I don't want you to be able to walk to the local gun store and buy a fully automatic AK-47. Ok for most people but not for everyone. It should not be infringed by bans or ridicules laws, but you have to use common sense that certain people have lost their right to it and that certain places don't apply it.

If you go 100% by the original constitution and BOR you should believe in slavery based solely on a persons race, the right of only white land owning men to vote, and a host of other things which were fine for the times but not now 200 years later.

It isn't a living document in the sense liberals try to use to get around it, but it isn't something which is totally solid and unchangeable or open to some interpretation to fit modern times, and it shouldn't be open to such within reason that you don't simply trash rights.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Freedom of speech is a great a sacred right, but I can't just walk up to my black boss and call him a...well I will be nice and not say it.

Legally you could call your boss whatever you wanted to call him. That would be Constitutionally protected speech. It would be legal but incredibly tasteless and stupid, because legally your boss could fire you for doing so and you would find yourself without gainful employment.

 

[xd9fan]

Two, "left wing Republicans" is a bit of a repetition. I don't know of any "real" Constitutional loving Republicans, except perhaps Ron Paul. There is only ONE political party: the GOVERNMENT/STATIST party. It is for GOVERNMENT. It REQUIRES government. It EXISTS because of government.

I feel your pain. I was once like you. Shoot, you sound like me in the 1990s. But the problem that the political parties attempt to inculcate in the entire populace is that it is the OTHER POLITICAL PARTY that is the source of most problems. Whether the shill for the one party is a Sean Hannity or an Al Franken, the game is the same. Only when people understand that GOVERNMENT, not the other politcal party, is the problem can real understanding or the ROOTS of the political crisis in which this nation is immersed become plain.

Reaching this degree of HONESTY is, frankly, beyond most people who have been raised in ideologies that do not permit the conception of worlds where there IS less government. That is topic for another show.

+1 big time I too went through the same house of mirrors and took a long look inside.

 

[Lupinus]

Legally you could call your boss whatever you wanted to call him. That would be Constitutionally protected speech. It would be legal but incredibly tasteless and stupid, because legally your boss could fire you for doing so and you would find yourself without gainful employment.

That is true, but if it can get me legaly fired is it truly protected? The point of that is consequence results even when something is protected. As little as fifty years ago there would have been none unless I did it in an area that was nothing but black people. Today it is not acceptable. Can say it legaly, but there are still consequences and those are perfectly legal. I can't slander you, that is totaly illegal.

If you live in the middle of KKK town I can't print out a few hundred posters of "Lobotomy Boy sleeps with [that not so nice word I didn't mention] women" put a doctored photo of you in bed with one on the posters, and plaster them all over town. To do so is knowingly spreading a lie which will result in damages to you in some serious way shape or form. Same would apply if it was spoken rather then written. Some forms of speech are illegal.

Im only trying to say that while the consititution is not a "living" document as liberals consider it, it is not rock solid and set in stone. It is changable to fit the times and should remain so.

 

[Manedwolf]

I heard a great explenation here.

If you think it might be time, run inside your home, unlock your rifle, load it, then bring it with you when you stand on your lawn.

If your neighbors call the police, it is not time. If they get theirs it is.

Unfortunately, now, it's that even if it WERE time, your neighbors would likely be inside watching insipid reality TV or celebrity scandals, or they'd have been so brainwashed into being blissninnys that even an outright police-state with checkpoints wouldn't faze them.