Is it TeaParty jingoism or just general ignorance that the US Constitution is not a living and evolving document?

It lives and evolves with each amendment that is added and this has been done 27 times over 200+ years.

The writers of the Constitution did not have all the answers to future issues so the amendment process is used to add on (evolve) to the Constitution.

If it were not living and evolving, we would still have slavery in the USA and women could not vote. Is that the TeaParty line?

Originally Posted by buggyone

Is it TeaParty crap or just general ignorance that the US Constitution is not a living and evolving document?

It lives and evolves with each amendment that is added and this has been done 27 times over 200+ years.

The writers of the Constitution did not have all the answers to future issues so the amendment process is used to add on (evolve) to the Constitution.

If it were not living and evolving, we would still have slavery in the USA and women could not vote. Is that the TeaParty line?

Some tea partiers have not evolved since that incident in Boston in 1773.

Originally Posted by buggyone

Is it TeaParty jingoism or just general ignorance that the US Constitution is not a living and evolving document?

It lives and evolves with each amendment that is added and this has been done 27 times over 200+ years.

The writers of the Constitution did not have all the answers to future issues so the amendment process is used to add on (evolve) to the Constitution.

If it were not living and evolving, we would still have slavery in the USA and women could not vote. Is that the TeaParty line?

Lord help me Jesus. I just agreed with Buggy.

Originally Posted by buggyone

Is it TeaParty jingoism or just general ignorance that the US Constitution is not a living and evolving document?

It lives and evolves with each amendment that is added and this has been done 27 times over 200+ years.

The writers of the Constitution did not have all the answers to future issues so the amendment process is used to add on (evolve) to the Constitution.

If it were not living and evolving, we would still have slavery in the USA and women could not vote. Is that the TeaParty line?

That's not what people mean when the term "living document" is spoken. It's now taken by leftists to mean that the Constitution can be interpreted differently according to new ideas. Leftists now use the courts to reinterpret what the founders words might be if the founders lived today and use liberal courts to enforce this new interpretation.

This is why the Amendment process is all but obsolete in our country. If only the Constitution was changed with the Amendment process we wouldn't be having these arguments......if only.

Richie, my good drinking buddy, your viewpoint of a living and evolving Constitution is certainly your viewpoint - however, it is definitely not what the term means. You are welcome to take the uber-conservative view to say a living constitutution means only interpretation by a court. However, just saying so does not make it so. We have to look at what is really meant by the term. The amendment process is what makes the Constitution a living and evolving document.

However, once again, it is always in the conservative view as to whose ox is being gored. The Republicans were jumping right in to have a federal court declare The Affordable Health Care Act unconstitutional. Isn't that interpreting the Constitution to your own way? I thought it was a liberal thing to do according to your post. "Leftists now use the courts to reinterpret what the founders words might be if the founders lived today and use liberal courts to enforce this new interpretation."

That, however once again, is not the meaning of the term. As we both know, the amendment process is a long process and takes sometimes years to do. That is why we have only 27 amendments in over 200 years.

The Republicans now want to add more amendments to trump states rights. A constitutional amendment to define marriage between one man and one woman would take away the state rights of each state. The "marriages" that are in place now would be rendered null and void according to Santorum. WRONG on two counts. It would be a prime example of an ex post facto law and trampling on the 10th Amendment.

You planning to be at the watering hole tomorrow night?

Originally Posted by RichieLion

That's not what people mean when the term "living document" is spoken. It's now taken by leftists to mean that the Constitution can be interpreted differently according to new ideas. Leftists now use the courts to reinterpret what the founders words might be if the founders lived today and use liberal courts to enforce this new interpretation.

This is one place where I agree 100% with Richie.

You want to change the meaning of something in the Costitution? We have an app for that - it's called the Ammendment Process!

Chacha: What values are you talking about?

If you're talking about abortion, poll after poll shows that Americans really wish the issue would go away - "you live your life, I'll live mine" - but a majority still would not outlaw it.

If you're talking about gay rights, well, Satorum just got booed off a stage here in New Hampshire because he's sticking to his position that, some time back, he stated where he equated gay sex with bestiality.

He may very well have more mainstream opinions when it comes to economic issues but those I mentioned above are not going to sit well with people. It's those kinds of positions that make many people uncomfortable and reinforce the idea that the GOP wants to be in your bedroom (as opposed to the Democrats who want to be in your wallet).

My daughter, who is more conservative than her peers and lives in PA, is overjoyed that he was not only beaten but beaten SOUNDLY. Casey got almost half-again as many votes as Santorum did.

Originally Posted by janmcn

President Obama doesn't hate blacks, hispanics and gays the way the republican candidates do. I don't know how they think they can win an election.

Already dumbest post of 2012. Congrats!

Originally Posted by buggyone

Richie, my good drinking buddy, your viewpoint of a living and evolving Constitution is certainly your viewpoint - however, it is definitely not what the term means. You are welcome to take the uber-conservative view to say a living constitutution means only interpretation by a court. However, just saying so does not make it so. We have to look at what is really meant by the term. The amendment process is what makes the Constitution a living and evolving document.

However, once again, it is always in the conservative view as to whose ox is being gored. The Republicans were jumping right in to have a federal court declare The Affordable Health Care Act unconstitutional. Isn't that interpreting the Constitution to your own way? I thought it was a liberal thing to do according to your post. "Leftists now use the courts to reinterpret what the founders words might be if the founders lived today and use liberal courts to enforce this new interpretation."

That, however once again, is not the meaning of the term. As we both know, the amendment process is a long process and takes sometimes years to do. That is why we have only 27 amendments in over 200 years.

The Republicans now want to add more amendments to trump states rights. A constitutional amendment to define marriage between one man and one woman would take away the state rights of each state. The "marriages" that are in place now would be rendered null and void according to Santorum. WRONG on two counts. It would be a prime example of an ex post facto law and trampling on the 10th Amendment.

You planning to be at the watering hole tomorrow night?

Originally Posted by djplong

This is one place where I agree 100% with Richie.

You want to change the meaning of something in the Costitution? We have an app for that - it's called the Ammendment Process!

You've got it absolutely backwards. The Republicans in trying to get an amendment passed is the absolutely correct way of trying to add to, or in effect, change (amend) our Constitution. You may not agree with their proposal and many agree with you and hence they have had little success in changing the Constitution the way they want to.

ObamaCare is not a Constitutional Amendment. Quit mixing apples and oranges.

Using the courts to reinterpret the Constitution with the lame "living document" argument is a tool most closely associated with the leftists in our country who are the driving force behind today's Democrat Party.

P.S.: I will definitely be there tonight after a 2 Monday absence for holiday visits up north. Would love to see you there.

Originally Posted by janmcn View Post
"President Obama doesn't hate blacks, hispanics and gays the way the republican candidates do."

We could read this statement mean that Democrats hate blacks, hispanics and gays differently than the Republicans.

And then the conclusion of a logical syllogism could be:

therefore Democrats and Republicans both hate blacks, hispanics and gays.

I am only presenting back what was written and not restating it to mean something other than the writer intended....which happens too frequently on this forum.

btk

You have to admit that janmcn did not use the best of grammar in her posting.

Let's not even talk about Republicans or Democrats hating blacks, hispanics and gays. That is just counter-productive to absolutely everything. You will find a very few bigots and racists wherever you look but certainly no major political party is racist or bigoted.

BTK seems to be facinated with restructuring a meaning in this post as well as his strange post regarding a "I know this is not true - but, WHAT IF it were true" on a YouTube hoax about healthcare. Did someone hijack your computer as usually your posts are good?

sorry to disappoint you buggyone I was not trying to do anything. I know what I meant and intended. I meant nothing more than written...in fact it was more tongue in cheek than anything else. I worded it that way purposely.

You can imagine what ever your hearts desire in restating what YOU THINK were my intents and then using the restatement as a basis for your obsessive catharsis on the subject. HOWEVER.....you are wrong again.

Preach all you like on what you believe and not preaching what YOU THINK others said/believe.

btk

one would expect new hampshire voters to not hold conservative views on abortion and "gay rights". the reason gay marriage is not a state issue is that it has effects when these couples move to another state and also that it affects other laws such as adoption, etc....our position to have an amendment to the constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman is to avoid further interpretations such as three way relationships, etc which you can imagine can be endless varieties. we do not allow mormons to marry polygamously for this same reason...it has nothing to do with hating gays. we understand that they want to be able to have legal partnerships to protect their assets, etc...we do not need to call it marriage to accomplish this....we see this as a further undermining of the traditional family, the backbone of society.

as for casey beating him in his third senatorial race, casey won in part because he is a pro-life democrat, thus negating part of santorum's appeal to voters. he was also the son of a popular governor.

where is the watering hole? maybe you should all spend your monday evenings at the tea party meeting and then we would all really need a drink afterwards

Originally Posted by chachacha

one would expect new hampshire voters to not hold conservative views on abortion and "gay rights". the reason gay marriage is not a state issue is that it has effects when these couples move to another state and also that it affects other laws such as adoption, etc....our position to have an amendment to the constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman is to avoid further interpretations such as three way relationships, etc which you can imagine can be endless varieties. we do not allow mormons to marry polygamously for this same reason...it has nothing to do with hating gays. we understand that they want to be able to have legal partnerships to protect their assets, etc...we do not need to call it marriage to accomplish this....we see this as a further undermining of the traditional family, the backbone of society.

where is the watering hole? maybe you should all spend your monday evenings at the tea party meeting and then we would all really need a drink afterwards

A bunch of guys have a "boys night out" and we sit and have an adult beverage or two and talk about life, sports, politics and our wonderful way of life here. "It's a good thing", as Martha Stewart might say. There are spirited discussions at these gatherings, and also much camaraderie.

The only disappointment is for the single women who see this table full of men who are not on the menu (Just a joke chachacha)

not to worry, richie...this single woman is not interested in invading your watering hole...please note that i edited the post you cited afterwards to add a fact concerning Santorum's third race for senate, which he lost.