So you think the Constitution is simple? A plain-reading gives it's obvious intent?

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

If there's a plain meaning to the constitution, and it can be found through study of the federalist papers, then why didn't the founders just incorporate what the federalist papers say into the plain language of the constitution?

They liked to play games? They thought it'd be cool to have to have a secret decoder document?

I find the argument that the constitution is plainly clear because you can find the meaning in the federalist papers as silly as just arguing the constitution is not unclear on its face.

[Donkey®]

That's why I find it funny when people resort to waving the Constitution around like a foam finger during an argument. Not only is it VERY vague, when taken as it was originally written, you can find flaw after flaw with it (obviously changed with amendments.) It was written during a different period of TIME than our current period. Things were different. They did not know the future nor could they fathom the issues and problems that would arise because of technology, science, etc. It makes as much sense as waving some ancient Hebrew text and claiming it's infallible.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

That's why I find it funny when people resort to waving the Constitution around like a foam finger during an argument. Not only is it VERY vague, when taken as it was originally written, you can find flaw after flaw with it (obviously changed with amendments.) It was written during a different period of TIME than our current period. Things were different. They did not know the future nor could they fathom the issues and problems that would arise because of technology, science, etc. It makes as much sense as waving some ancient Hebrew text and claiming it's infallible.

A lot of our issues and problems are due to not following the Constitution that they wrote.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

A lot of our issues and problems are due to not following the Constitution that they wrote.

I guess implicit in your statement is that there's a plain meaning to the Constitution that we can easily see is either being followed or not followed?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I guess implicit in your statement is that there's a plain meaning to the Constitution that we can easily see is either being followed or not followed?

Some from DIAC/OT/Here seem to act like they know all the constitutional answers that have plagued far right, far left, libertarian, etc legal scholars for centuries

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I guess implicit in your statement is that there's a plain meaning to the Constitution that we can easily see is either being followed or not followed?

The problem with Thorgrim's argument is the majority of issues arent in that grey area. They are just 100% opposite of what the document says.

2nd amendment says right to firearms shall not be infringed. But there are a bunch of blatent infringments.

4th amendment says we have the right to be secure in our homes unless there is a warrant, but there are numerous programs over the 200plus years that completely destroyed that right.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

The problem with Thorgrim's argument is the majority of issues arent in that grey area. They are just 100% opposite of what the document says.

2nd amendment says right to firearms shall not be infringed. But there are a bunch of blatent infringments.

This is a perfect example of facial ambiguity! WTF does the right to bear arms mean? What exactly is an "arm"? Please tell me, where in this alleged plain meaning, does it say where to draw the line when it comes to pistols, assault rifles, rocket launchers, grenades and nuclear bombs.

Originally Posted by Diesel66

4th amendment says we have the right to be secure in our homes unless there is a warrant, but there are numerous programs over the 200plus years that completely destroyed that right.

Not sure what program you're referring to.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

2nd amendment says right to firearms shall not be infringed. But there are a bunch of blatent infringments.

The second amendment mentions firearms specifically?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Scrum

The second amendment mentions firearms specifically?

What's really disgusting is that I made a huge thread that brought up multiple issues regarding the 2nd amendment...all of them (i thought) were very interesting, and all I could get from the gun crowd was "yeah well. just read the amendment buddy"

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

What's really disgusting is that I made a huge thread that brought up multiple issues regarding the 2nd amendment...all of them (i thought) were very interesting, and all I could get from the gun crowd was "yeah well. just read the amendment buddy"

That is because you refuse to read the thing, or the federalist papers or anything else associated with it.
Sorry but you cannot just add or subtract words at random, it is there in black and white.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

That is because you refuse to read the thing, or the federalist papers or anything else associated with it.
Sorry but you cannot just add or subtract words at random, it is there in black and white.

please, go into that thread and cite the federalist papers on the 2nd amendment...really...

And I did read the thing...and it's obvious the founders were scared of a large standing army, you can't get around that...you can't argue "the only purpose was so I can have a handgun to bring to the movie theater" if you have ANY EVIDENCE that that was the original intent, I would have listened to it in that thread

No one did any of that, and they ignored my arguments that were pointing how people were misreading it

Much like how everyone used to think free speech could be restricted by the states...sometimes something as clear as even the first amendment NEEDS CLARIFICATION and ANALYSIS

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

That is because you refuse to read the thing, or the federalist papers or anything else associated with it.
Sorry but you cannot just add or subtract words at random, it is there in black and white.

you do realize the Federalist will say nothing about the 2nd amendment, right? It was written as an argument for the adoption of the Constitution, and the 2nd amendment was passed along with the others in the Bill of Rights during the first session of Congress.

[thomez]

and the Bill of Rights was an Anti-Federalist brainchild anyway

[Joe_Cool]

The flaw in your reasoning, Thorgrim, is that you don't seem to understand the difference between "intentionally broad" and "vague and unclear".

The problem is that so many people just blindly swallow the modern idea that laws should be as precise and specific as possible, spelling out each and every conceivable detail and accounting for each and every conceivable outcome.

The Constitution IS clear and understandable, but it is INTENTIONALLY very broad and general. It was INTENTIONALLY not an attempt to spell out every detail of every circumstance that might be encountered. So yes, there is a lot of room for interpretation. That doesn't mean that you can "interpret" "A" as meaning "NOT A".

Article I Section 8 lists the powers delegated to Congress.

So when Amendment X says (very clearly) "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people", that means exactly what it says: That Congress does not have any powers the Constitution does not give to Congress. So if the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to fund education, Congress does not have that power.

What part of that is vague and difficult for you to understand?

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

Article I Section 8 lists the powers delegated to Congress.

So when Amendment X says (very clearly) "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people", that means exactly what it says: That Congress does not have any powers the Constitution does not give to Congress. So if the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to fund education, Congress does not have that power.

What part of that is vague and difficult for you to understand?

Problem is that last little line in ArticleI Section8 "blah blah, congress can do anything that is necessary and proper"
Does that mean ANY law, or any law that follows a power that the Constitution gives to Congress.

[Thorgrim]

It's intentionally very broad, general and vague, even with issues that would confront the founding fathers themselves, they had differing opinions on how to solve them because EVEN THOUGH THEY WROTE THE DAMN THING, THEY COULDN'T APPLY THE VAGUE DOCUMENT THEMSELVES

The reason why you can't interpret the questions I laid out, nor could any right-winger interpret those statements and have them come together in harmony, is because almost everyone sees in the constitution what they want to see, you included

You see "listed power...ok...reserved to the states" aha! They can't fund education!!!!

However, anyone can clearly see: "provide for the...general welfare of the United States..." as a proper area the federal congress has authority over, then "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers"

Right there, bingo, Congress has a LIMITED power to make laws it deems neccesary and proper to provide for the general welfare, which is exactly why public schools are constitutional

The only attack on this is "Oh, the 10th amendment..."

"You see, the 10th amendment clearly states that unless the power is EXPRESSLY delegated (ie specifically listed) then its reserved to the states"

BZZZ

"Expressly" was STRIPPED from the amendment's language by the first Congress that passed the Bill of Rights because they SPECIFICALLY didn't want to limit the government the way you are trying to...

That's very simple reasoning and very simple reading and is why CONSERVATIVE justices and judges have held up public schools other such things

If you were wrong about something that basically every right-wing, left-wing, libertarian...constitional scholar agrees upon, imagine what else you've misread about the constitution?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Problem is that last little line in ArticleI Section8 "blah blah, congress can do anything that is necessary and proper"
Does that mean ANY law, or any law that follows a power that the Constitution gives to Congress.

No, it doesn't mean "any" law, simply because it doesn't state "any" law

Taken in context, the constitution as a whole is seen as limiting the federal government in many respects...which is why, even in the most liberal days of the court, they didn't say you can just pass ANYTHING that went over state's rights, there was always a balancing test, which I won't get into here, because different courts have had different scales

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Problem is that last little line in ArticleI Section8 "blah blah, congress can do anything that is necessary and proper"
Does that mean ANY law, or any law that follows a power that the Constitution gives to Congress.

Read it again:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Not any law they think is necessary and proper, but any law that's necessary and proper FOR EXECUTING THE POWERS GIVEN BY THE CONSTITUTION TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

[Thorgrim]

And who are you to say that laws for public schools don't help execute the power of organizing and disciplining a public militia?