Originally posted by JAD_333
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The United States, and the constitution of that nation.
Collapse
X
-
-
DE,
that argument works only if you believe that the opposite of "living document" is "a piece of paper".
i don't.
here, living document is more of a technical term.
perhaps this is me as the inveterate moderate, but while i lean more towards the "living document" camp, i'm not particularly impressed by either extreme, either the living document folks or the strict constructionists.
the former have a tendency to use the living document idea to avoid the legislative process-- in short, use the courts as first-resort rather than last-resort; the latter have a tendency to idolize the founding fathers as the only fount of wisdom and turn the Constitution into nothing less than God-given truth.There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
Comment
-
Originally posted by AdityaMookerjee View PostThe reason, why President Lincoln was so inspiring, was because he was perceived to be the most unhappy citizen of his time, so, actually he couldn't guarantee his own happiness.
You know, I am inclined to think, that the state is to serve the people. But, should not it be that the people should uphold the state?
I am uncomfortable with the phrase "serve the people" as a primary purpose. While the state in fact serves the people, foremost it obeys the will of the people.
...the state is not seen anywhere, in perception, in the United States. How exactly should the U. S. Govt. serve it's people? It need not do anything, where it needs to communicate with the ordinary citizen, unless it has to do with security, and law and order. I could be wrong in my observation.To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato
Comment
-
Originally posted by astralis View Postthat argument works only if you believe that the opposite of "living document" is "a piece of paper".
i don't.
Originally posted by astralis View Posthere, living document is more of a technical term.
The part i did not understand here is this....
Originally posted by wikiOpponents of the idea often argue that the Constitution should be changed through the amendment process, and that the theory can be used by judges to inject their personal values into constitutional interpretation.
Originally posted by astralis View Postperhaps this is me as the inveterate moderate, but while i lean more towards the "living document" camp, i'm not particularly impressed by either extreme, either the living document folks or the strict constructionists.
Originally posted by astralis View Postthe former have a tendency to use the living document idea to avoid the legislative process-- in short, use the courts as first-resort rather than last-resort; the latter have a tendency to idolize the founding fathers as the only fount of wisdom and turn the Constitution into nothing less than God-given truth.
Originally posted by wikiHowever, "strict construction" is not a synonym for textualism or originalism, and many adherents of the latter two philosophies are thus misidentified as "strict constructionists."
Comment
-
DE,
Isn't amendments part of the living document camp ?
instead, this is about how to interpret the Constitution and the first ten amendments, aka the bill of rights.
I find its a pretty difficult call to decide which camp is more suitable. My take would be to interpret as the letter of the law and no more. Evolving interpretations can be problematic i think. Reading a lot more into what was written or intended. Amendments would be more clear here.
clearly the Founders had never considered things such as abortion, or privacy, or internet intellectual property rights, etc. their society was absolutely different from ours, both technologically and socially. for a Constitution to have any meaning to society, society must feel like it reflects their values, their beliefs, and goals. for the vast majority of cases, while the Constitution as it is does a great job of it some 225 years in the future, already we see some uncomfortable gaps at the edges, where judges must extrapolate such murky things as the "spirit of the law" or "what the original Founders WOULD have thought of that idea".
makes me wonder what things will look like in another 100 or 200 years.There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
Comment
-
Originally posted by astralis View Postneither. this whole debate has evolved largely because the difficulty of getting a constitutional amendment through (either progressive or conservative) has vastly increased.
i try not to choose camps, although i admit i have a slight bias towards the living constitution view given the fossilization of the amendment process.
What i'm trying to figure out is why my country which is a quarter the age of yours has pushed through nearly four times the number of amendments that yours has (~120 vs. 30)
It makes me uneasy that people in my country can do that much in so little time, but this is only because you've done a lot less in this regard.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Double Edge View PostWhy has getting amendments through become more difficult in the US ?
What i'm trying to figure out is why my country which is a quarter the age of yours has pushed through nearly four times the number of amendments that yours has (~120 vs. 30)
It makes me uneasy that people in my country can do that much in so little time, but this is only because you've done a lot less in this regard."Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus
Comment
-
DE,
Why has getting amendments through become more difficult in the US ?
What i'm trying to figure out is why my country which is a quarter the age of yours has pushed through nearly four times the number of amendments that yours has (~120 vs. 30)
It makes me uneasy that people in my country can do that much in so little time, but this is only because you've done a lot less in this regard.
however, the process has become immensely more difficult because of polarization of the body politic; and in a much longer-term view, as american politics in general over the last 100 years has become less representative and more democratic/populist.There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
Comment
-
Originally posted by AdityaMookerjee View PostYou know, if you look at the movie, 'Gladiator', the Roman state was in a situation, where the people and the state were acting in concord, and accord, but against the ideals of that state. What is interesting, is, the movie, shows this situation existing, just after one of the greatest Emperor's of Rome is dead.Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
~Ronald Reagan
Comment
Comment