Wrong Paxxx. So wrong. It's not a nation of the founders, by the founders, for the founders.....WE ARE the people. They made a government to change with the nation of which it governs. True beauty of the system. That's why they didn't address slavery, because they knew that change was coming and allowed the space for it.
When Kennedy retires this summer, Trump has said he will pick from the same list
- Thread starter WVPATX
- Start date
And the 14th Amendment made blacks equal to whites. That is how the Constitution is changed. Not by unelected judges. The Founders wanted the people to decide on any changes.
The Founders were very concerned about a too powerful judiciary precisely because they are unelected. If SCOTUS keeps defining new "rights" that were outside the Founders intent, they take on powers they don't possess. New laws, new rights are the purview of Congress and by extension, the people.
What's funny to me is that in regards to say the second amendment, for example, some people want to remove the majority of the language of the amendment in order to fit their personal ideology. "Militias are no longer needed, and the founding fathers really meant...". And these same people are often the ones advocating for a stricter adherence to the Constitution. I don't want people's guns, I don't want to infringe upon anyone's rights as determined by the Constitution. But there are limits, obviously, even obvious to you (when the limits meet with your ideology). And the founders were not interested in a government that seeks to add amendments upon amendments weighing down the document and the rights of the people. So they built enough space in the document in order for it to live. You see it in the second, don't you? That's why there's not an amendment stating no man shall own more than 150 canons, and then another stating that no man shall own more than 150 tanks. The intent of the second, imo, was to allow the freedom to own arms in order to protect against tyranny and invasion. As long as that essence isn't impeded upon, gun control laws are not unconstitutional.
Those "rights" are rights as determined by the Constitution, and specified by the court. Interpretation by the courts is critical for the health of the Constitution. Most liberals I know cherish the Constitution, as well as most conservatives I know, that's because it isn't a document that must be destroyed in order for rights to breathe. It's not a suffocating document.
Your argument makes zero sense. How do you know the Founders did not want many Amendments? That is demonstrably false. They gave us that mechanism for changing the Constitution as times change. They placed no limit whatsoever. They just wanted the people to decide.
There can be limits on the second Amendment just as there can be limits on the First Amendment (yelling fire in a crowded theatre). But those limits have to be consistent with the original intent of the Founders. If they are outside their intent, the people need to decide.
More importantly, SCOTUS can't simply invent whole new rights never envisioned by the Founders. That is not their role. That is the role of the people. Gay marriage, abortion, neither found in the Constitution and most certainly would never have been the intent of the Founders. Therefore, it you want to change the law, the people through Congress must decide. Otherwise, you have an out of control judiciary that is swayed by whatever is popular at the moment which give SCOTUS much more power than the other branches. Not a check or balance but unfettered power.
To me, gay marriage is already in the Constitution, in the Bill of Rights. The nation's morality changes, changed, and will continue to change.....the founders were smart enough to know this. The Bill of Rights doesn't address morality, it addresses political rights and the protection of those rights by the Constitution. There's no law against gay marriage in the Constitution is there?
In his...
Chief Justice John Roberts not only dissented from the Court’s ruling but also read a summary of his dissent from the bench. It was the first time that he has done so in his ten Terms on the Court, and it signaled how strongly he disagreed with the Court’s ruling. Roberts forcefully criticized the majority for side-stepping the democratic process and declaring that same-sex couples have the right to marry when, in his view, such a right “has no basis in the Constitution.” The Court’s decision, he complained, “orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs.” “Just who,” Roberts laments, “do we think we are?” The other three Justices echoed Roberts’s sentiments, sometimes in even more strident terms: Justice Antonin Scalia characterized the decision as a “judicial Putsch” and suggested that, before he signed on to an opinion like the majority’s, “I would hide my head in a bag.”
Somebody explain to CR89 what a snowflake means in the context of liberal pansies needing safe spaces and safety pins, he's just making himself look silly every time he misapplies it.
I posted excerpts from Robert's dissent. As he stated, marriage has been with us for millennia.
Significantly, the Supreme Court in Loving v Virginia defined marriage as a “fundamental” right because it is one of the “‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.”
Do you think the Founders did not recognize marriage? LOL. Nice try. Marriage has been with us, as Roberts' states for millennia. The building block of families and societies.
Do you think the Founders did not recognize marriage? LOL. Nice try. Marriage has been with us, as Roberts' states for millennia. The building block of families and societies.
If this is your position, then you have no right to complain when DJT stacks the court and the good guys get reversals on all your commie ******** "laws", mkay pumpkin.
I believe that was the SAME argument I made for gay marriage being in the Constitution. This is where most conservatives lose credibility, to me, you extend the principles you so passionately defend to ONLY those that meet with your ideology.
I say that gay marriage is protected in the Bill of Rights......you say, where?....I say where is marriage in the Constitution......you say, "hey the Supreme Court says it is".....and what started this debate? You saying the Supreme Court shouldn't make law.
You are ridiculously blinded by your own ideology, and want the freedoms outlined by the Constitution to be extended to only people that think like you. That's NOT American at all.
Law is the law....your Bible is the Bible. What might seem difficult for you to understand, really isn't so hard.
You're correct...where does the constitution explicitly or otherwise mention the word, or institution of marriage, dipstick.
Same sex marriage did not exist when the Constitution was written. Marriage between a man and a woman did. It existed for millennia. The Founders would never have intended for gay marriage to be legalized. This is all about original intent. You believe in a "living constitution" because you know that what you want won't be approved by the people. Thus, you use the court system to go around the people and destroy their voice. Gay marriage was not approved by the people. In fact, it was rejected in vote after vote.
You are usurping our republic by enabling unelected judges to make new law. This is undeniably true.
In addition, if the Constitution doesn't allow for the right to marry.....by your originalist viewpoint....we better get an amendment in there soon. Oh wait, I guess it's ok for the Constitution to live when it protects what you want only.
Also.....I will repeat: it's not of the founders, by the founders, for the founders.....WE ARE the people.
So are you. But it's America the beautiful when it meets your ideological view. Opposition to the Republic when it doesn't.
Marriage was practiced by the Founders. You certainly can't be this stupid.
The Founders developed the Constitution so that the PEOPLE decided what rights and laws were to be enacted. The Constitution (Founders) gave that power to the people to change both the Constitution and the laws of the country. You specious argument that the Constitution is "not of the founders" is absurd. They wrote the Constitution to protect the rights of the people to decide for themselves. Remember, even the Constitution had to be ratified.
How do you know the intent of the founders?
The court simply inferred the same interpretation of the "basic civil rights" decision to include homosexual marriage. But that's not ok with you, so then that interpretation is counter to the intent of the founders.....but if it's a man and a woman....that interpretation is dead on. FOS
No, Boom, it's your ideology destroying the Constitution. Because the people don't want what libs are selling, they find judges to "enact" it anyway. Bypass the people. Judges rule. Unelected judges.
Thankfully, when Kennedy is gone and replaced by a Conservative, we will get back to the original intent of the Founders. And if laws or the Constitution is to be changed, we will do it the right way, by giving voice to the people.
This is so stupid. Marriage existed for millennia across civilizations. The Founders intent on marriage was clear since they openly practiced it. Intent can be found in other ways as well by researching the writings at the time. We have a lot of knowledge regarding the Founder's intent.
Gay marriage, abortion, etc. were not intended by our Founders. SCOTUS made that up.
Oh, but that court SHOULD drive law IF you get enough of your boys on there, right? Original intent my a$$, you just want to win that's all.
I know that. Doesn't make it right. It is certainly, as Roberts noted in his dissent, anti-Constitutional.
Washington practiced slavery. Are you saying that slavery was an intent of the Constitution because it isn't referenced until its abolition? How about hemp production?
LOL. I'd have to lose 50 IQ points to get to your level. So in your mind, the Founders approved of both gay marriage and abortion and intended for it reflected to be reflected in the Constitution. Is that what you are really arguing?
Does anyone else feel a twinge of pride when cr69 calls them names. Makes me feel a bubbly inside that a dimwit like him doesn't like me.