The 'Official' Do Not Vote For Obama In 2012 - Thread. Don't Want Him Back N Office!

canndo

Well-Known Member
Only through the amendment process. Where did you here it was supposed to change over time? Fox or ABC news probably.
Um... nope. It has to change over time as even the meaning of words in our language chanes over time. Tell me, does gay mean the same now as it did 100 years ago? As I thought I fairly clealy pointed out, SCOTUS is another avenue of currency of the document. Even Strict Constructionists can't get around the changing meanings of words. Address my original point if you will. What does "cruel and unusual punishment" mean?
 

Windsblow

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by canndo
What it mean is that the Constitution needs to be interpreted according to the times. What is cruel and unusual now was not then. This is only one example of our not being able to ... conform to the constitution exactly the way it was written. Furthermore, it happens that the document was designed to change over time so it was never intended to be a static document.

...............through the amendment process, not through interpretation.



As the others have said - both. My point in using that particular portion of the Constitution was to illustrate that it is not static. There are no amendments to my knowlege describing what cruel and unusual punishment is yet that phrase now rules out lashing and stocks but it did not always do so. Hence, the document, much as I know you are going to hate this - "lives". It is as others say, an interpetation by SCOTUS. In fact I recall shortly after Thomas took to the bench, he ruled in a case where a prison inmate was struck so hard by a guard that his dentures broke in his mouth. He sued the state for the price of the teeth. Thomas ruled that although the behavior of the guard was indeed cruel, it was not unusual, being that the two conditions were inclusive, he therefore didn't believe the prisoner deserved his $1100.

In short, we couldn't and can't abide by the Constitution word for word.
This make no sense lacks understanding and is a horrible attempt at making your point. You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Static and living are not opposites.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
You don't understand the idea of a Constitutional Republic and the Amendment process.
I fully undertand what a Constitutional Republic and the Amendment process means sir. As our society changes so too does the application of the principles of the Constitution. We are secure in our papers and effects currently - in our homes. The founders had no concept of reasonable expectation of privacy in our vehicles. They had no concept of things OTHER than our papers and effects - how could they have known about our cell phones? Perhaps an Amendment is in order but for the most part, SCOTUS must determine if indeed our iphones are "effects" and what exactly that means. Corporations were fairly new constructs at the onset of our country, now in may ways they are treated as individuals with many of the rights of those individuals. While I don't agree, the point is that this is up to SCOTUS to decide as the Amendment process is necessarily slow (and reasonably so).
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
This make no sense lacks understanding and is a horrible attempt at making your point. You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Static and living are not opposites.


Then by all means counter my argument with one of your own. Tell me under no uncertain terms what the phrase "cruel and unusual punishment" means and demonstrate for us how it can be the same both now and 200 years ago.
 

Windsblow

Well-Known Member
Um... nope. It has to change over time as even the meaning of words in our language chanes over time. Tell me, does gay mean the same now as it did 100 years ago? As I thought I fairly clealy pointed out, SCOTUS is another avenue of currency of the document. Even Strict Constructionists can't get around the changing meanings of words. Address my original point if you will. What does "cruel and unusual punishment" mean?
We have very clear and concise documentation of what the "words" mean. The words meaning don't change with the time..... WTF are you talking about. Living and breathing.... Even the most liberal/left wouldn't attempt to use this weak argument to support the supposed elasticity of the Constitution. Huh...... LOL! As if the law of the land changes according to the current meaning or popular use of a word? Embarrassing DUde.
 

Windsblow

Well-Known Member
Then by all means counter my argument with one of your own. Tell me under no uncertain terms what the phrase "cruel and unusual punishment" means and demonstrate for us how it can be the same both now and 200 years ago.
So by this example you mean to support a position that every word written on parchment, that now has a slightly different use or change in meaning compared to when it was written, no longer is the same law?

I just want to you to be clear. So if the word Bear, which means to posses or carry, was used more or written Bare for it' meaning bare, as in lack of something as in "bare naked" (not having any clothes), then we would no longer have the right to "Bear arms"? Because we would be "Bare of arms"? just want you to be clear.
 

Windsblow

Well-Known Member
It's useless to even argue with folk about this sort of thing. They believe it because they want it to be true not because it is. These are folks that prefere the rule of man over the rule of law. Personally I would rather be at the mercy of an unbiased peace of paper than I would the mercy of the wims of men.
 

Windsblow

Well-Known Member
The right to bear arms really means that only bears can own guns but since they have no thumbs nobody can use guns in America.
 

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
I am always amazed at the arguments and points made here...It's just hilarious...There is no coherence to be found sometimes...

Canndo... damn dude... thank you...thank you...
 

groovedaddy

Well-Known Member
Canndo, to get back to the original intent of this thread, do not vote for Obama. We know beyond any doubt the founding fathers wanted this country to have a very limited federal government. Is that what we have? The current dipshit in charge has been twice as bad as the last dipshit about expanding the federal government into our lives and spending our money. The more power the fed gets the more corrupt it becomes and I for one will not vote for any candidate that does not convince me he or she will reduce the scope of the federal government significantly. As far as your living breathing ever changing founding documents I always try to return to the original intent. I'll cede you that times have changed but the principles have not and we have strayed far from those principles.
 

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
What it mean is that the Constitution needs to be interpreted according to the times. What is cruel and unusual now was not then. This is only one example of our not being able to ... conform to the constitution exactly the way it was written. Furthermore, it happens that the document was designed to change over time so it was never intended to be a static document.
Not so.

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
James Madison: Father of the Constitution

"It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction…what colour can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms, immediately follows; and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon. If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded as to give meaning to every part which will bear it; shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent and the clear and precise expressions, be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?...the idea of an enumeration of particulars, which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity…"
James Madison The Federalist Papers

"Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank piece of paper by construction."
Thomas Jefferson

"The true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is in the intention of the law makers. This is the most safely gathered of words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law."
Thomas Jefferson

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson

"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure."
Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution on which our Union rests, shall be administered by me [as President] according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption - a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated, not those who opposed it, and who opposed it merely lest the construction should be applied which they denounced as possible."
Thomas Jefferson as POTUS

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."
Thomas Jefferson

"It is an established rule of construction, where a phrase will bear either of two meanings to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which will render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given to them. It was intended to lace them up straitly with in the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."
Thomas Jefferson

"The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it."
James Wilson
 

Windsblow

Well-Known Member
Canndo, to get back to the original intent of this thread, do not vote for Obama. We know beyond any doubt the founding fathers wanted this country to have a very limited federal government. Is that what we have? The current dipshit in charge has been twice as bad as the last dipshit about expanding the federal government into our lives and spending our money. The more power the fed gets the more corrupt it becomes and I for one will not vote for any candidate that does not convince me he or she will reduce the scope of the federal government significantly. As far as your living breathing ever changing founding documents I always try to return to the original intent. I'll cede you that times have changed but the principles have not and we have strayed far from those principles.
Canndo isn't worried about principles he's worried about the State. It amazes me the level of loyalty and respect some have to the Government and it's potentual powers. It's like children seeing Firework for first time standing there with thier mouth and eyes wide open in awe saying it's so beautiful I want more, give me more it's so big and awesome. Libs are like porn stars starring at Ron jeremy's huge cock and screaming it's so big give me more, more I say. Yes liberals are like children whores. Taking huge cocks while fire works are shooting off screamin it's so huge and beautiful give me more and make it bigger. How's that for coherency! The left............... unprincipled sluts! LOL

yup
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
however, they can and will maul the shit out of you.

FUCK bears.
WTF how can you say that ...poor Winnie the Poo, Paddington bear, Yogi , Smokey ( Yeah his name is even cool Smokieeee), Sugar Bear, Fozzie bear, and The Three Bears ( Goldilocks needs to be facing some breaking and entering charges ).. So please don't say phuck bears:lol:
 

undertheice

Well-Known Member
FUCK bears.
i'm sorry, but i can only take bestiality so far and bears are a bit outside of my comfort zone. please understand that i have nothing against a big woman (or any other partner you may wish to imagine), it's just the big claws and teeth and the nearly insatiable appetite that i object to. i make a point of never having intimate relations with anything that is in the least bit interested in eating me for lunch.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
We have very clear and concise documentation of what the "words" mean. The words meaning don't change with the time..... WTF are you talking about. Living and breathing.... Even the most liberal/left wouldn't attempt to use this weak argument to support the supposed elasticity of the Constitution. Huh...... LOL! As if the law of the land changes according to the current meaning or popular use of a word? Embarrassing DUde.
Windsblow. Any examination of the English language over time will easily display that the meanings of words change - with time. I have produced a single example "Cruel and unusual" with regard to punishment. I have not (although I have yet to view all responses) seen anyone address the meaning of that word both now and 200 years ago. Cruel, that single word would not have been applied to lashing, it most certainly is now. It was an accepted practice. Therefore, the "law of the land" does indeed change as concepts, concepts related to words, change.

The very word unusual, and my little recounting of Justice Thomas's use has various meanings and of course as society changes things become either more, or less "usual" Furthermore I used another single word - Gay. That word is now solely within the domain of homosexuality, it was not always such - indeed the meaning of words change over time, even over lifetimes.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
We have very clear and concise documentation of what the "words" mean. The words meaning don't change with the time..... WTF are you talking about.

Just to be even more clear Windsblow, How about a few more words.

Awful, gee, it used to mean inspiring wonder. Not now
Demagogue, Meant "a popular leader" Demagogos (leader of the people)
Egregious, from the latin meaning outstanding or remarkably good.
How about the word Brave? it used to mean exactly the opposite "bravado"
Sophisticated? it meant corrupted, or vile.
 
Top