Replies

I said it's an old document, because, it is. My point was it may not apply or cover situations the founders didn't predict. Certainly a technology-related amendment like one related to weapons would be the first to become potentially obsolete.

I'm saying by definition we need to stick to the words of the constitution, or amend those words. But I need more than that to convince me something is right. I need to see practicality, common sense, and results. Because of the very fact that it can be amended that should always be what we go on as the basis for our argument. You can certainly use the constitution to bolster your argument when the principles still apply.

And as far as free speech and the modern mass media, the fundamental principles of free speech still apply, such as that when all the ideas are out there, the best of them will rise to the top. It's not that everyone didn't have access to some form of media back then. The written word had no less ability to spread and disseminate widely than electronic media.

A Republic differs from a democracy in that the opinions of the majority as expressed through elected representatives is constrained by such words as are contained in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. To re-interpret those words liberally is to weaken those constraints. As John Calhoun noted, those is power would generally prefer easing of their constraints, while those out of power would adhere to a stricter construction of the original meaning of this social contract. When power shifts from party to party, roles often switch as well. But that means that those in power are always effecting a weaker and weaker set of constraints. Over time, those words become so diluted they become a dead letter.

Most on this format believe in the strict construction as a matter of principle.

Beware of neo-Federalists passing themselves off as conservatives.

I said it's an old document, because, it is. My point was it may not apply or cover situations the founders didn't predict. Certainly a technology-related amendment like one related to weapons would be the first to become potentially obsolete.

Now slow down here!! Is what you are saying is if I think the Constitution is outdated in areas, well just twist the words to make them fit?? Remember this is the SUPREME law of the land, to justify twisting it's meaning is the same thing as saying I can twist ANY law to fit my needs.
If you don't like something in the Constitution, AMMEND IT, DO NOT DISREGUARD IT! Welfare, Medicare, Dept of ED to name a few are all UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I didn't say they were bad, but the Constitution should have been ammended to allow the passage of such laws.
BTW, I'm from the northeast too and I call it the war of northen aggression. It was a matter of states rights to leave the nation if desired.
Jack

'And as far as free speech and the modern mass media, the fundamental principles of free speech still apply, such as that when all the ideas are out there, the best of them will rise to the top.'

And as far as self defense and the modern assault rifle, the fundamental principle of self-defense still applies, such as that when a person has a right to defend themselves from tyranny then tyranny will never rise to the top.