I am getting rail roaded in a public forum arguing against the “living constitution”

Ultima On line game fourm at Stratics.com ^

[Steve Van Doorn]

I am getting rail roaded in a public forum arguing against the “living constitution” psychobabble. I am not sure if I should keep it up or just ignore them? The thread started with the Second amendment.

Any and all advice is greatly appreciated.

Thank you

The Thread (uo.stratics.com it is an on-line game forum)

[Steve Van Doorn]

Thanks guys.

[patriciaruth]

It's real simple. Without the Second Amendment there would be no First Amendment, and no Constitution, living or dead.

[chance33_98]

ASk em if the emancipation proclomation should be considered a living document too.

[Ingtar]

Or their lease.

[nhoward14]

Tell them you'll let them have a "living" Constitution on the 2nd amendment if they'll let you have a "living" Constitution on the establishment of a state-sponsored religion.

[nhoward14]

I wonder if the Communist Manifesto is a living document as well.

[chance33_98]

Invite them over here to discuss :) If they don't like the 2nd, ask them about abortion. Abortion pros say it is her body and right to choose, well you own your body and have a right to defend it (and not be dependent on the govt to do so).

[flashbunny]

Here are a few things to use for ideas:

Somthing I did just recently: Living, Breathing Document.

And this one on the second amendment being outdated is older.

The clinching argument on the idiotic 'living breathing document is this:

Challenge them to a game of cards. One hand, winner take all. Make the amount in question anything you wish, but you may want to keep it reasonable so they play along.

Tell them they can pick the game. They just need to call out what is is beforehand-anything can be wild that they want. Then tell them that after you both show your hands, you get to interpret the rules of the game as if they were a living, breathing document. For example, the royal flush they had is only valid if it's a tuesday. Otherwise, it's just 5 cards that mean nothing.

Of course, there's no way that you can lose when you are the one interpreting the rules. If they call the game unfair and refuse to take your bet, tell them that changing the meaning of the constitution just because you don't like what it means is much more unfair than changing the rules of a simple game.

[RJL]

A few thoughts.

People who believe in a "living Constitution" simply don't like the Constitution as it is written and don't have the votes to change it. It’s much easier to just feed cases to a few radical liberal judges and they make new law.

Remember Head Judge Norma Holloway Johnson who overrode the computer assignments and gave all the cases involving Clinton corruption to Clinton appointed judges? Easy!

Why did the framers include procedures to change the Constitution if they intended for us to just change what we feel it means?

[the lone wolf]

Ask them if the Nazis or Commies were elected to power would they like to have an elastic, living Constitution then?

[green team 1999]

there is not such thing as a living constitution,and the ones who wanted that way is so it can be change!.

no,no living constitution,check Hugh Hewitt web site

[danmar]

"There Is No such a thing" period! The "CONSTITUTION" is what it is, no if/and or about "IT".

The "Constitution" is very dead and explicit in it's entirety!.

[Arkinsaw]

Tell them to go back to weaving virtual cloth and digging virtual ore and stop trying to think.

[green team 1999]

hughhewitt.com
he teaches contitutional law or something like that.

[nhoward14]

I wonder how they would defend an abortion clinic from an angry mob of pro-lifers if guns were banned.

[umgud]

I like Walter Williams' analogy; It's kinda like playing poker when the dealer can modify the rules at will.

[DuncanWaring]

The central point is that the Constitution is a contract, just like a mortgage or lease or car-rental contract.

It does not "live" any more than do any of the aforementioned.

If parties to the contract (generally, the States) do not like the terms of the contract, there is a defined mechanism for amending said contract. (Hint - said mechanism does not involve throwing coins into a Wishing Well.)

Until amended, it stands as written.

[Sauce]

Ask them why Article 1 Sections 9 and 10 refer to “Restraints, Federal and State” (Section 9) and “Limits on the States” (Section 10)?

[Cacique]

Bookmark bump

[longtermmemmory]

The constitution was never intended as a living document to be revised by mere "interpritation" The founding fathers wanted to set up a CONSTITUTION. It was founded on timeless principles (life, liberty, pursuit of hapiness, among others) The living aspect of the constitution was the AMENDMENT process. If a part of the constitution needed to be changed then it would be AMENDED. Slavery was abolished by AMENDMENT not interpritation. Women received the right to vote by AMENDMENT not interpritation. Prohibition was enacted and repealed by AMENDMENT.

The second amendment is part of the INDIVIDUAL rights listed in the first nine amendments. The founders wanted to make sure it was CLEAR that individuals would be protected in the new goverment. The bill of rights was the first attachment to our constitution in order to seek agreement of the 13 colonies.

The use of the breathing constitution is used by those who seek to creat "collective rights" rather than individual rights. The living argument is used by those who realise their political views could NEVER pass muster in the amendment process. The tool of failures.