 |
 |
The Constitution: Literal or Living Document?
| March 13th, 2014 at 6:53:32 PM permalink | |
| beachbumbabs Member since: Sep 3, 2013 Threads: 6 Posts: 1600 |
Me, I think the Constitution is a living document, much like the Bible is allegorical in many ways. The following things were true in 1789, just off the top of my head. They are, to me, pertinent to the reasons behind writing some of the amendments the way they were. 1. Slaves counted as 3/5 of a person. 2. Non-landowners did not vote or run for office in many states. 3. Women did not vote or run for office. 4. Guns were fired once, then had to be reloaded with gunpowder, wadding, a musket ball, and tamped down, which took longer than it did to read this. 5. There was no indoor plumbing. 6. There were no banks; the US Treasury had just been invented. 7. The tax collector could, until recently, confiscate your possessions at will without notice and with no recourse. 8. You could be forced, until recently, to quarter troops or officials in your home, likely at your expense though there was some compensation possible. 9. There was, until recently, a state Church headed by the Monarch. 10. No electricity/phone/radio/tv/social media/instant networking. Censorship of printed word and disbursement of meetings, the only ways to communicate at the time, were forcibly imposed on the colonists, until recently. Those documents were of their time, and written to state basic principles of freedom that were being abrogated at that time. They were attempting to ensure that past abhorrent practices would not continue under a new government. They could not predict the future. Hence, further amendments. But that's not enough to catch up with social and scientific developments over the last 2 1/4 centuries. So, yes, interpretation is both necessary and desirable. The Founding Fathers were creative people; they did not expect their work to be frozen in literalness. They were people of their times, and expected us to be people of ours. Never doubt a small group of concerned citizens can change the world; it's the only thing ever has |
| March 13th, 2014 at 7:32:32 PM permalink | |
| Face Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 61 Posts: 3941 | I wish I was learned enough to comment more, but alas, I'm not terribly strong in this subject. I hope (suspect?) maybe AZD will pop in and comment. But I, of course, can comment on at least things dealing with the 2nd. Your comment is one that gets tossed around in every argument about guns today. "But-but-but...automatics! Our forefathers could never envision! Muskets and ball and powder, that's what they had, so that's all YOU should have!" And the sad part is, they, as well as some of our politicians, believe that. What we fail to remember is the purpose of the 2nd. Despite our culture as it is right now, regardless of how hard it is to envision happening, the purpose of the 2nd is to prevent and have a recourse to deal with tyranny. To deal with a government out of control. If one really wanted to dissect the wording of the 2nd and the meaning at the time, the 2nd granted arms equal to that of the government. Yes, ball and powder is neither powerful nor accurate nor easy to use compared to the arms of today. But is was exactly equal for both citizen and government. It was to prevent the gov from attaining a power greater than that of the people. Now, that's not to say I think everyone should have ICBM nukes in their backyard (another ridiculous anti argument). But while one may think that the Constitution is "living" and "requires interpretation", it is necessary to do so with great prudence, for too many throw up these same, weak arguments and trumpet their interpretation, forgetting the original purpose of the law in the first place. More often than not, I think "interpretation" is a dangerous thing. Be bold and risk defeat, or be cautious and encourage it. |
| March 13th, 2014 at 7:49:49 PM permalink | |
| beachbumbabs Member since: Sep 3, 2013 Threads: 6 Posts: 1600 |
You and I are, in many ways, making the same point, though you seem to feel you're opposing mine. And I don't think the argument that the times have changed and the law of the land must update to meet them is a weak one. But I'll let the pot bubble a bit more. Thanks for the response! Never doubt a small group of concerned citizens can change the world; it's the only thing ever has |
| March 14th, 2014 at 12:23:36 AM permalink | |
| Fleastiff Member since: Oct 27, 2012 Threads: 62 Posts: 7831 | The times have not changed. The number and amount of taxes have, the types of weapons have, ... but the Constitution did not contain any limits on being secure in your homes from muskets but not secure from Gloks. Nor does it make a home secure from a taxman who rode a horse as a taxman who has a computer and a car. Consider the police arresting someone today who has a cell phone in his pants pocket. The Founding Fathers had no concept of cell phones, or cloud drives or ISPs or instant messaging, but they had knowledge of police and governments and drafted the constitution to protect the pants pocket that contained paper records of the people you spoke to ............. so now the Constitution does the same thing: it protects the pants pocket of the individual who is arrested and makes those electrons off limits without a warrant. That is not a change, that is an enduring concept. The individual is protected against the intrusion by the state because the Founding Fathers knew what an over-reaching government was like, not because the Founding Fathers knew what quill pens and ink were like. Times change from ink to electrons, but the concept remains fixed: Go before a magistrate and show independent facts concerning what it is you want to read in his pockets, irrespective of quill pen and cuttlefish ink. |
| March 14th, 2014 at 1:18:41 AM permalink | |
| beachbumbabs Member since: Sep 3, 2013 Threads: 6 Posts: 1600 | Well said. Never doubt a small group of concerned citizens can change the world; it's the only thing ever has |
| March 14th, 2014 at 5:59:47 AM permalink | |
| AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 135 Posts: 18204 |
Not exactly. Here is the full text: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." The 3/5 clause is taught incorrectly in this country. Most teachers or professors will claim it was "racists who thought slaves/blacks were not a full person." In reality, slave owners would have been happier if slaves were counted as "7/5 of a person." So what should really be said is "only 3/5 of slaves were counted to assign Congressmen." The Constitution is not "living and breathing." It is a CONTRACT. You do not look at a contract you signed a few years later and change the meaning of the words to fit what is convenient at the time. Something our courts need to learn. The President is a fink. |
| March 14th, 2014 at 8:01:30 AM permalink | |
| aceofspades Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 83 Posts: 2019 |
I would trade the convenience of indoor plumbing for the end to all banks any day. |
| March 14th, 2014 at 8:35:28 AM permalink | |
| Nareed Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 346 Posts: 12545 |
More than the kind of weapons available today, what the Founders didn't think of was the price of weapons today. Simply put, everyone can easily afford some kind of hand gun these days, with enough ammo to make serious trouble. Even so:
Exactly so. While private individuals won't be having working tanks, combat aircraft or even stinger missiles, an armed populace still should give anyone pause. During the Revolutionary war, the English had a devil of a time with just such a populace, which wasn't as well armed as today's. Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER |
| March 14th, 2014 at 11:18:51 AM permalink | |
| Fleastiff Member since: Oct 27, 2012 Threads: 62 Posts: 7831 | First of all a rifled musket was not all that expensive at all. Second, the Founding Fathers did have knowledge of and experience with immoral weaponry. Thomas Jefferson was particularly enamored with the air guns of the day... these were considered abominations by the English asristocrats because it allowed poaching without any gunpowder to reveal the poachers location. So weapon technology and ethics was not concerns that were foreign to them. As the American West developed, gunsmiths were plentiful though weapons varied greatly costs were not high. Anyone riding a horse would normally need a gun for snakes to protect the horse or else he would be stranded. Often manufactured ammunition might be rare but kits for someone to make their own bullets were plentiful and often to make their own cartridges too. |