ReadDrunkFace wrote:
Then why not enlighten me.FEOS wrote:
You read wiki incorrectly...or wiki was incorrect.
The comparison is sound actually, because in both cases, interpretation determines whether or not the doctrine is meant to be taken strictly or adapted to modern times.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Comparing the constitution to a religious text is absolutely retarded. Religions are supposed to be concrete and unchanging, but the constitution can be amended, and anything in it can be changed.
Because most people aren't strict about everything.FEOS wrote:
So how do you explain someone who sees an interpretive version of Christianity and a strict interpretation of the Constitution?
Well, for example, the 2nd Amendment in a literal sense only refers to militias. However, most people today extend it to mean personal gun rights.FEOS wrote:
Your analogy is flawed, Turq. The Bible (and other religious texts) are made up primarily of allegories. The Constitution is not. Allegories are open to interpretation, based on current mores. Law is not.
Wrong. The active clause is about the "right of the people." The militia is not the possessor of the right.Turquoise wrote:
Because most people aren't strict about everything.FEOS wrote:
So how do you explain someone who sees an interpretive version of Christianity and a strict interpretation of the Constitution?Well, for example, the 2nd Amendment in a literal sense only refers to militias.FEOS wrote:
Your analogy is flawed, Turq. The Bible (and other religious texts) are made up primarily of allegories. The Constitution is not. Allegories are open to interpretation, based on current mores. Law is not.
While that is largely true in a practical sense, there are several philosophies of judicial interpretation.Turquoise wrote:
The Constitution itself is continually subjected to different interpretations in case law. Law is actually mostly an interpretive process because of how society's views change with time. Precedents are part and parcel of law.
Frank J. Hogan, Pres. American Bar Assn, 1939 wrote:
"If the Constitution is to be construed to mean what the majority at any given period in history wish the Constitution to mean, why a written Constitution?"
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."RAIMIUS wrote:
Wrong. The active clause is about the "right of the people." The militia is not the possessor of the right.Turquoise wrote:
Because most people aren't strict about everything.FEOS wrote:
So how do you explain someone who sees an interpretive version of Christianity and a strict interpretation of the Constitution?Well, for example, the 2nd Amendment in a literal sense only refers to militias.FEOS wrote:
Your analogy is flawed, Turq. The Bible (and other religious texts) are made up primarily of allegories. The Constitution is not. Allegories are open to interpretation, based on current mores. Law is not.
Last edited by Turquoise (2009-09-11 16:38:47)
That's a strange statement coming from a lawyer. It's as if he's pretending that he doesn't know how law works.RAIMIUS wrote:
While that is largely true in a practical sense, there are several philosophies of judicial interpretation.Turquoise wrote:
The Constitution itself is continually subjected to different interpretations in case law. Law is actually mostly an interpretive process because of how society's views change with time. Precedents are part and parcel of law.
I think this man made a good point.Frank J. Hogan, Pres. American Bar Assn, 1939 wrote:
"If the Constitution is to be construed to mean what the majority at any given period in history wish the Constitution to mean, why a written Constitution?"
Your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is incorrect. That's why it's law and not analogy.Turquoise wrote:
Because most people aren't strict about everything.FEOS wrote:
So how do you explain someone who sees an interpretive version of Christianity and a strict interpretation of the Constitution?Well, for example, the 2nd Amendment in a literal sense only refers to militias. However, most people today extend it to mean personal gun rights.FEOS wrote:
Your analogy is flawed, Turq. The Bible (and other religious texts) are made up primarily of allegories. The Constitution is not. Allegories are open to interpretation, based on current mores. Law is not.
Precedent becomes part of the law. The law is what is followed, not stories or analogies of behavior. Thus, law is not mostly an interpretive process at all.Turquoise wrote:
The Constitution itself is continually subjected to different interpretations in case law. Law is actually mostly an interpretive process because of how society's views change with time. Precedents are part and parcel of law.
Then a lot of historians are also incorrect.FEOS wrote:
Your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is incorrect. That's why it's law and not analogy.Turquoise wrote:
Because most people aren't strict about everything.FEOS wrote:
So how do you explain someone who sees an interpretive version of Christianity and a strict interpretation of the Constitution?Well, for example, the 2nd Amendment in a literal sense only refers to militias. However, most people today extend it to mean personal gun rights.FEOS wrote:
Your analogy is flawed, Turq. The Bible (and other religious texts) are made up primarily of allegories. The Constitution is not. Allegories are open to interpretation, based on current mores. Law is not.
Precedents themselves are interpretations. And like religious interpretations, they change with time usually.FEOS wrote:
Precedent becomes part of the law. The law is what is followed, not stories or analogies of behavior. Thus, law is not mostly an interpretive process at all.Turquoise wrote:
The Constitution itself is continually subjected to different interpretations in case law. Law is actually mostly an interpretive process because of how society's views change with time. Precedents are part and parcel of law.
I guess so. I would put more weight in Constitutional scholars' thoughts on the matter rather than historians'.Turquoise wrote:
Then a lot of historians are also incorrect.FEOS wrote:
Your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is incorrect. That's why it's law and not analogy.Turquoise wrote:
Because most people aren't strict about everything.FEOS wrote:
So how do you explain someone who sees an interpretive version of Christianity and a strict interpretation of the Constitution?
Well, for example, the 2nd Amendment in a literal sense only refers to militias. However, most people today extend it to mean personal gun rights.
Precedents are not really interpretations, as they are bounced against the Constitution before becoming such.Turquoise wrote:
Precedents themselves are interpretations. And like religious interpretations, they change with time usually.FEOS wrote:
Precedent becomes part of the law. The law is what is followed, not stories or analogies of behavior. Thus, law is not mostly an interpretive process at all.Turquoise wrote:
The Constitution itself is continually subjected to different interpretations in case law. Law is actually mostly an interpretive process because of how society's views change with time. Precedents are part and parcel of law.
Some historians don't understand the english language. (Others don't want to, in this case.)Turquoise wrote:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."RAIMIUS wrote:
Wrong. The active clause is about the "right of the people." The militia is not the possessor of the right.Turquoise wrote:
Because most people aren't strict about everything.FEOS wrote:
So how do you explain someone who sees an interpretive version of Christianity and a strict interpretation of the Constitution?
Well, for example, the 2nd Amendment in a literal sense only refers to militias.
Historians disagree as to whether or not it actually refers to personal gun rights. As things currently stand, it is officially interpreted as such, but this is because of case law.
Before I go further, I want to make sure we're clear. Are you saying that no Constitutional scholars believe that the 2nd Amendment originally referred only to militias and their rights rather than individual gun rights?FEOS wrote:
I guess so. I would put more weight in Constitutional scholars' thoughts on the matter rather than historians'.
Fixed.FEOS wrote:
Precedents are not really interpretations, as they are bounced against interpretations of the Constitution before becoming such.
Certainly not the same with interpretations of scripture.
90% of those happen to be leftists like yourself who want to rewrite the constitution to make socialist programs easier to enact. An armed populace is a threat to you and your kind because it maintains free will and individualism.Turquoise wrote:
Before I go further, I want to make sure we're clear. Are you saying that no Constitutional scholars believe that the 2nd Amendment originally referred only to militias and their rights rather than individual gun rights?FEOS wrote:
I guess so. I would put more weight in Constitutional scholars' thoughts on the matter rather than historians'.
Lay off the paranoia for a moment, John. I support gun rights as well. My point was that the 2nd Amendment has gone through differing interpretations just like the rest of the Constitution has.JohnG@lt wrote:
90% of those happen to be leftists like yourself who want to rewrite the constitution to make socialist programs easier to enact. An armed populace is a threat to you and your kind because it maintains free will and individualism.Turquoise wrote:
Before I go further, I want to make sure we're clear. Are you saying that no Constitutional scholars believe that the 2nd Amendment originally referred only to militias and their rights rather than individual gun rights?FEOS wrote:
I guess so. I would put more weight in Constitutional scholars' thoughts on the matter rather than historians'.
I view law as black and white with very little gray area. I believe that feelings have no place in such a high court as the Supreme Court. All decisions should be made with the facts shown and mitigating circumstances shouldn't even be looked at. This is why I argued against Obamas choosing a justice based on "empathy" of all things. So, I apologize for letting my paranoia get carried away but the Sotomayor decision is still fresh in my mind.Turquoise wrote:
Lay off the paranoia for a moment, John. I support gun rights as well. My point was that the 2nd Amendment has gone through differing interpretations just like the rest of the Constitution has.JohnG@lt wrote:
90% of those happen to be leftists like yourself who want to rewrite the constitution to make socialist programs easier to enact. An armed populace is a threat to you and your kind because it maintains free will and individualism.Turquoise wrote:
Before I go further, I want to make sure we're clear. Are you saying that no Constitutional scholars believe that the 2nd Amendment originally referred only to militias and their rights rather than individual gun rights?
Interpretations are fluid and change with time. When people try to act like the Constitution is set in stone, they ignore the very purpose of having a Supreme Court.
Sotomayor is actually pretty moderate compared to some of the conservative Justices already on the Court. She's also more moderate than the liberal ones as well.JohnG@lt wrote:
I view law as black and white with very little gray area. I believe that feelings have no place in such a high court as the Supreme Court. All decisions should be made with the facts shown and mitigating circumstances shouldn't even be looked at. This is why I argued against Obamas choosing a justice based on "empathy" of all things. So, I apologize for letting my paranoia get carried away but the Sotomayor decision is still fresh in my mind.Turquoise wrote:
Lay off the paranoia for a moment, John. I support gun rights as well. My point was that the 2nd Amendment has gone through differing interpretations just like the rest of the Constitution has.JohnG@lt wrote:
90% of those happen to be leftists like yourself who want to rewrite the constitution to make socialist programs easier to enact. An armed populace is a threat to you and your kind because it maintains free will and individualism.
Interpretations are fluid and change with time. When people try to act like the Constitution is set in stone, they ignore the very purpose of having a Supreme Court.
She made be considered a moderate but her ruling on the New Haven firefighters goes against everything I believe in. I think affirmative action has done much more harm than good since it has been instituted in this country. "From the best of intentions may come the greatest evil"Turquoise wrote:
Sotomayor is actually pretty moderate compared to some of the conservative Justices already on the Court. She's also more moderate than the liberal ones as well.JohnG@lt wrote:
I view law as black and white with very little gray area. I believe that feelings have no place in such a high court as the Supreme Court. All decisions should be made with the facts shown and mitigating circumstances shouldn't even be looked at. This is why I argued against Obamas choosing a justice based on "empathy" of all things. So, I apologize for letting my paranoia get carried away but the Sotomayor decision is still fresh in my mind.Turquoise wrote:
Lay off the paranoia for a moment, John. I support gun rights as well. My point was that the 2nd Amendment has gone through differing interpretations just like the rest of the Constitution has.
Interpretations are fluid and change with time. When people try to act like the Constitution is set in stone, they ignore the very purpose of having a Supreme Court.
As far as feelings go though, you have them yourself. Your feeling is that law is black and white. That's an opinion, not a fact. And as far as law in practice goes, it actually tends to be less that way than shades of gray in terms of conviction. Juries inject their own feelings into rulings, and despite the claims made by Constitutionalist Justices, they inject them into rulings too.
In general, people only view rulings as "judicial activism" when the ruling made is against their personal interpretation of something.
I'm not suggesting that a Justice should be selected on the grounds of empathy, but you can't deny that emotions are always going to be involved in more controversial rulings. We are human after all.
Again, what this comes down to is that some people prefer Constitutionalist logic, while others prefer to view things as a case by case thing. I tend to be more of the latter, although I have my own Constitutionalist leanings on certain topics.
Did I say that?Turquoise wrote:
Before I go further, I want to make sure we're clear. Are you saying that no Constitutional scholars believe that the 2nd Amendment originally referred only to militias and their rights rather than individual gun rights?FEOS wrote:
I guess so. I would put more weight in Constitutional scholars' thoughts on the matter rather than historians'.
You fixed nothing. You simply made an accurate statement less accurate.Turquoise wrote:
Fixed.FEOS wrote:
Precedents are not really interpretations, as they are bounced against interpretations of the Constitution before becoming such.
Certainly not the same with interpretations of scripture.
I see where you're messed up now.Turquoise wrote:
Lay off the paranoia for a moment, John. I support gun rights as well. My point was that the 2nd Amendment has gone through differing interpretations just like the rest of the Constitution has.JohnG@lt wrote:
90% of those happen to be leftists like yourself who want to rewrite the constitution to make socialist programs easier to enact. An armed populace is a threat to you and your kind because it maintains free will and individualism.Turquoise wrote:
Before I go further, I want to make sure we're clear. Are you saying that no Constitutional scholars believe that the 2nd Amendment originally referred only to militias and their rights rather than individual gun rights?
Interpretations are fluid and change with time. When people try to act like the Constitution is set in stone, they ignore the very purpose of having a Supreme Court.
Its SEMI-arid you idiot.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
So some guy name Cook in the eighteenth century was floating his boat around the south pacific when he found a very large island. Then he goes back to his home in England and tells everyone about this new continent he found. Britain doesn't have much use for it, as it is quite arid, very far away and doesn't have any really valuable resources. So they send a bunch of Irish and Scottish people there, cuz Irish and Scottish were Britain's equivalent to Negroes here in America. So the Irish and Scottish are busy being stranded on an island, when a bunch of Gentlemenne of Leisure from England realize that Australia has allot of animals that are fun to shoot at, so a bunch of wealthy English start going on vacation there, however are weary not to let the Irish and Scottish get any of their monies. That was the status quo for a while. But eventually Britian was like 'meh, fuck dis shit' and they allowed the Australians to be somewhat of their pwn country, as they didn't want to have to deal with them much anymore.
Then in 1914 the first World War begins. Australia, being part of the British empire, has to send troops. Since all the commanders were from England, and thus didn't care at all about the Australians' well being, they had the Australians sit around on a beach while the Hajis (who were in WWI somehow) shot cannons at them. Australians consider getting fucked over by Brittan and then fucked-up by Turkey something to take pride in.
Then WW2 came, and Australia was almost invaded by Japan, but they pushed those dirty nips back to sea, from where aforementioned nips were systematically ass-raped by America, a real country.
For the next 25 years not much happened in Australia, until in 1970 the much loved comedy show Monty Python's Flying Circus aired a sketch about Australia. It depicts the Philosophy department of the Australian University of Australia, where all the Australian characters are alcoholic close minded homophobes named Bruce. This is something Australians take pride in to this day.
And such is the history of the great and proud nation of Australia.
O rly? Pray tell then why the Supreme Court has changed interpretations over the years? You know, like Plessy v. Ferguson being overturned by Brown v. Board of Education?FEOS wrote:
I see where you're messed up now.Turquoise wrote:
Lay off the paranoia for a moment, John. I support gun rights as well. My point was that the 2nd Amendment has gone through differing interpretations just like the rest of the Constitution has.JohnG@lt wrote:
90% of those happen to be leftists like yourself who want to rewrite the constitution to make socialist programs easier to enact. An armed populace is a threat to you and your kind because it maintains free will and individualism.
Interpretations are fluid and change with time. When people try to act like the Constitution is set in stone, they ignore the very purpose of having a Supreme Court.
You think the SCOTUS' job is to interpret the Constitution. It's not.
Their job is to interpret case law put before them in terms of the Constitution...not the other way around.
Then back off your claim that the 2nd Amendment didn't refer to militias in the beginning, because it did.FEOS wrote:
Did I say that?
No.
Nice try, though.
Now, you're just being stubborn. I think I'm going to stop arguing this with you because you're not even bothering to use reason anymore.FEOS wrote:
You fixed nothing. You simply made an accurate statement less accurate.
If it's any consolation, I don't like affirmative action either.JohnG@lt wrote:
She made be considered a moderate but her ruling on the New Haven firefighters goes against everything I believe in. I think affirmative action has done much more harm than good since it has been instituted in this country. "From the best of intentions may come the greatest evil"
