BF2S Forums Constitutionalism -- A Religion?

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

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.

I see where you're messed up now.

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.

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?

They do interpret the Constitution whether you'd like to admit it or not, and yes, it is their job to do so.

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Aussies need to learn more US history tbh.

Why? Do Americans learn Australian history?

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.

Cybargs wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Aussies need to learn more US history tbh.

Why? Do Americans learn Australian history?

Ummm if you want to talk about the constitution then yeh.

DrunkFace wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Why? Do Americans learn Australian history?

Ummm if you want to talk about the constitution then yeh.

I asked a question about the constitution so nah...

No one could answer me, so I researched myself came some conclusion, portrayed that conclusion, was told I was wrong again, then when I asked how given links to the exact source's I read to come to my original conclusion. I have yet to see anyone tell me how you change the constitution of the USA nor proven that the government can change it without a public vote. You included.

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I see where you're messed up now.

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.

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?

They do interpret the Constitution whether you'd like to admit it or not, and yes, it is their job to do so.

No. They don't. They interpret case law put before them. The tool they use to interpret the case law is the Constitution.

They don't (and aren't supposed to) interpret the Constitution. They determine the Constitutionality of various cases before them...which is interpreting those cases (not the Constitution) via the lens of the Constitution.

There is a distinct difference.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

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?

They do interpret the Constitution whether you'd like to admit it or not, and yes, it is their job to do so.

No. They don't. They interpret case law put before them. The tool they use to interpret the case law is the Constitution.

They don't (and aren't supposed to) interpret the Constitution. They determine the Constitutionality of various cases before them...which is interpreting those cases (not the Constitution) via the lens of the Constitution.

There is a distinct difference.

I don't see any difference at all here, because you're still assuming there is only one way to interpret the Constitution.  The variance in interpretations is clearly evidence that this is not the case.

FEOS wrote:

The fact that you don't see a difference speaks volumes.

I'm not assuming there's only one way to interpret the Constitution. I'm saying it's not open to interpretation. It is what it is. All other law is interpreted by comparison to the Constitution, not the other way around.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The fact that you don't see a difference speaks volumes.

I'm not assuming there's only one way to interpret the Constitution. I'm saying it's not open to interpretation. It is what it is. All other law is interpreted by comparison to the Constitution, not the other way around.

And all I'm saying is that judges interpret the Constitution differently and apply these differences to law.

Does that speak volumes too?

Turquoise wrote:

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.

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:

Turquoise wrote:

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.

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.

No, it is not.  You can't amend the bible!

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Alrighty then.  If the 2nd Amendment is an absolute right to gun ownership, then how come felons are banned from owning firearms?  How come mentally unstable people aren't allowed them?  How come I can't own a fully automatic weapon without a restricted arms dealing license?

In fact, if owning guns is an absolute right, then how come we have gun registries?

Clearly, we aren't literally interpreting the 2nd Amendment the way that you're implying.

You are arguing someone else's argument, not mine.

There are NO rights in the Bill of Rights that are universal in the US. Your same arguments apply to voting rights, right to assembly, etc. Gun registries don't prevent people who would otherwise be entitle to gun ownership from owning them.

The current (and past) view of the 2nd Amendment is pretty much spot on from the original.

In the beginning, there were no restrictions on guns.  There was no restriction on automatic weapons until organized crime started using things like Tommy guns in their hits.

So, since said restrictions on automatic weapons have never been overturned by the Supreme Court, the interpretation of gun rights has changed over time, which contradicts your statement that these rights have always been interpreted the same.

Turquoise wrote:

The very fact that our rights aren't universal is proof that we do not have unchanging interpretations of the Bill of Rights.  Over time, restrictions are placed and removed, and a good portion of this process is determined by what interpretations the SCOTUS makes.

Last edited by FEOS (2009-09-14 03:42:03)