2129
2130

The Constitution is a "living document" (m.imgur.com)

chabanaisStronger than derp が 投稿

上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 408
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]thgntlmnfrmtrlfmdr 240 ポイント241 ポイント  (28子コメント)

Careful, OP, remember that all the Warren decisions were considered "living document bullshit" at the time. Miranda rights, right to privacy, etc.

It's stupid to think that rights come from law. If the constitution is wrong, then let us say that it is wrong and change our ways.

edit: To all the "originalists" replying to me who think that your rights come from the government:

I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth. I don't give a shit if freedom increases because of legislative action, executive action, judicial action, revolution, or nonviolent protest, or aliens flying to Earth to eat the brains of all the dictators. I just want freedom. Human rights don't exist at the convenience of government contracts (ie constitution and laws). If you think they do, you need to seriously reevaluate calling yourself a "libertarian".

[–]eletheros 61 ポイント62 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Not every good policy is required by the constitution.

Not every bad policy is unconstitutional.

If the constitution is wrong, then let us say that it is wrong and change our ways.

There is a process for that.

[–]Slobotic 24 ポイント25 ポイント  (1子コメント)

But some of the Constitution is aspirational in nature. Not everything is as clear as the succession to the presidency or Congress has the power to create a post office. "Equal protection of the law" never had any obvious and simple meaning, including among the men who wrote and voted to adopt the 14th Amendment. With regards to Equal Protection and due process, this isn't a debate between a simple textual interpretation and something more radical, because the former doesn't exist. It never did.

[–]mike10010100 26 ポイント27 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This. The entire point of the Constitution is for it to be interpreted and flexible enough to fit the needs of the time without having to be completely rewritten every dozen years. Amendments are meant to add additional ideas to the document, and thus to the nation, not to serve as some kind of super-law.

[–]KhabaLox 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (4子コメント)

There is a process for that.

So you want to Amend the Constitution every time technology advances enough as to make the current wording irrelevant (e.g. 4th Amendment)?

[–]Slobotic 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Not only that, but those Amendments were never simple things. 4th Amendment says no unreasonable searches and seizures. It doesn't say what to do if there is an unreasonable search. In America we exclude whatever evidence was found in an unconditional search from trial, but most countries do not have an exclusionary rule and the Constitution doesn't say what to do.

The Constitution doesn't explain everything. The textualist fantasy is that there is some simple, uncontroversial way to interpret the Constitution in the first place. Everything people think they know about their constitutional rights comes from the Supreme Court, not just the text of the Constitution.

[–]enmunate28 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I would like to know what constitutionally constitutes an "unreasonable" search.

It really seems to me that lacking a glossary, the constitution is severely lacking.

[–]Slobotic 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yup. And the Constitution doesn't say, but it does tell you that the ultimate expositors for such questions is the Supreme Court. That's something that's pretty clear in the Constitution.

(Katz v. United States is a great place to start of you really want to know.)

コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

    [–]jacobbeasley 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    This is so right on. We have a process for changing the laws, so let's follow it instead of just ignoring it...

    [–]Bunnyhat 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (4子コメント)

    This is posted by /u/chabanais. The Idea of removing rights to enable a more efficient police state gives him a hard-on.

    [–]ILikeBumblebees 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    remember that all the Warren decisions were considered "living document bullshit" at the time. Miranda rights, right to privacy, etc.

    The ninth amendment is an explicit part of the constitution. The constitution is set up in such a way as to recognize that people have non-enumerated rights that policy might violate, but not to recognize any policy-making authority that isn't explicitly enumerated.

    [–]PANDAS_ARE 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Difference between adding new rights, and changing/removing old ones.

    [–]frog_licker 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    There is no such thing as human rights on an objective level. We are no more meaningful than ants. We need something like to constitution to ensure that rights we have carved out can be maintained.

    [–]JasonBGood 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (6子コメント)

    Miranda rights are your existing rights along with the right to know what your rights are. That's inarguably within bounds. Just because someone used an argument when it didn't apply doesn't mean that forever more that argument can't be used.

    As for the "right to privacy" if you're referring to Roe V. Wade, yes thats living document BS or judicial activism. Its not like the right to privacy gives you the right to commit a crime as long as you do it in private. Except in this case because BS.

    The "right to privacy" that we actually do have (from the 4th and 5th amendment mostly) doesn't apply here.

    If the constitution is wrong, then let us say that it is wrong and change our ways.

    Article V.

    And if the current process isn't living enough, we can always amend the article itself to make amendments easier.

    [–]joshTheGoods 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    As for the "right to privacy" if you're referring to Roe V. Wade, yes thats living document BS or judicial activism. Its not like the right to privacy gives you the right to commit a crime as long as you do it in private. Except in this case because BS.

    Are you purposely missing the point of the abortion argument here? To call abortion a crime (presumably, murder) is to reject the other side's premises (not a person the moment fertilization occurs and not a fetus when they come out... magic somewhere in between). If that parasite inside of the woman isn't a person yet, then abortion is, indeed, a privacy issue.

    [–]mike10010100 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Libertarianism is inherently pro-choice. If you believe the fetus is a person, then you must now decide why you're okay with denying one person's rights (the mother) over another's (the baby's), which is inherently contradictory to Libertarian ideals. If you don't believe it's a person, then it becomes a privacy and body independence issue, in which case, you're still pro-choice.

    There was a huge thread about this last month, and this was the general consensus people came to, since to say that the mothers' rights were less important than the fetus' rights would mean that you're okay with sacrificing personal liberty to protect an uncertainly viable life.

    [–]positvepenguin 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Thanks for pointing this out. Not getting into the "no true scottsman" fallacy since these ideas lie on a spectrum, but abortion is one of those issues when it becomes apparent that some people are closer to conservatism than libertarianism. Pro-life/anti-choice views are similar to those who defend universal healthcare. In both cases people are going to die, but we need to decide whether we are willing to forfeit our individual rights to the government for another person's life. Such sacrifice is fine if the decision is made by the individual, many who choose professions in military and firefighting agree to this, but this is up to the person not the state.

    [–]bLaZe_iT_420_69 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Miranda rights are your existing rights along with the right to know what your rights are.

    The right to be advised of your rights before any in-custody interrogation and the right to have evidence against you suppressed in the event the police fail to do so are not rights that are clearly established in the Constitution. They're judicially-created enforcement mechanisms, which many libertarians believe are a good idea.

    コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

      コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

        [–]Slobotic 46 ポイント47 ポイント  (29子コメント)

        I'm not a libertarian, but I hope you guys are friendly to an outsider's questions.

        So when the Supreme City overturned Plessy v. Ferguson with Brown v. The Board of Education, holding that public facilities cannot be facially segregated, and when they decided that states could not criminalize interracial marriage, those were new interpretations of the 14th Amendment, contrary to older understandings.

        The thing is, nobody ever knew for sure or agreed upon the exact meaning of the words "Equal Protection of the Law" in the first place, including the men who wrote and voted to adopt that amendment. It is aspirational language, not something simple and straightforward like the order of succession to the presidency or Congress had the authority to create a post office.

        So more recently the Supreme Court decided that denying same sex couples the right to be married is a denial of equal protection of the law, something that would clearly have shocked most people in the mid 19th century, but, in their view, better honors the aspiration of the 14th Amendment to provide equal protection of the law in light of the modern view that "gay" doesn't just describe a type of behavior but a class of person.

        So my questions are:

        1. Do you think the court was out of line in Brown v. The Board of Education? Where they out of line in overturning state laws against interracial marriage? Were they out of line in overturning state bans on gay marriage?

        2. If you feel that one of these things was okay and the others aren't, what is the distinction? Just that you happen to feel strongly that segregation of public facilities is wrong but not so strongly in support of gay marriage? Surely you realize that in 1864 people didn't specifically envision that interracial marriage would have to be legalized in 50 states, right?

        3. How has the living document view of the Constitution ever been used to deprive you of a right? I studied constitutional law a lot in law school and I only recall cases where it has been used to find new or expanded rights of private citizens under the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 14th amendments. Which leads me to my last question:

        4. How is this libertarian ideology? Are Miranda warnings bad things? How about access to a public defender? What about not having a confession used as evidence against you of the cops beat it out of you? Because Miranda v. Arizona, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Brown v. Mississippi were all expansions of 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment rights which occurred under the Warren Court. Libertarians, stereotypically, vehemently assert their rights when arrested or detained. They also seem to rail against the ethos upon which those rights were found to exist. What is going on here?

        [–]Brutus-1787 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (5子コメント)

        Not many people will bash the result of Brown v. Board, but the process matters in a constitutional republic. I would simply prefer SCOTUS decisions to not be seen as equivalent to the Constitution itself.

        The SCOTUS messes up, and when their decisions are given so much weight their mistakes have horrid consequences. Everyone praises Brown (rightfully so), but we forget that it was the SCOTUS that enabled and extended segregation with Plessy in the first place.

        If the SCOTUS isn't seen as so final and authoritative, we wouldn't have had to wait for a couple generations' worth of lives to be decimated before they decided the Brown decision.

        [–]Slobotic 20 ポイント21 ポイント  (4子コメント)

        Everyone praises Brown (rightfully so), but we forget that it was the SCOTUS that enabled and extended segregation with Plessy in the first place.

        No, in Plessy the Court simply failed to do what they would later do in Brown, which was to issue a radical opinion expanding 14th Amendment rights. They did the conservative thing in Plessy, which you are now criticizing.

        Same with interracial marriage. NOBODY in the mid 18th century thought the 14th Amendment would mean states had to legalize interracial marriage any more that they thought it would mean they would be forbidden from segregating public facilities. Both of these are prime examples of living document jurisprudence.

        Blaming the Supreme Court for the existence of public segregation because they failed to deem it unconditional the first time it was challenged is totally backwards. The policy came from the states with Jim Crow laws. The court took a half measure on Plessy by saying separate was okay if it was equal and sixty years later realized that separate was inherently unequal.

        I asked what's wrong with the court being liberal about their reading of the 14th Amendment and your answer is essentially confirming that they weren't liberal enough soon enough and that was the problem.

        [–]mrfoof 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

        How has the living document view of the Constitution ever been used to deprive you of a right? I studied constitutional law a lot in law school and I only recall cases where it has been used to find new or expanded rights of private citizens under the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 14th amendments.

        Gonzales v. Raich and antecedents like Wickard v. Filburn. Kelo v. City of New London. Buck v. Bell. Korematsu v. United States.

        [–]Slobotic 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (2子コメント)

        Buck v. Bell was an instance where the court failed to expand a private right. So was Korematsu. Neither of those cases are living document cases.

        The others are valid, but are about taking an expansive view of federal powers like the commerce clause. What about taking an expansive view of private rights under the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendments? How has that ever been a bad thing?

        コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

          コメントをもっと表示する (16 返事)

            [–]HTownian25 292 ポイント293 ポイント  (102子コメント)

            Literal author of the Constitution, James Madison, helped authorize the Louisiana Purchase under Declaration of Independence Author Thomas Jefferson. The ability to add territory to the existing states was not established within the framework of the Constitution, and yet the authors of that document did not seem overly phased by the prospect of "violating" it.

            shrug

            [–]trashacount12345 59 ポイント60 ポイント  (86子コメント)

            https://www.quora.com/Was-the-Louisiana-Purchase-by-Thomas-Jefferson-unconstitutional

            Looks like it was considered a treaty, (edit) though Jefferson would have preferred an amendment.

            [–]sotomayormccheese 34 ポイント35 ポイント  (85子コメント)

            Looks like it was considered a treaty,

            So the government can so anything it wants as long as it called it a "treaty."

            [–]CutlassSupremoancap 25 ポイント26 ポイント  (54子コメント)

            government can so anything it wants

            Basically this because the government interprets its own rules under the constitution.

            [–]BodaciousBeard120 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (7子コメント)

            Well it was an international agreement between two sovereign nations. I don't find the interpretation to be too egregious

            [–]sotomayormccheese 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (6子コメント)

            Well it was an international agreement between two sovereign nations

            What right does France have to tell us what we can do???

            [–]Destrinaanarchist 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

            Do you understand what the word treaty means?

            [–]gozasc 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (4子コメント)

            Close The Treaty Loophole

            [–]chabanaisStronger than derp[S] 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (3子コメント)

            High capacity treaties are already regulated.

            [–]gozasc 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

            What about treaty shows?

            [–]chabanaisStronger than derp[S] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

            I'm more worried about getting additional Treaty Free Zones.

            Obama created a big one when he was in office. About the size of Libya.

            [–]mappersdelight 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (5子コメント)

            Then it breaks the treaties made with Native Americans.

            Government does what it wants.

            Until the people no longer take it.

            [–]sotomayormccheese 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

            What are you trying to say?

            [–]mappersdelight 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

            That constitution, treaty, whatever the government says they'll do in a legal setting; if in the future it doesn't fit what the government wants, they'll ignore their past statements and do what they want anyway.

            [–]sotomayormccheese 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

            So some day the government might give that land back to France?

            [–]mappersdelight 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

            Or follow the rules that they set our for themselves when writing the treaties with American Natives. I'd prefer we started there.

            [–]sotomayormccheese -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

            What rules are you referring to?

            [–]LibertarianPepeMAGA 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (8子コメント)

            They can do anything they want as long as we don't throw them out, if there is no consequence to them manipulateing the power of government then they will always do as they wish.

            [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

            [deleted]

              [–]hopeful_nihilist 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

              When the Constitution was signed, James Madison, thought it was utter garbage and the US was sure to collapse. You can read the letter he wrote right after it was signed, he basically says the Consition is so vauge it means anything to anyone. No one knows what it really means. To get everyone to sign onto it we had to keep it so vague everyone thinks it means something different.

              He latter decided that that vagueness was a strength. Different people, ideas, values, could all make an argument from the Constitution. It could mean different things at different times to different people.

              [–]matts2 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

              So don't forget that Original Intent means the Founders wanted precisely what I want. No more, no less. Just like God they agree with my particular views.

              [–]spartan6222 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (2子コメント)

              The ability to add territory to the existing states was not established within the framework of the Constitution

              Then it's a good thing they did not add to the territory of existing states, but added new territory which would become states, which is explicitly allowed under Article IV Section 3.

              New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

              The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

              [–]HTownian25 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

              Nothing in this statement establishes the national's ability to purchase territory owned by another nation. It was power reserved for organizing the Ohio River Valley and other non-colony territories acquired in the wake of the treaty with Britain ending the Revolutionary War.

              [–]ILikeBumblebees 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

              Ohio River Valley and other non-colony territories acquired in the wake of the treaty with Britain ending the Revolutionary War.

              And it should be stated that those territories were ceded to the United States in the 1783 Treaty of Paris well before the constitution was in force.

              [–]eletheros 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (1子コメント)

              The Declaration of Independence is not either a or the constitution.

              On the other hand, the actual constitution most definitely includes the ability to add territory. Article IV, Section 3.

              [–]ILikeBumblebees 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (0子コメント)

              Article IV, Section 3

              ...talks about the requirements for establishing new states on territory already controlled by the US, not for acquiring new territory to fall under federal jurisdiction. The constitution absolutely isn't clear on the matter.

              When we encounter a contingency that the prevailing system of rules doesn't already account for, we can either (a) acknowledge that we have no choice but to operate outside the bounds of those rules, and potentially use the situation as a starting point for defining new, clearly applicable rules, or (b) develop ever more contrived interpretations of the original rules that allow us to stretch them to fit any possible contingency, which ultimately destroys their specificity and reduces them to meaning anything we want them to mean.

              Jefferson himself admitted that the Louisiana Purchase was extraconstitutional; I suspect that this was precisely because he understood that if he tried, and succeeded, at justifying it under the constitution, it'd ultimately be equivalent to having no constitution at all. He wanted Congress to legitimize the purchase after the fact with a constitutional amendment, which sadly never happened.

              [–]mspk7305libertarian party 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

              The ability to add territory to the existing states was not established within the framework of the Constitution, and yet the authors of that document did not seem overly phased by the prospect of "violating" it.

              The Constitution is not about what you can do, but about what the Government has to do, and what it cannot do. It does not say the government cannot purchase land, so it therefore is not a violation.

              コメントをもっと表示する (5 返事)

                [–]GalleaniIndividualist 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                Thomas Jefferson:

                "On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer.

                Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right."

                [–]Packers_Equal_Life 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                OP is a mod in r/conservative. he just likes shitting on liberals

                "lets use a darth vader quote instead of another quote by an actual Framer" - /u/chabanais

                [–]FireHazard11 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                On its that dumbass. I'm not surprised he'd come up with something this stupid.

                [–]Freakypotato44 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (11子コメント)

                Out of curiosity, how do libertarians feel about the 3/5ths compromise in the Constitution? Also the necessary and proper clause really seems to imply that the founders intended for the Constitution to change with the beliefs of the nation. So why do you think that the Constitution shouldn't change?

                [–]GastonBoykinslibertarian party 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                The Necessary and Proper Clause was a bait and switch and has been deliberately misused since the Constitution was adopted.

                The Federalists while debating its inclusion, promised the Anti-Federalists it would not be used to expand the power of the government beyond those defined by the Constitution. It was agreed to be included with that understanding. Almost immediately, however, Hamilton and the Federalists used it to make a national bank.

                The Supreme Court needs to go against precedent the next time a N&P case is brought up. They've been getting it wrong for over a century.

                [–]GastonBoykinslibertarian party 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (9子コメント)

                Some of the Constitution was inconsistent with the philosophy that enabled its creation, and many of the people who wrote it knew that. However, the document had to be voted on to be made official, and a lot states would have voted it down if blacks or natives people were given full citizenship or if women were given equal rights.

                I think the Founders hoped that as society progressed, as Enlightenment philosophy made people more logical and rational in their thinking, the gates would open to allow for what should have been in place from be start.

                [–]Freakypotato44 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (8子コメント)

                I agree with that. I'm asking how that argues in favor of keeping the Constitution in its original form, untouched in which it specifically states that black men would be counted as 3/5th's of a person. The Constitution should be a living document if that's what you say the founders had in mind.

                [–]Mac2411 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                I don't know of anyone arguing that. Those provisions to which you refer have already been sorted out and without utilizing the "living document" philosophy.

                [–]Glock19_9mmfriedmanite 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                You are misrepresenting the argument. Someone who interprets the Constitution as a living document thinks that the meaning should change over time. A person who has a stricter interpretation of the Constitution doesn't have an issue with amendments, the only true way to change the meaning of the Constitution.

                Also, do more research about the 3/5ths compromise. The 3/5ths compromise was a GOOD thing at the conception of the Constitution because it limited the power of the slave holding states. It only applied to slaves, not all black people. However, it was rendered mute by the 13th amendment.

                [–]enmunate28 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                That's really not what I think the 3/5th clause means.

                Can you help me understand how the 3/5th clause was used?

                コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                  [–]trenescesePolish ancap | Taxation is theft you idiot 34 ポイント35 ポイント  (11子コメント)

                  Deal? What deal? When did any American consent to that deal? :)

                  [–]CaCl2 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Presumably the ones who signed it did.

                  [–]FourFingeredMartianLibertarian and Authoritarian Are Mutually Exclusive 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but “the people” then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves

                  コメントをもっと表示する (9 返事)

                    [–]OmahaVikeThe American Dream Is Not A Handout 123 ポイント124 ポイント  (50子コメント)

                    Yes. It is a "living document". That's why the founders were thoughtful to include a process on how to amend it. Unfortunately, too many lefties think that's the job of the SCOTUS.

                    [–]TulkesLeft Libertarian 132 ポイント133 ポイント  (10子コメント)

                    It's not just "Lefties." It's anybody who cares more about their agenda than the depth of their knowledge and respect for the law.

                    Half the power of the SCOTUS in the Constitutional realm is clarifying ambiguities in the Constitution anyhow, things that shouldn't be "amended" but are written as a principle without instruction, and nobody knows how to approach them. In law we call these "Constitutional Questions" and the SCOTUS has Appellate Jurisdiction over them, according to the Constitution itself in Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 1-2.

                    The Second Amendment was only interpreted in the last 10 years to mean that private citizens had a right to own firearms for traditionally lawful purposes unrelated to militia service because the wording of the Second Amendment doesn't actually state it (see District of Columbia v. Heller). Even then, it was a 5-4 ruling. Is clarifying the Constitution still "Judicial Activism" in this case, or do we only call it that if it's related to protecting abortion rights or the ACA ("Leftist" victories in recent years seen as Judicial Activism the way those "Lefties" could view District of Columbia v. Heller.)

                    [–]PromptCritical725Loading Magazines 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                    The Second Amendment was only interpreted in the last 10 years to mean that private citizens had a right to own firearms for traditionally lawful purposes unrelated to militia service

                    Ironically, the point of it, as I see it, it to recognize a right to own firearms specifically for militia service. US v. Miller upheld the NFA by ruling that a sawed-off shotgun was not protected because it had no relevance to militia use because the justices had no knowledge of the military fielding them. The inference of this is that the only weapons protected are those with militia (military) utility. No double barrel shotguns, hunting rifles, , fancy Olympic competition rifles, etc. Only weapons which are military in nature are protected. That means fucking machine guns, grenade launchers, assault rifles, and all that shit that we're always told "You don't have a right to own." Half the time Miller is cited as justification. If Mr. Miller had been caught with a Thompson, the NFA would have been smacked down hard because everyone knows the military uses machine guns.

                    [–]eletheros 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                    upheld the NFA by ruling that a sawed-off shotgun was not protected because it had no relevance to militia use because the justices had no knowledge of the military fielding them

                    Which is wrong, as the military has used sawed off shotguns since shotguns existed.

                    The only way they came to that conclusion is because the defense didn't even show up as the defendant had died.

                    Given free reign, with nothing to contradict any claim they made, the prosecutors could only manage to hang the conviction on that falsehood. They weren't able to get all weapons banned even under those circumstances.

                    [–]PromptCritical725Loading Magazines 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    The entire idea of "we don't know this is useful to militia so it isn't" is idiotic. The military using anything useful for killing someone should be pretty much common sense. The state should have to prove to the court that they aren't used, and that proof should be beyond "we said so."

                    [–]JustinCayce 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                    Sorry, but that is blatantly false. It was well understood to be an individual right apart from any militia service. You can find proof in many places, but look at the commentary on the Dred Scott decision where it's discussed that he would have the right to own and carry a firearm. The right also had a great deal of discussion during the 14th Amendment process, and again, as specifically an individual right that had no militia requirement. The idea that it was anything but an individual right didn't exist until well into the 20th century, and the claims, such as you've made, are simply blatant lies.

                    [–]Abomonog 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                    The Second Amendment was only interpreted in the last 10 years to mean that private citizens had a right to own firearms for traditionally lawful purposes unrelated to militia service.....

                    This is incorrect. One of the leading arguments when that amendment was written was to preserve the rights of Homesteaders to own guns to protect their property from indigenous invaders (namely Native Americans), and to hunt, lacking a 18th century Walmart to shop for dinner at. Being able to form a militia is a huge factor in it, but in those days one guy shooting at Indians was was good enough to be called a militia for the moment.

                    The reality is that the wording of the militia has done more to harm the Second Amendment than to help it, the modern argument being that any militia would be hopelessly outclassed by the standing army as to be ineffective. In the face of who controls the nukes this argument cannot be denied. Any militia would be dust against an organized and determined army long before the nukes, at any rate.

                    None of this has stopped people from forming militias and Obama saw armed militias on American soil explode in number to an all time high. But honestly, the American militia has become obsolete as a military asset, but then only because of the limits put on the Second Amendment over the years. At the same time I'm not sure I want Joe-Bob getting his hands on an M1A1 Abrams.

                    [–]ILikeBumblebees 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    In the face of who controls the nukes this argument cannot be denied.

                    Of course it can be denied. Nukes aren't tactical weapons, and no one would use them to attack territory that they themselves are trying to take control over. That's why they haven't been used at all in warfare since World War II, despite there being hundreds of civil wars, international wars, insurrections, and other assorted armed conflicts throughout the world since WWII.

                    コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                      [–]eletheros 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      The Second Amendment was only interpreted in the last 10 years to mean that private citizens had a right to own firearms

                      Asinine. In the entire history of the court, only one case - Miller - ever came before the Supreme Court. That case found that the only reason sawed off shotguns could be illegal to own is because the military doesn't use them (it actually erred, the military does)

                      No ruling has ever said the second amendment is a group right, and its nothing but pure bias to pretend that the second would be while the first would not.

                      [–]AristotleGrumpus 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      That's why the founders were thoughtful to include a process on how to amend it.

                      Not only did they leave a process for it, they stated flatly that they KNEW it would have to be amended in the future because of things they could never foresee or had overlooked. The Bill of Rights proved that to be true very quickly.

                      [–]plazman30constitutionalist 35 ポイント36 ポイント  (20子コメント)

                      Every time an unconstitutional law gets passed, or POTUS does unconstitutional action, I always tell my left and right friends that this really is not allowed. And when they argue it's the right thing to do, i tell them they need to get the Constitution amended to allow this.

                      Their response is always that that would take too long. Amending the Constitution SHOULD take a long time.

                      [–]Jumballaya 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (15子コメント)

                      And when they argue it's the right thing to do

                      Every act of good and evil is justified this way. I don't understand how most of the world can be so Machiavellian.

                      [–]akotlya1 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (4子コメント)

                      Because, while our ideals suggest patiently waiting for our legal system to adjust to our ever-changing mores, living human beings have to live with the consequences of the shortsightedness of our predecessors. It is very hard to be told that you have to wait for a particular cause to gain enough political attention and support to become ratified as law when you and people like you have to live with those negative externalities. This is especially true if you are part of a racial/ethnic/religious/political minority.

                      Machiavelli only ever noted that in politics, as in war, the only thing that matters is effectiveness. Your principles do you no good if you don't live (literally or figuratively) to wield power according to your principles.

                      [–]ILikeBumblebees 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                      living human beings have to live with the consequences of the shortsightedness of our predecessors.

                      And they usually do so by applying their own even shorter-sightedness.

                      [–]plazman30constitutionalist 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (9子コメント)

                      A government should not be good or evil. The government should step out of your way and allow you the freedom to make that choice for yourself.

                      [–]GeraldotheINVINC 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                      A government that gives me the freedom to choose? That sounds like a good government! Wait...

                      [–]plazman30constitutionalist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                      That's not good government. That's PROPER government.

                      [–]GeraldotheINVINC 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                      A proper government? Boy that sure sounds like a good thing! Wait...

                      [–]plazman30constitutionalist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      It does not It sounds like a necessary thing. What's necessary is not always good. Dentists visits are necessary, but they're rarely good.

                      [–]___jamil___ 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

                      The government should step out of the way and allow ... whoever to be "evil"?

                      you lost me there

                      [–]plazman30constitutionalist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                      How is the government going to stop someone from being evil? That's impossible for them to do, and should not be the job of the government.

                      [–]HTownian25 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                      Their response is always that that would take too long.

                      Obstructionism in Congress affords more power to fewer individuals, as the demand for action eclipses the demand for lawfulness. That's simple human nature, and an unfortunate consequence of our limited capacity for long-term planning.

                      [–]drakeblood4 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      Exactly. There was a supply shock to non-obstructionist representatives sometime within the past 15 years, to the point where demand for action exceeds the means to legally supply it.

                      コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                        [–]wellactuallyhmmit's not "left vs. right", it's state vs rights 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        Its the job of the SCOTUS to interpret the constitution, and plenty of conservatives are happy with the SCOTUS interpreting in their favor as well.

                        [–]Zargabraath 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        TIL that people who understand how the US constitution and judiciary works are known as "lefties"

                        Judging by your comment I can see you're clearly not one of those people!

                        [–]FourFingeredMartianLibertarian and Authoritarian Are Mutually Exclusive 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        Too many people think it's also a function of the legislator, 'oh if a law the Congress wrote allowing the Government to do XYZ then it's a job of SCOTUS to handle that.'

                        [–]Litig8 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        You are being too specific for a document that is intentionally broad. It sounds like you are arguing that unless the Constitution specifically authorizes the specific action they are taking (or specifically protects against an action that has been taken), that we should amend the Constitution in lieu of determining if the action, or the right, is already protected by the Constitution.

                        The entire point of the Constitution is provide a framework of ideas, not to provide explicit guidance on specific actions. For instance, the 14th Amendment.

                        All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

                        Notice it does not say "you can't make a law preventing interracial marriage" and it does not say "you can't segregate people". According to your point of view, we should have amended the Constitution to allow both of those things instead of relying on the Court to find that they were already rights protected by the 14th Amendment.

                        The problem inherent with your approach is that the people who require the protection of the Constitution are more often than not the people who lack the political and popular goodwill and clout to obtain the amendments you would require. You would force them to overturn the will of the majority when our Constitution has already guaranteed the rights of the minority. Majority opinion changes with time, but the fundamental rights of the Constitution should be enduring.

                        [–]matts2 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        So do plenty of righties. They just proclaim that their personal views are the original intent.

                        Libertarians, those who want liberty, should fight for the most restrictions on government not the least. But plenty of so-called libertarians are just right wing authoritarians.

                        [–]buddythebear 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (4子コメント)

                        I suppose it's a bug in the Constitution's design that for many libertarians is understandably a great feature, but the process of amending the Constitution is exceptionally more difficult nowadays compared to when it was first drafted.

                        [–]eletheros 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                        Nonsense, it has always been difficult to amend the constitution.

                        Just ask the authors of the Corwin amendment, passed by congress in 1891 and rejected by the states.

                        [–]buddythebear 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                        The fact that the Constitution has been amended 3 times in the past 50 years (1967-2017) compared to 7 times in the 50 years preceding that (1916-1966) suggests that it has gotten considerably harder to amend the Constitution.

                        When the Constitution was drafted only land owning white men could vote. It turns out when you allow more groups of people to participate in the political realm and vote, political divisions get more fractured and views become more diverse and polarized. It's harder for overwhelming consensus on issues to develop as new voting blocs emerge and gain influence and representation. Not saying that's a bad thing at all it's just the nature of (little d) democratic politics.

                        So anyways the 3/4 state approval for ratification is arguably an unobtainable bar in the context of modern politics that the founders probably couldn't have imagined. Point is that as more people have been afforded equal rights and greater representation, it has weakened the country's ability to amend the Constitution. I'm not sure if that's a good thing, but again, I guess it's a matter of whether you view that as a bug or a feature of the Constitution.

                        [–]brokedown 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        I disagree that the rate of amending the Constitution in any way reflects the difficulty of doing so. You wouldn't say that the lower rate of treating smallpox is because it got harder.

                        [–]ElvisIsReal 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        The fact that the Constitution has been amended 3 times in the past 50 years (1967-2017) compared to 7 times in the 50 years preceding that (1916-1966) suggests that it has gotten considerably harder to amend the Constitution.

                        I'd say it speaks more to the fact that they don't even bother with the window dressing anymore.

                        [–]Innerouterself 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        And then when the POTUS does the same they cry foul

                        [–]Dengar96 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        Only those darn lefties are threatening your rights nowadays amiritie

                        コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                          [–]the_dark_dark 58 ポイント59 ポイント  (53子コメント)

                          When I hear "we must interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning", all I hear is "let's bring back segregation".

                          Living Constitutionalism: Brown vs Board

                          Original meaning: Plessy v. Ferguson.

                          :P

                          [–]LolWhatDidYouSay 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                          Except those cases don't turn on whether the Constitution is a living document. The distinction between those cases ultimately went to whether "separate but equal" violated the Equal Protection clause.

                          [–]the_dark_dark 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                          Except those cases don't turn on whether the Constitution is a living document.

                          Yes they did, precisely because, as you put it:

                          whether "separate but equal" violated the Equal Protection clause.

                          so... not sure whether you misunderstand what living Constitutionalism is, or whether you haven't read Plessy v. Ferguson yet.

                          [–]Sproded 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (41子コメント)

                          No it just means a amendment would have been needed to change it, which is a lot more democratic then letting 9 people decide

                          [–]the_dark_dark 29 ポイント30 ポイント  (34子コメント)

                          Are you really saying that SCOTUS should NOT have ended segregation?????

                          [–]DaYoopervoluntaryist 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                          Libertarians are extremely skeptical of the state. We can acknowledge that segregation is a bad thing, while at the same time be afraid of 9 people having that much power. If they have the power to help you, they have the power to hurt you.

                          [–]JasonDavidWongPargin 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                          Are you new to libertarians? That's kind of their whole deal.

                          [–]PitaJ 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                          Are you serious?

                          [–]the_dark_dark 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                          lmao it's a losing argument.

                          [–]Sproded 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (28子コメント)

                          I'm saying the people should have ended it not SCOTUS

                          [–]Lemonface 35 ポイント36 ポイント  (8子コメント)

                          Well the people didn't. You think it would have been worth a few more decades of segregation so that it could have been ended in a functionally identical but technically different way? Would that make you more satisfied with our government?

                          [–]DakkaMuhammedJihad 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                          Segregation never ended. De jure segregation ended more or less, but de facto segregation is so very alive to this day it's sickening to think about. I volunteer in my off time at a public school on the outskirts of D.C. It is almost entirely black and Latino, the number of white kids measuring maybe a dozen out of over 500 students, and yet a school five miles away in another district is almost entirely white. The problem persists, busing programs were ended, and our public school system suffers because of it, both the black and white kids.

                          I'm not disagreeing with your overall point, but more people need to realize how bad segregation really is in big parts of the country. It ain't just income disparity here either. The average net income of households in both districts is relatively close, but the schools themselves do not reflect that either. The school I volunteer at doesn't have working heating, is rat and bug infested, and uses books that are, in some cases, decades old, whereas minus a street sanitation issue that took forever to resolve the white school likes like a typical high school.

                          [–]MissBeefy 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                          Sure yeah I think people realize it exists. Nothing like then tho. Do you think it would be better in those areas if SCOTUS hadn't acted? I feel it would only be slower to change without some initiative.

                          コメントをもっと表示する (6 返事)

                            [–]the_dark_dark 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (13子コメント)

                            So SCOTUS ending segregation was NOT a legitimate decision?

                            [–]Sproded 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (12子コメント)

                            Yes, and it's not about segregation, it's about them overstepping their power. Do you really want 5 people to have that much control in the country when they can't get taken done for any decision they make?

                            [–]the_dark_dark 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (4子コメント)

                            I asked:

                            So SCOTUS ending segregation was NOT a legitimate decision?

                            you responded:

                            Yes

                            Therefore you believe that segregation is still the proper law of the land under the original meaning of the Constitution.

                            You may personally dislike segregation, but since you believe that is the "law", are you trying to get a Constitutional amendment passed against segregation in order to "legitimize" Brown vs. Board of Education?

                            If you aren't trying to convince Congress and the States to pass such an amendment, then you're literally enjoying the benefits of desegregation while refusing to accept its source authority, which seems very hypocritical on principle.

                            And here I thought originalists were all about "the principle".

                            [–]Sproded 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                            Just because I don't think it was legitimate doesn't mean I'm stupid enough to realize that other people are following it. Now if I was on SCOTUS I would try and strike done both decisions and let an amendment decide if segregation should be legal or not

                            [–]the_dark_dark 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                            Just because I don't think it was legitimate doesn't mean I'm stupid enough to realize that other people are following it

                            Argument aside; this is a confusing sentence. Please re-phrase. I'll reply to your entire post once you do.

                            Thanks.

                            [–]Sproded 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                            While I don't think the courts decision was legitimate, since it got the change I wanted I'm not going to bother with it anymore

                            [–]murdermeformysins 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (6子コメント)

                            Yes?

                            The average person is retarded. Sometimes someone needs to have the final say on laws. Thats why we have a representative "democracy"

                            [–]Sproded 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

                            Exactly our representatives would've voted on it, not 9 unelected people who can't be punished for going against public opinion

                            [–]murdermeformysins 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                            You voted in the people who picked them

                            [–]Sproded 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                            I haven't been able to vote until two years ago so I wasn't able to yet they're still going to be on the court for upwards of 30 years

                            [–]enmunate28 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            What part of the constitution authorizes our federal congressmen to tell states they can or can not have segregation?

                            コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                              [–]akcheat 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                              Do you think that SCOTUS interpreted the 14th amendment incorrectly when they ruled in the Brown case?

                              What part of their interpretation oversteps the bounds of the constitution in your opinion?

                              If Brown is an improper use of the court's power, what would a proper use look like to you?

                              [–]Sproded 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                              The part where they made a decision for the states that wasn't part of the constitution which is in strict violation of the 10th amendment.

                              A proper use would be determining what the founders meant by having a state militia or if someone's freedom of speech was abridged

                              [–]akcheat 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              Is the 14th amendment not part of the Constitution as much as the 1st or 2nd?

                              コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                [–]well-placed_pun 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                But that amendment process has been undermined by corporate lobbying. I know: We can pass an amendment to prevent corporate lobbying! But that amendment process has been undermined by corporate lobbying.

                                [recursion error]

                                [–]pewpewlasors 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                That is their job, making decisions that average people are too stupid to get too in a reasonable amount of time.

                                [–]Sproded 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                I think the average person could say if they want segregation or not, they're job is to interpret the constitution not be congress

                                [–]ILikeBumblebees 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                When I hear "we must interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning", all I hear is "let's bring back segregation".

                                Pretty peculiar, since segregation started in the 1890s, and was upheld by people wilfully re-interpreting the constitution and prior case law.

                                [–]mspk7305libertarian party 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                When I hear "we must interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning", all I hear is "let's bring back segregation".

                                Except for that pesky 13th amendment being part of the Constitution now, you might have a point. The fact is that we should interpret the original meaning and if the original meaning is not compliant with modern life, we should amend it- and that amendment should be considered in the future based on its meaning at the time of ratification.

                                So no, arguing in favor of originalism is not arguing in favor of slavery. Not by any measure possible.

                                [–]the_dark_dark 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                Except for that pesky 13th amendment being part of the Constitution now, you might have a point.

                                NoooOOOoo, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die.

                                :P

                                That "pesky" 13th amendment was interpreted under the originalism framework by SCOTUS in Plessy v. Ferguson, and held to not prohibit segregation.

                                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson

                                So, it's not that I may have a point, my friend... I just made it and you just accepted it.

                                :)

                                コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                  [–]OverlordXenu 25 ポイント26 ポイント  (24子コメント)

                                  Ah, yes, it would be really wonderful if black people were still worth 3/8ths of everyone else. Or if women couldn't vote. Or if people weren't equal under the law.

                                  That would be super great.

                                  [–]Glock19_9mmfriedmanite 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                  The 3/5ths compromise was for only the slave population, not all black people. It's purpose was to restrict the southern states from using its slave population to inflate the population used to allocate representatives. This limited the power of the slave states. The 13th amendment renders the 3/5ths compromise mute since it abolished slavery.

                                  The 19 Amendment allows women to vote.

                                  The 14th Amendment contains the equal protection clause.

                                  Everything you said is already in the Constitution! A strict reading of the Constitution doesn't have fault with women having the right to vote or equal protection under the law. Interpreting the Constitution based on what you want it to say vs what it actually says is a sure path to tyranny.

                                  [–]JasonDavidWongPargin 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (15子コメント)

                                  You've just discovered what Libertarians are actually all about. There's a reason they're overwhelmingly young white males. "We don't need any stinking state enforcing equality! Things are perfectly fine as they are!"

                                  [–]mr8thsamurai66 25 ポイント26 ポイント  (13子コメント)

                                  We don't need government enforcing equality, we need it enforcing individual liberty for every single individual, regardless of race, gender, sexuality and whatnot.

                                  [–]TheNSAknowsOPisAfag 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  What the ... an actual libertarian in /r/Libertarian. I thought this was supposed to be /r/conservative and /r/liberal battlegrounds

                                  [–]Shell-of-Light 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                  .....in practical terms, this sometimes means enforcing equality, as our "individual liberty" is often threatened across racial, ethnic, or gender lines.

                                  [–]mr8thsamurai66 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                  It depends what you mean by equality. I agree, if we are talking about the role of government as preventing others from infringing on your rights.

                                  [–]IVIaskeradeDictator 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  It depends what you mean by equality.

                                  Equality before the law. There is no other.

                                  [–]Veteran4PeaceCooperative Capitalism 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                  I wish the rest of the "libertarians" understood this. ^ ^ ^

                                  [–]mr8thsamurai66 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                  I wish everyone that wasn't libertarian wouldn't treat this idea like a racist statement of hate, instead of actually understanding it.

                                  [–]Veteran4PeaceCooperative Capitalism 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                  Definitely agreed. The problem here, IMHO, is that the waters have been muddied by people using libertarian/conservative rhetoric for bigoted purposes. For example, "state's rights" as code for "bring back segregation" and "religious freedom" as code for "let Christians be bigots to everyone else."

                                  [–]TheDwarvenDragon 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  Except history has proved that the government not enforcing equality results in private forces engaging in unequal acts. Monopolies are the prime example of why Libertarianism doesn't work. They necessarily form in a completely free market, and only the government has the force needed to combat them. The consumer by themselves is capable but not reliable in combating them.

                                  [–]OverlordXenu 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  and, unless there is some sort of revolution that levels the playing field for everyone, how exactly do you plan to promote equality when there are still vast amounts of intergenerational wealth and power that can be traced back to, literally, slavery? let alone the subjugation and exploitation of the powerless, grassroots subaltern.

                                  if you're anti-union, because many libertarians see unions as a limit on individual liberty, how do you ensure that workers can assert their individual liberty and protect themselves against their bosses who wish to exploit them?

                                  how do you protect common goods? like the air or water, to keep it simple. can you violate an individual's liberty to dump toxic waste wherever they want through environmental regulations? if so, how do you enforce those?

                                  the fact of the matter is that, worldwide, us humans live under an incredibly stratified society. libertarianism where everyone started on an equal playing field could work, i guess, but how do you get there without a revolution? and at that point, what is the US constitution worth?

                                  コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                                    [–]IVIaskeradeDictator 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    You've just discovered what Libertarians are actually all about.

                                    People not being interested when you try and sell them social justice doesn't mean you need to denigrate them.

                                    [–]iRepresentTheBlacks 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                    Excuse me sir, you mean 3/5ths. That 37.5% difference would totally matter for me.

                                    [–]OverlordXenu 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    sorry, I've got a cold and am on a lot of cough syrup! my bad

                                    [–]Cerilles 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                    Yeah, can't believe they changed the Constitution to allow women and black people to vote. Fuckin lefties.

                                    [–]rspeedprobably grumbling about LINOs 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    This case law is getting worse all the time.

                                    [–]bailaoban 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    Whatever you want to call it, it's not engineering schematics or an operating manual either. It is a largely principle-based construct that thankfully was not too brittle to absorb all of our do or die civil rights advances without falling to pieces.

                                    [–]jakesmith78 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    This isnt where he says the line.

                                    [–]SkullDuckery 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                    What does the word 'amendment' mean? Please don't shoot me.

                                    [–]joepaulpavlin 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (10子コメント)

                                    I thought this was sarcastic at first. Why would someone argue it isn't a living document? It gets amended on occasion.

                                    [–]Mac2411 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (9子コメント)

                                    The living document philosophy essentially ignores the amendment process. Under the living document philosophy as I understand it, the Constitution means whatever the current society says it means-historical context and the written thoughts of the authors be damned.

                                    [–]joepaulpavlin 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                    An amendment is what makes it a living document.

                                    [–]Mac2411 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                    You and I have a different understanding of the meaning of "living document" in the context of the Constitution. My understanding of the term as it is utilized by those who advocate it is that the meaning of the words of the Constitution are those given by those of the society interpreting them. In short, the meaning changes or is at least subject to change over time. This is what permits the Second Amendment, for example, to be effectively neutered. In short, "living document" has nothing to do with the amendment process. I oppose that version of the "living document" construct. If we're just talking amendment then okay, but I've never heard this idea equated to the amendment process.

                                    [–]joepaulpavlin 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                    How has the Second Amendment been neutered?

                                    [–]Mac2411 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                    You must be kidding. Shall not be infringed has almost entirely been read out of it. That's just for starters. Some living document advocates would have us believe the reference to the militia means there is no individual right to bear arms at all.

                                    コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                      [–]bluefootedpigminarchist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                      I think it could be seen either way. Yes you can amending it either way, and in that sense it is a living document. But I think in this context it is how you interrupt it.

                                      Living document says, "we should seek to understand the purpose, and make sure that purpose still applies today." So like the 3rd amendment...

                                      No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in manner to be prescribed by law.

                                      Now under the non-living document, a house would mean literally a house. Under a living document, a house would mean an RV, a tent, or any place that you consider your home.

                                      See that difference? One reads it literally while the other one says, "the founders had no idea RVs would exist in the future, so this law should apply to RVs, even though it doesn't say it."

                                      [–]arista81 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                      When they say the Constitution is a "living document" it just means they want to ignore the Constitution and have the government do whatever it wants. A more accurate terminology for this view is they see the Constitution as a "dead document".

                                      [–]bluefootedpigminarchist 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      So when the 3rd amendment says "house", does that include an RV that you live in? Because if it isn't a living document, then the answer is no. A house and an RV are different.

                                      If you are a living document, then the RV is your house, and thus protected.

                                      So if you lived out of your RV, would you say it is your house? or would you say you have no 3rd amendment right and military can stay in your RV against your consent?

                                      [–]CivilityBeDamned 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (9子コメント)

                                      The Constitution includes a method for reforming it in itself. It was designed to be a living document. Otherwise you are arguing for slavery and against the rights of minorities and women.

                                      [–]Mac2411 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                      Yes, but the amendment process is not what "living document" advocates are referring to. If anything they're arguing it can be ignored because the meaning of the Constitution can change under their legal construct without resorting to an amendment.

                                      [–]Glock19_9mmfriedmanite 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                      When someone says that the Constitution is a living document, they are not talking about the amendment process. They are saying that the meaning of the Constitution changes with time, which is bullshit and leads to tyranny.

                                      [–]RingGiverWe don't need roads. 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      Have you ever noticed that the people who like to insist that it's a "living document" generally want to kill it?

                                      [–]TrikkyMakkvoluntaryist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      The Constitution is a sham: https://bananas.liberty.me/judge-agrees-the-constitution-is-a-sham/

                                      [–]njwillforeverConstitutionalist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      Wait, but is the Constitution a living document or does the second amendment apply only to muskets?

                                      I'm confused here…

                                      [–]Kittens_in_panties 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      I should have voted for Gary Johnson

                                      [–]user1688 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      The constitution might as well read, "the government is allowed to do what the people let it get away with."

                                      Besides that IMO the "progressive era" was our "crossing the rubicon" moment. The constitution ceased to exist and only arbitrary state authority mattered from then out. Not saying it was all rainbows and unicorns before then, just saying some trends became irreversible during that era. I'm mainly pointing at overseas imperialism starting with teddy.

                                      [–]hopeful_nihilist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      Nothing in the Constitution says a Court can do anything about anyone violating it. Nothing in it says laws can be declared unconstitutional. Nothing in it says a law passed by Congress is second tier to "the Constitution." If you wanted to actually follow the original deal, guessing what he people signing it thought it meant, it would probably be very similar to the British Parliament it was modeled after. When Parliament passes a law, it is Constitutional, until another act of Parliament says it isn't.

                                      The entire idea of using the Constitution as a check on the Legislator with Judaical review is "living document" made up years later, not even in the first Presidencies. Feel free to go back to the original deal, but realize all it means is the Constitution is basically worthless and Congress can override it at anytime.

                                      [–]crashfrog 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      If the Constitution is meant to apply to us in the present, then the courts of the present must also be meant to interpret it. It can't be otherwise.

                                      [–]ThePopeDoesUSA 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                      Makes sense but what does that have to do with Darth Vader? Lol

                                      [–]Itsallatrap 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      I think some mix up the constitution with amendments to the constitution.

                                      [–]duckandcover 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                      Does freedom of speech and due process apply to electronic communication? Let's check the constitution. Guess there's no mention of email anywhere so ....

                                      [–]lye_milkshake -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (28子コメント)

                                      If you hold the belief that the constitution should never be touched then you must be against Amendment 13 - added in 1865 to ban slavery and involuntary servitude. And Amendment 19 - added in 1920 to allow women to vote.

                                      EDIT: First rule in the sidebar people, don't downvote in disagreement. Control yourselves like the people who used the reply button, don't smash the downvote button and think you've made a point.

                                      [–]bloodyandalive 38 ポイント39 ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                      There is an ammendment process in the Constitution. Those were fine. The problem comes when people interpret existing parts of the constitution to mean something different than intended at drafting.

                                      [–]CaCl2 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      Interstate commerce clause being intercepted to apply tho things that are neither interstate nor commerce...

                                      コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

                                        [–]john22544 22 ポイント23 ポイント  (15子コメント)

                                        Amending the constitution as prescribed by the constitution is not what he is talking about and don't pretend like you don't understand difference.

                                        [–]T0mThomas 25 ポイント26 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                        Slave baiting in the first comment, nice. You've already been told but I'll reiterate: there's a difference between state ratified amendments and politically motivated judicial interpretation.

                                        [–]crazdave 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                        Downvoted because you are being purposefully dense and not listening at all to what people are telling you. You misinterpret the entire point of this little meme, which is to object to a certain judicial philosophy. Bringing up amendments in response to a judicial philosophy is not adding anything to the discussion other than showing your ignorance of the matter. Downvoted all your replies because of your idiotic edit.

                                        [–]BartWellingtonson 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                        And due to Judicial reinterpretation, the "no involuntary servitude" clause of that amendment was inexplicably ruled to not cover the draft and military conscription.

                                        So here we are with a Constitution that says "no involuntary servitude" and a court that says Involuntary servitude is okay when the government does it.

                                        If we had literal interpretations of the Constitution, we could have avoided the tragedy of the Vietnam and Korean wars... and who knows how many wars in the future.

                                        [–]crashfrog 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                        It's not "inexplicable", it's that the law is not some kind of Idiot Computer where you can "trick" the government into ratifying an amendment banning slavery and then turn around and say "oh, but the draft counts too, NO BACKSIES." Intent matters in the law; its generally what SCOTUS rulings come down to. Regardless of how legislation is worded, if the drafters had intended that the 14th Amendment prohibited the institution of the draft, then somebody would have said so. Since they didn't, the Court is forced to conclude that the 14th Amendment excludes the draft specifically, since the draft existed at the time and could have been countenanced as prohibited by the act, but wasn't.

                                        The law isn't a programming language. It's not the rules of a game. Very rarely can you hold someone to an interpretation of the law that is other than what was originally intended - but you can, as SCOTUS is often called to do, adjudicate the new interpretations that are required to apply the law in the modern age.

                                        [–]Brutus-1787 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                        I don't think I'm being unclear, I think we just disagree with each other. It's possible that I'm not explaining myself clearly, and/or that I misunderstand your point though. It seems to me that you're in favor of the supreme court having the final say on constitutional rights, and that their decisions ought to bind all other courts in the country to rule similarly. Is that accurate? And with it having the final say, you would support the position that the only authority that can correct their mistake is with either an Amendment to the Constitution or if they overturn their own decision. Is that accurate?

                                        I believe that they ought not to be seen as so authoritative on the meaning of the Constitution. That way it doesn't create such a constitutional crisis if they make a mistake. Their authority on the meaning of the Constitution would be directly proportional to the logic they use to come to their decision. That way if 5 of them come down against same-sex marriage, and their reasoning is weak, it wouldn't be a big deal for other judges to rule differently next time. Limiting their power to fix our problems would limit their ability to screw things up so thoroughly.

                                        I admit that my preferred method has its own problems. But I've yet to come across a judicial system that was the perfect way to do things.

                                        [–]deepsoulfunk 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                        The founding fathers had big ideas about regulating botnets.

                                        [–]Shademaster21 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                        Oh hey it is dumbass from r/conservative.

                                        I have an addon that lets me nickname redditors, in case anyone is confused.

                                        [–]Loreki 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                        I suspect most schools of constitutional thought are just elaborate ways to make a 200 year old document give you the result you want today. Full-on originalism would mean reading it according to 18th century mores which would be a real shock to absolutely everyone in the modern world.

                                        On the other end of the scale, full-on living document approach is essentially what we have in Britain, we have a political constitution whereby anything you can sell to the electorate you can do. What keeps us on the straight and narrow is good old fashioned British outrage.

                                        [–]BenjaminP18 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                        The fact that the document gives us the power to amend it makes it a living document. We used that power to give the court the power to interpret the document also making it living.

                                        [–]2PacAn 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                        I didn't agree to the Constitution anyways. That document has authorized way too much government authority. It is no way libertarian in nature.

                                        [–]Diablosword 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                        Deals are made between individuals though. A true libertarian shouldn't want to be involved in a deal between other parties.

                                        コメントをもっと表示する (11 返事)