About strict constitutionalists

[OneGrassRoot]

In your experience (assuming you've run across these types or read enough of their writings and comments to get a feel for their opinion), do they reject the Amendments?

Also, do they also tend to interpret the Bible literally (wonder which version, if so...lol)?

The "return to The Constitution" meme has been a huge theme in The Tea Party; of course, most of them are fundamentalist Christians (or act like they are), so I was wondering if the two are inextricably linked.

I personally don't see how any document can ever be literally interpreted even decades after it was written, let alone hundreds and thousands of years. It's all quite subject, imho.

If those who are strict constitutionalists are also Bible literalists (?), that explains a lot.

:)

[originalpckelly]

1. If a law doesn't say something, it doesn't say something.

If you want it to say something new, change the law.
If enough people agree on it, then it will be a part of the US Constitution.

If the US Constitution is out of date, fix it.
Don't transfer us to a system with an uncodified constitution (in practice.)

There was a reason they did that, you know. They came from a land where there was no codified constitution. There was no one source of supreme law to govern all, it was a mishmash of laws and legal decisions. Basically, that's what we have today.

And just look at all the things it has brought us:
Mass spying
Invasion of one's personal privacy on a daily basis, in all places
Signing statements that act like line item vetoes, previously struck down, BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST IN THE CONSTITUTION!
Torture, this is just believing that there is wiggle room in a law, it started with the US Constitution, and continues to all walks of life now

If you want a power to be given to the government, specifically outline that power, declare it, hold a debate on whether it should be given or not.
Do not, however, through a back door process give these powers.

[OneGrassRoot]

3. Thank you. :) n/t

[Hamlette]

9. I'm asuming you're being sarcastic?

because, of course, we can't all vote on each law and we can't amend the constitution for each law. Which is why the constitution is set up to give congress the power to pass laws.
And "they" came from England and there is a supreme law in England, its the common law. Are you advocating continental law, or the French system like they have in Louisiana? It really functions mostly like our system now.

And mass spying would happen under any of the three systems. It's not that there is something wrong with our system, it was a problem with our presidents and the courts not holding them to account.

[MineralMan]

2. Most "strict constructionists" don't really care that much

about most of the Constitution. There are just a few places on which they focus. It's a misnomer, actually.

Strictly, they'd like to toss the Constitution and create a new one based on their particular issues.

That's the real explanation.

[OneGrassRoot]

4. Now THAT makes a lot of sense...

and perfectly describes the few I know who label themselves as strict constitutionalists.

Thanks. :)

[VEI]

11. You must be talking with some crazy "strict constructionists"

I haven't heard them say they wanna start over, just that they wanna follow the exact language.

[ieoeja]

17. Then I've never spoken to a sane one. All I have spoken with claim you have no rights, not ...

... explicitly stated in the Constitution. Which is the exact opposite of what the 9th Amendment states.

[AdrianInOcala]

5. strict constitutionalists want the constitution strictly followed

strictly the way THEY believe it is to be interpreted

An example? Overturning prop 8 in California seen as 'Judicial activism'. Overturning Medical Marijuana or Assisted Suicide laws 'Upholding the constitution'.

All examples are voter approved propositions or mandates, but overturning the ones that are 'conservative' in nature iswrong, to Strict Constitutionalists'

[OneGrassRoot]

7. Great example. Thanks very much. :) n/t

[safeinOhio]

6. T. Jefferson

" Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched; who ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before."

[OneGrassRoot]

8. Gold. Pure Gold.

Thank you!

:hi:

[VEI]

12. the Constitution sets up a process to change wrong in the document.

[Igel]

10. My experience.

Strict constitutionalists say that the Constitution is a piece of paper with words on it with a very well defined mechanism for changing the words. If you want to make it mean something else, use the process that the Constitution says to use and change the words. Don't look for the likely inferences produced by mixing in certain proportions different emanations of contradictory penumbras. They may not like individual amendments; but amendments as a mechanism for change they love.

A reasonable number have also been religious conservatives, simply because there's a cross-correlation between compelling one document to have always meant what you've just realized it really should mean to make the world jut and compelling a different document in the same manner. Conservatives tend to be hubristic when it comes to imposing shop-worn tradition that has failed numerous times on others; liberals tend to be hubristic in imposing what they found in their morning lattes on others, convinced that since it's new it must be better. (How's that for an even-handedly offensive generalization?)

Get to those who are uneducated--a cross-cutting category, whatever stereotypes may say--and you find that both pick and choose exactly which points in each document are to be enforced strictly and which aren't. When pressed on the point, they usually collapse to "strict construction" in both cases; they're just unconcerned with injunctions against what they want to do and fail to notice such injunctions.

[Xicano]

13. I find this thread to be confusing

What I mean is: On one hand some folks seem to be attributing people who don't turn their backs on the constitution, whether it be about a liked or disliked law, as being on the side of the right-wing. On the other hand, it was George Bush who exclaimed the constitution "is just a god damned piece of paper".

I tend to believe the constitution is NOT just a god damned piece a paper. I believe it happens to be the law of the land, not to be ignored when it doesn't suit you, then, to be touted when it does. That's being a hypocrite in my book and making a mockery of a very important piece of who we are as a country.

[Johonny]

14. I think the comparison you made is a good one

Those strict constitutionalist we just elected decide to read the constitution to start congress. Then preceded to skip reading the parts they didn't like.

It's a lot like Bible literalists that claim to follow the Bible word for word but tend skip over whole sections of the Bible. If you call them on this they hand wave away your argument sense you as a non-literalist "just don't understand".

See it as a code word for an extreme position that you want to have an authoritative and historical background for thus call on a document as your authority, but in reality your position philosophy comes generally from you and your belief system.

Most people that believe in the Bible or the Constitution do not call themselves strict constitutionalist or Bible literalist because the term itself is non-nonsensical. Parts of both documents contradict other parts because they are historical documents written by a society who's thoughts and ideals changed with time and have thus changed the document with it.

[backscatter712]

15. If you ask me, I think strict constructionism is nothing but cover for corruption on the bench.

They use it as an excuse to strike down laws that they don't like, that cut into the bottom lines of their corporate fuck-buddies.

[Gravel Democrat]

16. you wrote: "I personally don't see how any document can ever be literally interpreted..."

"... even decades after it was written, let alone hundreds and thousands of years. It's all quite subject, imho."

Just curious, when was the last time you read it, or any major part?

Here: 4 paragraphs a day makes empire go away
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Constitution

It's written in pretty straightforward english, and one doesn't really have to be a lawyer to understand most or all of it, unless you talk to a lawyer, like the ones that came up with the phrase "kinetic military action" to literally dance around the war stuff.

It wasn't written for shitheads like that.

And the fact that it was written to be amended-they didn't expect for everything to always be the same.

And then there's this, but the lazy american people of today couldn't ever do such a thing, cowardly, obese and as zonked out on meds as most people are.



"God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.<1> The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty."

ha ha ha

The Most Honorable Thomas Jefferson

[OneGrassRoot]

18. I've seen people argue about the definition of the most basic words...

So, even if it is a straightforward document to some, others try to get into the head of those who wrote it and interpret those straightforward words to their liking and to fit their own agenda.

I don't think anything is straightforward, black and white, or cut and dry in this world.

I have respect for The Constitution and appreciate the fact that it was written to allow for amendments. The right-wing "thumping" on The Constitution of late simply reminds of bible thumping, and I wondered if others have witnessed the same connection.

[Travelman]

19. A. FREAKING. MEN.

W/R/T the OP, every strict constructionist I've come across recognizes that there is a method for changing the Constitution, and it's enshrined in the Constitution itself. I have seen a few who have argued that some Amendments were not arrived at "legally." Usually it's the XVIth Amendment kooks who just want to avoid paying taxes, but there are some who argue that perhaps the XIIIth and possibly the XIVth weren't arrived at properly due to the whole states not yet back in the union thing, plus some states joining the union when the Confederacy were "not states." AFAIC, it's a pretty weak argument.