Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I understand where people who are strict Constitutionalists are coming from...or at least where they think they are coming from. It either says it in the Constitution, or it doesn't. I get that.
But who says that the Constitution is the final arbiter of what is "right".
Does the Constitution even mention "marriage"? I don't think so, so I guess it doesn't exist.
Does the Constitution even mention "health care"? I don't think so, so I guess it doesn't exist.
Are strict Constitutionalists ready to give back the Louisiana Purchase? I bet not.
Why do conservatives (especially) always talk about what the founding father intended, as if the founding fathers were one cohesive group of men all with exactly the same beliefs (if you really think that, then you don't know much about the founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton)?
I am sure that the founders thought the Constitution was a basically moral document. After all, they would not have included provisions that they thought were evil or would lead to evil.
But their main intention was to set up a framework for a civil society, not a religiously ideal society.
They always envisioned a government that could accommodate different versions of what is "right". But they were most concerned about establishing a government that balanced individual rights against the need for a strong(er) central government - the Articles of Confederation were so deferent to states' rights that the center was not holding.
And, as you note, compromise is the glue that holds it together. Including the compromise that lead to the establishment clause. There was *no* religion that could have been designated as the *official* religion of the US. Because the founders knew all too well that christians persecute other christians if given the chance.
I understand where people who are strict Constitutionalists are coming from...or at least where they think they are coming from. It either says it in the Constitution, or it doesn't. I get that.
But who says that the Constitution is the final arbiter of what is "right".
Does the Constitution even mention "marriage"? I don't think so, so I guess it doesn't exist.
Does the Constitution even mention "health care"? I don't think so, so I guess it doesn't exist.
Are strict Constitutionalists ready to give back the Louisiana Purchase? I bet not.
Why do conservatives (especially) always talk about what the founding father intended, as if the founding fathers were one cohesive group of men all with exactly the same beliefs (if you really think that, then you don't know much about the founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton)?
Just noodling.
The constitution does not say it is the final arbiter of what is a "right" either.
9th Amendment The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The people are the final arbiter of what a right is (excluding the first 8), I often argue that the right to drive a vehicle is as much a right as the right to keep and bear arms, it's covered by the 9th Amendment, now to drive on the public roadway requiring a permit is permissible as a minimum standard can be in the public interest (and as it's an unenumerated right the interpretation is more open than an enumerated right), however just driving on private land without a license is not prohibited Federally (it may be prohibited by certain states) which is entirely in accord with the 9th Amendment.
Usually when people speak of strict constitutionalist they are talking about how the judiciary and US Supreme Court are to view the constitution. But also to limit the federal government in general.
The people in their individual States and through the legislature are the arbiter of what's right and policy and law.
The purpose of the Constitution (in fact, the purpose of the United States breaking away from England) was to limit the power of the Federal government. So I would support just about anything that does so whether it is explicitly in the Constitution or not. On the other hand, exceptions can be made. After all, the Founding Fathers didn't intend to abolish government altogether, or they would have established an Anarchy instead of a Constitutional Republic.
I don't support the governments endorsement of marriage because it gives the government power to discriminate against unmarried persons (or potentially vice-versa).
I don't support the government telling people they must buy health care and I don't support the government telling hospitals that they must care for patients who don't pay for the service. If people want to gamble with their health, that is their right.
I do support the Louisiana Purchase because it was a good deal for the country. More land provided more revenue for the country and eliminated hostile neighbors. If we could buy land from another country at a good price, I would support that even today. It does many of the things spelled out in the Constitution: ensures domestic tranquility, promotes the general welfare, etc.
OP when you have something to discuss I suppose we could.
Don't take this personally, as you are not the only one who does it (and even I probably have ), but...
Why criticize someone for starting a post just because you don't have anything to contribute? I think the topic is rather thought provoking. It's not like he/she posting a link without any commentary, which is all too common here.
Don't take this personally, as you are not the only one who does it (and even I probably have ), but...
Why criticize someone for starting a post just because you don't have anything to contribute? I think the topic is rather thought provoking. It's not like he/she posting a link without any commentary, which is all too common here.
It's nothing but another partisan rant. It might be an interesting topic not presented in a partisan manner.
Usually when people speak of strict constitutionalist they are talking about how the judiciary and US Supreme Court are to view the constitution. But also to limit the federal government in general.
The people in their individual States and through the legislature are the arbiter of what's right and policy and law.
Pretty much it.
I don't think the OP gets it quite the way they think they do.
Constitutionalists desire it to be followed.
They do not support extra Constitutional actions nor those outright opposed to it by the government.
It is not the government's prerogative to toperate beyond the powers granted to see it or exercise those denied to it.
This problematically is not what happens however.
All Americans ought to hold the government to stay within it's Constitutional boundaries.
Special interests wants do not rightfully supercede it.
Avenues for changing it are spelled.
Follow them if that is your desire.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), but...
