Thread: your view on the Constitution

Here's my first-ever poll! I'd like to know, how you feel about the Constitution.

The choices are self-evident, if you feel differently please select "other" and explain why!

My own view - it's a contract, that's renewed every time the President (or any other elected official) takes the Oath of Office.

What is your view, and why?

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

Here's my first-ever poll! I'd like to know, how you feel about the Constitution.

The choices are self-evident, if you feel differently please select "other" and explain why!

My own view - it's a contract, that's renewed every time the President (or any other elected official) takes the Oath of Office.

What is your view, and why?

It is what it is. A strict guide to all of us. It is the only mandate that matters. It is not to be misrepresented to support our crazy social leanings. It is not cover for un-american views. It is the law of the land. Not to be reinterpreted by lame assed leftist judges that should be impeached when they legislate from the bench.

My answer is kind of in between number 1 and number 3. I interpret the Constitution literally (even if I sometimes chose not ignore it) but I also feel that it is a living document, that can be altered only when a Constitutional amendment is passed.

The Constitution is a living document, subject to amendment when necessary and interpretation by the judiciary.

Originally Posted by Nerv14

My answer is kind of in between number 1 and number 3. I interpret the Constitution literally (even if I sometimes chose not ignore it) but I also feel that it is a living document, that can be altered only when a Constitutional amendment is passed.

Isn't the number between one and three actually two?

Originally Posted by Bourne

The Constitution is a living document, subject to amendment when necessary and interpretation by the judiciary.

Your back. Good.

The constitution can't be considered legitimate if it is changed at the whim of a judge, it can only be altered by 75% of the states, that is done through the senate. It is a static set of rules that give the people nothing, but keep the federal government from interfering with the states, and the people. Simple stuff unless your some dumbass lib.

Has to be some space between Strict and Spirit (1 and 2 ); That's where I would put myself.

Without being too literal in terms of the details, it's clear that the founders thought that centralized, powerful government (or if you consider the establishment clause, a big powerful state church) is the enemy of freedom. To deny this basic idea is to deny the constitution entirely.

Originally Posted by kmiller1610

Has to be some space between Strict and Spirit (1 and 2 ); That's where I would put myself.

Without being too literal in terms of the details, it's clear that the founders thought that centralized, powerful government (or if you consider the establishment clause, a big powerful state church) is the enemy of freedom. To deny this basic idea is to deny the constitution entirely.

Absolutely. That is why I fear the left, because they want to establish athiesism as the state religon.

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

Here's my first-ever poll! I'd like to know, how you feel about the Constitution.

The choices are self-evident, if you feel differently please select "other" and explain why!

My own view - it's a contract, that's renewed every time the President (or any other elected official) takes the Oath of Office.

What is your view, and why?

I would have preferred a shade between the top two choices, and indeed keep wondering if I should have chosen the opposite of what I did.

I general, indeed, in almost every case, I believe the simple, direct reading of the Constitution is best. I allow for flexibility mostly in the light of new, unanticipated technology, and unprecedented national emergencies. In other words, I agree with Lincoln, that it is not a "suicide pact."

Once the Nation is dealing with lesser issues though, I believe in strict interpretation.

Wisely, the authors of the Constitution allowed for Solomonic Wisdom in government, so that no one be needlessly crushed by heartless law. Governors and Presidents may offer pardons, if it seems to Human Judgment that a law is overly harsh. Legislatures and the People may alter such a law with deliberation and effort, even at the Constitutional Level.

An overly flexible law, is no law at all.

I certainly don't see the Constitution as "living." Philosophies may live in this sense, and probably should. But Law is not Philosophy, each has its value and its demands. They should not be confused.