Supremes - is the Constitution a living document?

[tangent4ronpaul]

C-SPAN, today, I believe at 7pm.

ADVISORY! - move heavy, throwable objects beyond your grasp, unload firearms and give your car keys to a trusted friend if you are in the DC area before watching!

-t

[tangent4ronpaul]

This is making my hair stand up on end and blood drain from my face....

OMG SCALIA!!!!! - starting to think about thtat guy as the antichrist!

-t

[low preference guy]

I $#@!ing hate Scalia.

[Anti Federalist]

Of course to the SCROTUS the document is "living".

The only question really comes down to what "new" version are you in favor of?

Face it, nobody in DC follows the law or constitution in any meaningful way,

[lynnf]

the term "living constitution" is an oxymoron! there is a method for changing the
constitution in the constitution (Article 5, below). anything else is unconstitutional and the only ones that push it are traitors!


Article 5 - Amendment

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

===============================
lynn

[JustinTime]

Oh yeah, its a living document. It can be changed at any time, just get an amendment.

[Promontorium]

This "living document" term is yet another loaded term that I feel undermines honest communication between people.

Are you saying the ability to make amendments to the Constitution gives the Constitution the ability to reproduce, use energy, perhaps change, turn into a butterfly?

Or is this about interpretations of the Constitution in perpetual flux?

And to load it all on, let's say I'm pro Republic. Cause I am. And I think the logic-proven and inalienable natural laws of life should be written in stone. If the universe exists, we have natural rights. If A then B. If you don't accept A, you can jump off a cliff, cause B will get you either way.

This being said. $#@! slavery. I'm pro-fixing the Constitution where it failed humanity, and the natural rights of our existence.

Simultaneously, I believe it is necessary to interpret the words, as effectively as possible, because as time grows away from them, our "living language" will continue to make those words incomprehensible.

So where do I fit in your totem to non-communication?

I so don't like labels.

[haaaylee]

anyone watch this? were they just discussing it?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

the term "living constitution" is an oxymoron! there is a method for changing the
constitution in the constitution (Article 5, below). anything else is unconstitutional and the only ones that push it are traitors!


Article 5 - Amendment

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

===============================
lynn

The Constitution, though incredible, is not only a full step away from the natural rights guaranteed to the people by Natural Law, but another full step away from the new commandment spoken to the disadvantaged slaves as the New Covenant by our Lord Jesus Christ. Either way, as the New Covenant gave all land and all the economy to the *multitudes as their inheritance, the natural law declared by our Founding Fathers established the people's Civil Purpose above all legal precedence, every past tradition, and every future event yet to occur.

*As a faceless member of that multitude, I am commanded by Him not to do anything, but to recline where I stand. This act by the Lord Jesus Christ, the Fullness of the Trinity, grants to me as my inheritance all property as well as all of the economy.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Oh yeah, its a living document. It can be changed at any time, just get an amendment.

While a civil right is created by legal precedence, a process which officially legislates, ordainly administers, and deemly judicates the people one step above the animal rights they were born with (The Lord was born in a manger), a natural right is guaranteed to them by natural law.
The justification for our nation's authority flows primarily according to the New Covenant of our Lord Jesus Christ, then secondly according to the New Testament of the Apostle Paul as God's chosen vessel, then thirdly according to The Declaration of Independence according to our Founding Fathers, and then lastly according to the U.S. Constitution as legal precedence has made it our present government. So, the civil rights guaranteed to us by legal precedence is a full three steps away from the Truth.
As the U.S. Constitution married us into a "more perfect union" providing us with civil rights, The Declaration of Independence should be valued even more as it divorced us from tyranny because of our natural rights.
Paradoxically, the Apostle Paul said, when given a choice between becoming a master and remaining a slave, that we should choose to remain a slave. Slaves during his time weren't allowed to own property by law, not because of their inability to purchase it, but because of their lack of a birthright. As the Lord's New Covenant given to the slaves commands us to "Love thy neighbor as thyself" this narrows all property to the soul of a slave sitting next to other ones. As the king once taxed (penalized) the people's business as criminal because the act was committed illegally on property that he rightfully owned, the slaves are now the owners of all *property as it was Willed to them by the Lord when He fed them as the suffering multitudes. So, the slaves also rightfully inherited the economy.
How does the government give to the people their inheritance? By avoiding as much as possible the acts of legislation, administration, and judication.

*While the Disciples told the suffering multitudes to go home to their property to tend to their thirst and hunger, the Lord commanded them to recline where they stood. This act by the Almighty Willed the suffering multitudes all property.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

There was no religion cited.

Natures God.

Old and New Covenant is your bias being added to the two above words that were written.

No comment on the differences between civil rights and natural rights? That the only way for the government to give the people their rightful inheritance of all property and the economy is to refrain from legislation, administration, and judication?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt