Is The Constitution Subject to Interpretation

[Digging4Truth]

Indeed... Original intent and original intent only.

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by Ferd

I agree with those who say the Constitution has to be interpreted. The devil as they say is in the details.

It is the “HOW” that matters. Should it be interpreted with a view of the original intent of the founders in mind? Or should it be interpreted with the view of modern social mores in mind?

I firmly hold with those who espose the doctrine of Original Intent

If only more people would approach their Bible that way.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Ferd

Jermyn, it is a common and sad misconception that you bring up here. All Americans are not equal. The founding fathers never assumed that all men were equal.

They believed that all men are created equal. They fought and some died for that belief. But it was not a belief that all men are equal.

The false notion of equality has done more damage to America and to Americans than anything I can think of in the modern era. Equality cannot be achieved nor should it be strived for!

Equality demands that success be punished and lethargy be rewarded.


What America does believe in is that all men are created equal. It is the guiding principle that separated the American concept from all others in the 18th century. The founders believed strongly that every man should have access to achieve, to live free and become whatever he set out to be and could by the strength of his own hand hold on to.

Americans are equal in access and where we fail in that, we must strive to overcome the failure. ACCESS and OPPORTUNITY are the places where all Americans are created equal.

I agree with those who say that not every American should vote. One who is ignorant of what America is, has no business intruding on the discussion about where America will go. No one who is utterly dependant on their fellow citizens ought to be involved in determining what charity they should receive. There was a day when such a thought was anathema.

The founders were not right in keeping women from voting. Nor were they right in allowing slavery. Many of the founders did not agree with those constructs so they worked to place building blocks that would eventually allow for suffrage and the end of slavery. But they also required that a man be an owner of property to vote. They wanted stakeholders in the American Dream to be in charge of the nation.

Fully half the country cannot tell you who the Vice President of the United States is. More than 60% cannot tell you who the Speaker of the House is, nor what the job of the speaker is!
Almost 90% of Americans cannot name the Supreme Court Justices much less tell you how many there are!

The concept of separation of powers is lost on most Americans. The difference between the Senate and the House is not known by most of the people who send representatives to Washington! More than 30% of Americans cannot even tell you which coast Washington DC is on!

We have become mental morons as it relates to how and by whom we are governed.

Yet we espouse the doctrine that we are all equal. We are certainly not equal.

Give yourself this test
1. Name your House of Represenative
2. Name your two Senators (most people don’t know they have 2)
3. Name the Supreme Court Justices
4. Name the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
5. Answer: What body has the greatest control on Federal Spending?

Very few Americans can correctly answer those questions. But we are equal? I do not think so.

My immediate response to this would be a response seated in emotion and not logic.

So I will only say that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL AND SHOULD BE TREATED SO-- that means all should be afforded the SAME RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES until their ACTIONS demand otherwise.


Even when an American's ACTIONS demand a restriciton of rights and privileges, America recognizes the inherent value and dignity of all human life. This recognition serves as the BASIS for ALL AMERICANS being freely afforded the opportunity to vote.




It is arguments like the one you presented that makes me wonder why certain sections of the VOTING RIGHTS Act has to come up for review occasionally and why the entire Voting Rights Act have not been made permanent.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

My immediate response to this would be a response seated in emotion and not logic.

So I will only say that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL AND SHOULD BE TREATED SO-- that means all should be afforded the SAME RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES until their ACTIONS demand otherwise.


Even when an American's ACTIONS demand a restriciton of rights and privileges, America recognizes the inherent value and dignity of all human life. This recognition serves as the BASIS for ALL AMERICANS being freely afforded the opportunity to vote.




It is arguments like the one you presented that makes me wonder why certain sections of the VOTING RIGHTS Act has to come up for review occasionally and why the entire Voting Rights Act have not been made permanent.

I have no doubt that most Americans dont agree with me on some of what I said.

I stand by it.

I certainly do believe that every American ought to have ACCESS and OPPORTUNITY. where those things are blocked we need law to unblock them (Thus the reason I am not opposed to Affirmitive Action).

But the fact that idiots get the same vote that those of us who spend time learning and understanding the issues is mind boggling to me.

But you dont need to worry there arent many as radical as I on the subject. I realize I go far too far.... I would require a person own a house and 10 acres of land before being allowed to vote!

Its like my cousins told me when I wanted to learn to play poker. They made me show up with cash. "you gotta pay to play".

But dont worry, I wont ever win on this one!

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Ferd

I have no doubt that most Americans dont agree with me on some of what I said.

I stand by it.

I certainly do believe that every American ought to have ACCESS and OPPORTUNITY. where those things are blocked we need law to unblock them (Thus the reason I am not opposed to Affirmitive Action).

But the fact that idiots get the same vote that those of us who spend time learning and understanding the issues is mind boggling to me.

But you dont need to worry there arent many as radical as I on the subject. I realize I go far too far.... I would require a person own a house and 10 acres of land before being allowed to vote!

Its like my cousins told me when I wanted to learn to play poker. They made me show up with cash. "you gotta pay to play".

But dont worry, I wont ever win on this one!

Ferd,

Voting was originally tied to property. One had to own property to be eligible to vote. Property owners were the only one's that paid taxes.

The real problem is voters who not only pay no taxes but live off of the taxes paid by others. I know this may seem harsh to some but if you are on public assistance you should not be voting. It is a conflict of interest for those who collect taxes to be able to vote for those who are sticking their hands in my pocket to pay them.

Now like the founders some of my views are more theoretical than practical. (Such as a Supreme Court that is the weakest of the 3 branches of government).

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Ferd,

Voting was originally tied to property. One had to own property to be eligible to vote. Property owners were the only one's that paid taxes.

The real problem is voters who not only pay no taxes but live off of the taxes paid by others. I know this may seem harsh to some but if you are on public assistance you should not be voting. It is a conflict of interest for those who collect taxes to be able to vote for those who are sticking their hands in my pocket to pay them.

Now like the founders some of my views are more theoretical than practical. (Such as a Supreme Court that is the weakest of the 3 branches of government).

I suspect you are a radical like me!

The founders reasoning about who could vote is what leads me to my perspective... One ought to have some "skin in the game"

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Ferd

I suspect you are a radical like me!

The founders reasoning about who could vote is what leads me to my perspective... One ought to have some "skin in the game"

What? Me? Radical?

Yea probably. I am aware that many of my views are too far out there to be practical in our current system, but they would not have been too radical to our founders.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

What? Me? Radical?

Yea probably. I am aware that many of my views are to far ought there to be practical in our current system, but they would not have been radical to our founders.

There is a certain comfort in being "radical like our founders"

[Bowas]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Ferd,

Voting was originally tied to property. One had to own property to be eligible to vote. Property owners were the only one's that paid taxes.

The real problem is voters who not only pay no taxes but live off of the taxes paid by others. I know this may seem harsh to some but if you are on public assistance you should not be voting. It is a conflict of interest for those who collect taxes to be able to vote for those who are sticking their hands in my pocket to pay them.

Now like the founders some of my views are more theoretical than practical. (Such as a Supreme Court that is the weakest of the 3 branches of government).

You are 100% correct! Most do not know this nor do they undertsand the reasoning for this concept. It has been said, "Democracy will last until the public realizes that it can vote itself largesse from the public trough."
Which is why we are a democratic republic NOT a democracy.
Those that have no vested interest other than being a recipient has no buisness deciding how much, if any, those that do pay must pay.
Conflict of interest indeed.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Bowas

You are 100% correct! Most do not know this nor do they undertsand the reasoning for this concept. It has been said, "Democracy will last until the public realizes that it can vote itself largesse from the public trough."
Which is why we are a democratic republic NOT a democracy.
Those that have no vested interest other than being a recipient has no buisness deciding how much, if any, those that do pay must pay.
Conflict of interest indeed.

So who would get to vote in the guys that make our tax laws? Seems that would be a conflict of interest to all