larry culpepper said:
one MEEN Ag said:
larry culpepper said:
one MEEN Ag said:
For the sappers and dr pepper drinkers playing along at work,
If the constitution can't be evaluated as it is written with supporting interpretations from the framers themselves (Which is what originalist constitutional view is) by what means do you interpret the constitution or declare its authority from?
The whole point of a governing document is that the words mean something. The idea that 'we shouldn't have a bill of rights because it might limit your rights is nonsense. There wasn't a word limit, or an end to the time period where more rights can be amended. We live in a world where if your rights aren't directly written down and explicitly protected, expect the government to trample all over them.
The first amendment alone is unparalleled to this day around the world. No other country has codified that the government cannot interfere on you having a thought, speaking that thought, writing that thought down, and congregating upon it. But Sapper and Culpepper are over here saying that stuff is bunk because some founders owned slaves.
What a joke.
I have a problem with originalism because it's nonsensical to think like we're living 240 years ago when trying to interpret the text. Times change and the country changes with it. For example, marriage over time began to confer certain benefits and rights to people. This ended up creating an unequal class of citizens (gay couples). That's where the constitutional basis for Obergefell came from, even though they obviously werent thinking of gay couples in 1868.
The right selectively uses originalism anyway. If we used true originalism then the second amendment would only guarantee the right to muskets. It's completely asinine to act like the founders intended unfettered right to any powerful firearm you could possibly want in the 21st century.
I'm not saying it's "bunk" because they owned slaves. I'm just pushing back on the BS we've been fed our whole lives that the founders were brilliant, benevolent minds we should look up to. They had some great ideas (like the First Amendment), but honestly, they were incredibly full of ***** They were slaveowners who thought women shouldn't vote and had the nerve to say "all men are created equal." Looking up to them as infallible arbiters of truth is not a good idea. They were wrong on a lot of things, and it's perfectly okay to reject some ideas they had back then. But if you question the founding fathers, someone will call you a communist.
What an absolute crock. Passage of time has no relevance on morality. It is absolute. What is right and wrong is eternal. Anything less is cultural relativism and opinions.
The government has no leg to stand on with the expansion of marriage. Marriage by definition is the wedding of a man and woman. Gay marriage is an oxymoron in its truest definition. The supreme court did exactly what you wanted and exactly what they don't have the power to do. They just invented a 'right' out of thin air. Now if america wants to declare itself out of the marriage business but in the civil union business I'm happy to see that happen. Gay couples in a monogamous relationship should have the same protections of taxes, inheritance, legal and medical powers as those who are married if they want them.
Using the 2nd amendment is rich. During the formation of this country, private citizens owned flintlock rifles, cannons, and a warship. An equivalent distribution of arms technology. I would love to have the same amount of access to firepower as the government today. And it makes sense, because its not about hunting its about fighting back against tyranny. And if the government seizes your cannons and warships but not your flintlock rifles, they've impaired your ability to form a resistance.
The founders were brilliant and benevolent. Look around at other countries. See what governments they've created and what founding principles they had. Everything good the founders did aligns with natural rights. Everything subpar they produced is when they didn't. You don't have a framework to accept or reject their governance. Its just what feels good. And that is the weakest form of authority derivation.
I do not believe in absolute morality. But either way, morality isn't within the government's purview. I'm saying that as times change, we change with it. We've applied old text to lots of modern-day situations. The drafters of the 14th amendment likely weren't thinking of a lot of people at the time of drafting. Women couldn't vote for another 50 years. Blacks were still treated as second class for another hundred years. We continued to justify all of that until we couldn't anymore. That's the biggest problem I have with originalism. It's dishonest.
We draw lines where we want them is my point. And i'm not here to say how awful the founding fathers were, but more so to stand up and explicitly question them. We're not obligated to treat them as any better than people today. They knew much less than we do now.
The First Amendment is probably the one stipulation in the Bill of Rights that is truly timeless and will never be outdated. The Second Amendment was horribly written and needs lots of clarification (it's not even a proper sentence). The best we have now is partisan judges interpreting it how they want. The Third Amendment is outdated and almost entirely inapplicable to the people of today. The rest of the BOR is good but could possibly use some more updating, like what constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment." Back in the day, brutal execution wasn't cruel and unusual. Now it is, but the death penalty alone is not.
Point being, question everything. We aren't beholden to truths of 2 centuries ago.
You a fundamental lack of understanding about how laws derive authority. Morality is upstream of law creation. A law is only good if it aligns with moral goodness. A law, by itself, is just a vehicle to legislate morality. You can have bad laws. Laws that ban speech, free movement, harassment. The fact they are laws does not give them moral authority.
Law creation (government) is completely and wholly within the purview of applying morality.
YOU draw lines where you want and project them on everyone else here. I didn't choose to say life begins at conception. Thats the facts of life. Again, absolute truth is absolute. I do not choose right and wrong for myself. You do because you think you have that authority-you don't.
And to say that america doesn't need the third amendment is just another example of you choosing to draw lines arbitrarily (we don't use it, lets discard it). As if amendments are like cleaning out a cupboard. If you had payed attention to high school history class you'd understand why its important to not have quartered soldiers in your home and why its a nice enduring freedom to have. America has been blessed with incredible geography, resources, and a coast to coast territory that is not balkanized with enemies nearby. Thats why its never been tested or needed.
The second amendment is plainly written, its is our modern interpretation of 'well regulated' that has allowed anti-gun opportunist to jump in and carve it up. In its context and historical use, well regulated just means practiced. A militia hasn't changed-its made up on volunteer men of their own resources.
Cruel and unusual is your only leg to stand on, and its only because of technology that cruel and unusual has shifted the cultural view over time. Being shot by a firing squad in a near instant lights out is not cruel nor unusual. Being hung at the right length to immediately snap your neck is not cruel and unusual. It is only the presence of technology that people have a relative comparison and shock. I would love it if all the states switched to nitrogen asphyxiation for capital punishments. Just painlessly and drunkenly go to sleep. Shoot, do it like animals and just do an anesthetic overdose. (hard because of the hippocratic oath and drug protests). Yes, it gives perpetrator a better death than whoever they killed, but they're still dead at the end of the day.
