Americans are exceptional because they live by a constitution from the 1700s

We don't technically update the words, but with the Supreme Court we update the laws and interpretation of the Constitution.

 

I have to ask then, should there have been an amendment requiring the courts to uphold the original intentions instead of the words? Should we also force judges to pass tests on the knowledge of those intentions for them to be judges?

 

Well the Supreme Court takes the position that the Founders intentions were meant for the words to be interpreted to evolve with current situations.

 

Wise words - Any discussion of historical documents always has to be put into context. The constitution was not a perfect document and some of the side effects were a bit unpredictable, but as a document it was almost light years ahead of anything before it.

 

Huh?

The supreme court is made up of a chief justice and 8 associate justices - all with varying interpretations of the constitution. Some are living constitutionalists as you said, but some are not. It is silly to say that the "Supreme Court takes the position that the Founders intentions were meant for the words to be interpreted to evolve with current situations." Justice Scalia, as one of many examples, does not take that position at all. He is an originalist.

 

Apparently the Supreme Court disagrees with you...

In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx

 

The "Supreme Court" doesn't disagree with me. The person who wrote that piece, Carles Hughes, as a living constitutionalist. He was Chief Justice from 1930–1941.

Justice Scalia is an originalist:

“My burden is not to show that originalism is perfect, but that it beats the other alternatives, and that, believe me, is not difficult,” Scalia said.

Originalism suggests that the Constitution has a static meaning, Scalia said.

“Of course its provisions have to be applied to new phenomena” like the radio and the Internet, he said. “It is essential to originalism, as it is not to so-called ‘evolutionary constitutional jurisprudence,’ to know the original meaning of constitutional provisions.

http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2010_spr/scalia.htm

Clarence Thomas is an originalist:

During his twenty years on the Supreme Court, Justice Clarence
Thomas has pursued an original understanding approach to constitutional
interpretation.

http://www.law.udmercy.edu/udm/images/lawreview/v88/Rossum.PS.Final.pdf

 

The Supreme Court says...

In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx

Regardless of orginalists or not, the Supreme Court is given the ability to interpret the Constitution to meet changing conditions which implies that there is no static meaning to the Constitution according to the Supreme Court... regardless of the individual justices opinions.

 

I disagree. Even a strict reading of the 2nd Amendment makes it very clear that the right to bear arms is an individual right. It doesn't say that militia members have the right to bear arms. It says "the people" have that right. These are the same "the people" you'll find mentioned in the 1st and 4th Amendments. Even from a purely grammatical point of view, to say that only militias have the right to bear arms according to the 2nd is dead wrong.

 

The regulated militia were raplaced with the National Guard, in 1903, by the Militia Act. There is no more militia like there was during the revolution and civil war. So the second amendment needs to be updated to allow for gun ownership for self defense, and hunting. As it is now, membership in a "well-regulated militia" is the only reason given.

 

After what illun pointed out, I agree. However, case law does have a lot of bearing over how other rights have been interpreted.

 

There is no "replacing" the "militia" because it is the PEOPLE in their capacity as a native defense force. That is how we maintain a "free state", by arming the people.

As long as free people are armed, there will be a militia.

The second amendment does not "allow" us to do anything. It is a RIGHT, and it cannot be "updated", only respected.

 

Where has the Supreme Court said "the Founders intentions were meant for the words to be interpreted to evolve with current situations"?

This actually has nothing to do with the Constitution. The Second Amendment is just a written acknowledgement of a NATURAL RIGHT that was understood as predating and transcending state authority.

 

I don't even have to go to a crazy .com site like you. The Supreme Court says it themselves...

In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx

 

How is one judge "the supreme court"? And the supreme court is just old as hell. Why do you want to live by what some court created in the 1700's says? The entire Federal government is just old. We need cutting edge institutions, not ones from the 1700's, which I know you hate.

 

Actually the Constitution has been updated...with scissors.

But the OP is right. Laws should be reflexive to the current situation. But that doesn't matter, anyway. It's been made clear that even breaking actual laws finds no recourse if the transgressors are national elites of some nature.

It's like George Bush Jr said... the Constitution is just a piece of paper.

 

Who cares what they said?

 

You do. That's why you support the existence of the Federal government.

 

Where did I mention the second Amendment?

 

and I dont know anyone who got to vote on that!

We the government................

 

judges should be the jury's not government appointed agents in a black robes

It was intended to be jurys

 

oh for pete sake, hasnt anyone read any history around here?

what about the magna charta?



[SIZE=+3]BILL of RIGHTS, 1689[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown [/SIZE]

[HR][/HR]Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm, did upon the thirteenth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-eight [old style date] present unto their Majesties, then called and known by the names and style of William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, being present in their proper persons, a certain declaration in writing made by the said Lords and Commons in the words following, viz.:
Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;

By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament; By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed power;
By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the great seal for erecting a court called the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes;
By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament;
By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law;
By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;
By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in Parliament;
By prosecutions in the Court of King's Bench for matters and causes cognizable only in Parliament, and by divers other arbitrary and illegal courses;
And whereas of late years partial corrupt and unqualified persons have been returned and served on juries in trials, and particularly divers jurors in trials for high treason which were not freeholders;
And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects;
And excessive fines have been imposed;
And illegal and cruel punishments inflicted;
And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against the persons upon whom the same were to be levied;
All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm;
​

And whereas the said late King James the Second having abdicated the government and the throne being thereby vacant, his Highness the prince of Orange (whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from popery and arbitrary power) did (by the advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and divers principal persons of the Commons) cause letters to be written to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal being Protestants, and other letters to the several counties, cities, universities, boroughs and cinque ports, for the choosing of such persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parliament, to meet and sit at Westminster upon the two and twentieth day of January in this year one thousand six hundred eighty and eight, in order to such an establishment as that their religion, laws and liberties might not again be in danger of being subverted, upon which letters elections having been accordingly made; And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare:

• That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;
• That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;
• That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;
• That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;
• That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;
• That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;
• That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
• That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;
• That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
• That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
• That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;
• That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;
• And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.

It only takes a really quick glance to see that the US is guilty of violating our rights just as the kings before it were. Only now days people really dont know what their rights are.

If you compare the above with what we have now, its a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing comedy and should be aired only on SNL.

Brits are laughing their asses off at us, and rightfully so!

 

so those founders were dumb asses after all huh?

 

If you did you would be also discussing the 7 Seven United Provinces or even the Provisions of Oxford

 

Which parts of the US Constitution did you want to "update"? Did you have any particular amendments in mind?