The constitution is a legal document that can be changed with the will of enough people and the proper procedures in place. It also contains a number of bad laws and outdated concepts, and the founders who wrote the document intended that it would be changed, and thus, immediately came up with some amendments and suggested some more as time went by. It’s very doubtful they would have intended the constitution to either not be criticized, nor that suggested changes not be discussed by the legislature, president, or courts.
Dunno how someone can miss this important aspect, and instead only focus on the fact that the constitution is settled law (until it’s not). Sometimes upholding the principles behind the constitution means changing the document itself.
It could be argued. Hillary and the First Amendment have a long history of conflict, but in each case one can argue that her position skated just outside a First Amendment violation. She famously wanted criminal penalties for those who sell video games with certain ratings to children beneath a certain age. Maybe there’s a way to justify that constitutionally. I’m not a lawyer. (And anyway, most of her attempts at censorship never became law.)
The same could be true for Trump. Maybe his “Muslim ban”, if it applied to immigrants but not American citizens, could sneak in under the Constitution. I’ve seen people making that argument. But do we really want leaders who treat the First Amendment as something to be navigated around while banning as much as possible? Shouldn’t it instead be a principle to uphold? Shouldn’t politicians compete to protect First Amendment rights in as many circumstances as possible, rather than as few as possible?
It depends entirely on where you draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable interpretation. If everyone had the same interpretation, we would have no need for politics to begin with.
As a foreigner, I picked the last option, but in actuality I’m really option 2: I’ve read the whole thing, including amendments (in fact I have a pocket copy on my desk), plus have read numerous texts on it (including Farrand and the Federalist Papers all the way through) as well as many of the Supreme Court decisions interpreting parts I’m interested in.
I strongly oppose bills such as that one. I also oppose calling something “sponsoring” when it’s actually co-sponsoring, a different level of support in Congress. I also oppose representing something as poorly as your claim about the flag-burning bill did.
Trump clearly doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about re: the Constitution. Clinton clearly does. Even when I disagree with her, as in this case, it’s disagreement with an educated peer, not disagreement with an ignorant asshole, as is the case when I disagree with Trump.
ITR, I didn’t follow any of your other links, guessing they were as poorly represented as the first one. Do any of your other claims more accurately describe the material they link to, or are they all on par with the first one?
Texas v. Johnson the Supreme Court decision that decided the constitutionality of laws prohibiting flag burning, was decided 5-4. So, while it is the law of the land that flag burning is constitutionally protected free speech, it wasn’t a slam dunk obvious case to a substantial number of Supreme Court Justices.
I agree that flag burning and violent video games should be legal. But I don’t have any problem (personally, or under my understanding of the Constitution) with laws that prohibit selling violent video games to minors any more than I have a problem with laws that prohibit selling pornography to minors.
ITR’s entire argument (and it’s one I’ve seen conservatives use before) runs something like this:
It’s a choice between Clinton and Trump.
Clinton did this bad thing. Therefore, you can’t vote for Clinton.
So you have to vote for Trump.
This argument obviously has holes in it.
The real argument goes like this:
It’s a choice between Clinton and Trump.
Clinton is right 90% of the time and wrong 10% of the time.
Trump is wrong 90% of the time and right 10% of the time.
So Clinton is a better choice.
Yes, Clinton has made bad decisions. We acknowledge that. But she’s still a better choice than Trump because he’s made many more bad decisions and much worse decisions.
I find it interesting that ITR Champion specifically states in his O.P. that both parties are guilty of trying to ignore the constitution yet instead of focusing on Clinton and people with a shaky record in this area it instantly turns into a knee jerk ‘well she isn’t as bad as Trump!’ pile on.
His cites include actions under Bush but of course, in the rush to defend Clinton, that is ignored. I suspect that reaction is because everyone knows Clinton is a liar and will do whatever she thinks is politically expedient, regardless of the constitutionality, but she has the (D)next to her name. Therefore she must be defended no matter what.
A side track but I’ve always felt that the 27th Amendment should be included as part of the Bill of Rights. It was submitted alongside the others back in 1789. It just took longer to get ratified. (Admittedly quite a bit longer.)
Have you even read the US Constitution? That last sentence is, at best, a gross oversimplification and at worst down right wrong.
You are correct in that the GOP could have done something similar at their convention. Those events are, at their core, political theater. But the thing is… they didn’t, so too bad for them. The Democrats upstaged them and quite successfully, too.
Nothing in the Constitution ever applies everywhere, at all times, without exception.
Sure there is: you call it obscenity. Our courts have been wrestling with how to define that term more or less for ever, because while it may seem obvious that you can’t sell graphic pornography to a three year old, it’s very hard to design an objective test for it. Often, they don’t even try. So the law in this area involves a bunch of terms like “community standards” that mean whatever the judge wants them to.
We could just as easily define flag-burning as obscenity, though we haven’t. And SCOTUS essentially conceded that Texas could have prosecuted Gregory Johnson for a breach of the peace when he burned his flag, except that there was no actual breach of the peace. It just couldn’t prosecute him for flag-burning qua flag-burning.
I wish citizens of this country were as thorough as you. Although, if one’s standard consists of the founders’ “original intent”, it’s practically impossible to determine what some parts of it mean. The ink was hardly dry before they themselves started arguing like fishwives over some of the semantics of the words. What I find most interesting, though, is that hardly anyone attempts to understand the text through the lens of contemporary grammars. We have numerous extant grammars which are contemporary or near-contemporary with the Constitution, including one authored by Noah Webster. In some cases, these grammars conclusively demonstrate what the contemporary meaning of the text was because the meaning is required by the syntactic structure. For example, in the Heller decision, contemporary grammars conclusively demonstrate that SCOTUS misinterpreted the Second Amendment by claiming the “militia” part of that sentence places no condition on the “bear arms” part. As an aside, Scalia also misrepresented some of his sources by selectively cherry-picking certain phrases from them but that’s another matter. The founders were educated in the grammar of their day and they wrote the Constitution according to the rules of grammar in existence in 1787. In some cases, as in the case of the Second Amendment, typical grammatical conventions have changed and we are prone to drawing erroneous conclusions if we don’t consider what contemporary grammarians had to say on the subject of the grammatical rules in common use at the time. The further in time we get away from the writing of the Constitution, this phenomena will only get worse because our language will continue to change even more in the future. Conservative judicial activists like Antonin Scalia have claimed they are trying to “restore” the original meaning of the Constitution but the fact of the matter is that they’ve simply been misrepresenting the historical record to suit their own political agenda. Hence, they are no better than the “liberal” judicial activists they rail against.
True, to a large extent. The Constitution is only 4 pages long. There are thousands and thousands of pages of jurisprudence interpreting those 4 pages. In fact, if all one did was read the constitution, it’s a 100% certainty that you would not get the SCOTUS decisions “right”.