Poll Taxes and their Merits

[The Parkus Empire]

Conservatives in America tend to reject a living document approach because it's shitting on the Constitution

And I guess my grandpa is shitting on GM, because he recently had a tuneup in his car.

I don't really see bastardizing the law to further your ideology as tuning it up.

[Petrolheadia]

And I guess my grandpa is shitting on GM, because he recently had a tuneup in his car.

bastardizing the law to further your ideology

I think the same about your views.

[The Parkus Empire]

bastardizing the law to further your ideology

I think the same about your views.

Which would be entirely correct on your part, I was being facetious about bastardizing the Constitution. It's unfortunate that folks like yourself however see bastardizing as simply a tune up

[Petrolheadia]

I think the same about your views.

Which would be entirely correct on your part, I was being facetious about bastardizing the Constitution. It's unfortunate that folks like yourself however see bastardizing as simply a tune up

If it is broke, fix it.

[The Parkus Empire]

Which would be entirely correct on your part, I was being facetious about bastardizing the Constitution. It's unfortunate that folks like yourself however see bastardizing as simply a tune up

If it is broke, fix it.

You mean if it doesn't support imposing your views, it's broken.

[Petrolheadia]

If it is broke, fix it.

You mean if it doesn't support imposing your views, it's broken.

As opposed to yours?

Yeah.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Well, you want the letter of the constitution to be followed.

I want the purpose of the Constitution followed. The interpretation according to the Constitution itself includes equity

The purpose of the constitution hardly matters, especially when the purpose will often directly contradict the written word of the constitution.

[The Parkus Empire]

You mean if it doesn't support imposing your views, it's broken.

As opposed to yours?

Yeah.

I don't try to use the Constitution to impose my views, neither do other conservatives

[The Parkus Empire]

I want the purpose of the Constitution followed. The interpretation according to the Constitution itself includes equity

The purpose of the constitution hardly matters, especially when the purpose will often directly contradict the written word of the constitution.

The purpose obviously matters in equity

[Vassenor]

As opposed to yours?

Yeah.

I don't try to use the Constitution to impose my views, neither do other conservatives

So when the Second Amendment crowd starts screaming, that's not using the Constitution to impose their views?

[Conserative Morality]

I never said it supported my religious views about the soul, I said abortion was a misdemeanor. The law did not recognize the fetus was alive prior to then (as your quote shows--and "quick" then meant alive, e.g. "the quick and the dead"). Abortion became outlawed from conception in the next century due to advances in medical science making it clear that it was erroneous to think a fetus only lived from sensible movement. As it were, legal "quickening" (to come alive) was pushed back. You are incorrectly looking at this as women being entitled to kill a fetus in the past: they were not, it was very much a crime. The only reason a pregnancy could be terminated earlier is because it was presumed the fetus was not alive, and therefore was not being killed.

"They weren't entitled to kill a fetus in the past! It just was viewed as lacking personhood, allowing them to kill it."

...

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

As opposed to yours?

Yeah.

I don't try to use the Constitution to impose my views, neither do other conservatives

Too bad you’re wrong.

The purpose of the constitution hardly matters, especially when the purpose will often directly contradict the written word of the constitution.

The purpose obviously matters in equity

Not when it directly contradicts the written word of the constitution, then the purpose can be thrown entirely out the window.

[Conserative Morality]

I don't try to use the Constitution to impose my views, neither do other conservatives

So when the Second Amendment crowd starts screaming, that's not using the Constitution to impose their views?

No, conservatives (here meaning whoever Parkus agrees with) are wholly Pure unlike the weak, vulgar, licentious crowd.

[Petrolheadia]

As opposed to yours?

Yeah.

I don't try to use the Constitution to impose my views, neither do other conservatives

No, obviously you don't see gun ownership as a human right because the 2nd, or claim the 1st when a private party stops hosting your thoughts, you're a too good bunch for that.

/sarcasm

[The Parkus Empire]

I don't try to use the Constitution to impose my views, neither do other conservatives

So when the Second Amendment crowd starts screaming, that's not using the Constitution to impose their views?

That's unfortunate but unless you want to abolish to 20th Century precedent that states are subject to the Bill of Rights, can't really be helped. Most conservatives are simply not THAT conservative anymore, and have essentially accepted that major change. Only the very, very conservative actually wants that sort of roll back: for example, the Constution Party (which I have been tempted to convert to) is strongly opposed to all firearm restrictions, but they only emphasize Federal gun laws as unconstitutional. They oppose state regulation of guns as a conservative party, but don't really attack it as unconstitutional.

[The Parkus Empire]

I don't try to use the Constitution to impose my views, neither do other conservatives

Too bad you’re wrong.

The purpose obviously matters in equity

Not when it directly contradicts the written word of the constitution, then the purpose can be thrown entirely out the window.

No really. Blackstone cites a law for instance in which a doctor is arrested (this happened historically because he had political enemies) because he performed an operation when someone was suffering an emergency in the street. The law said anyone who sheds blood in the streets shall be put to death. The judge still acquitted him

Was the judge right to do so?

[Conserative Morality]

No really. Blackstone cites a law for instance in which a doctor is arrested (this happened historically because he had political enemies) because he performed an operation when someone was suffering an emergency in the street. The law said anyone who sheds blood in the streets shall be put to death. The judge still acquitted him

Was the judge right to do so?

Yes. But I don't expect you to agree with that - after all, that would be far too Thurgood Marshallesque for you. =^)

[The Parkus Empire]

No really. Blackstone cites a law for instance in which a doctor is arrested (this happened historically because he had political enemies) because he performed an operation when someone was suffering an emergency in the street. The law said anyone who sheds blood in the streets shall be put to death. The judge still acquitted him

Was the judge right to do so?

Yes. But I don't expect you to agree with that - after all, that would be far too Thurgood Marshallesque for you. =^)

I agree with interpreting law according to intent, which is what Blackstone uses this as an example of.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Too bad you’re wrong.



Not when it directly contradicts the written word of the constitution, then the purpose can be thrown entirely out the window.

No really. Blackstone cites a law for instance in which a doctor is arrested (this happened historically because he had political enemies) because he performed an operation when someone was suffering an emergency in the street. The law said anyone who sheds blood in the streets shall be put to death. The judge still acquitted him

Was the judge right to do so?

Yes. It doesn't take a genius to deduce that "sheds blood in the streets" is a euphemism for murder.

[The Parkus Empire]

No really. Blackstone cites a law for instance in which a doctor is arrested (this happened historically because he had political enemies) because he performed an operation when someone was suffering an emergency in the street. The law said anyone who sheds blood in the streets shall be put to death. The judge still acquitted him

Was the judge right to do so?

Yes. It doesn't take a genius to deduce that "sheds blood in the streets" is a euphemism for murder.

It's not really a euphemism. It's an idiom. Specifically it wasn't just about murder, but fighting and feuding as well. But what I am saying is that using the letter to override the point of the law is perverse.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Too bad you’re wrong.



Not when it directly contradicts the written word of the constitution, then the purpose can be thrown entirely out the window.

No really. Blackstone cites a law for instance in which a doctor is arrested (this happened historically because he had political enemies) because he performed an operation when someone was suffering an emergency in the street. The law said anyone who sheds blood in the streets shall be put to death. The judge still acquitted him

Was the judge right to do so?

There's a difference between following what a document says instead of what one believes the intention behind it is, and taking metaphors literally.

[The Parkus Empire]

No really. Blackstone cites a law for instance in which a doctor is arrested (this happened historically because he had political enemies) because he performed an operation when someone was suffering an emergency in the street. The law said anyone who sheds blood in the streets shall be put to death. The judge still acquitted him

Was the judge right to do so?

There's a difference between following what a document says instead of what one believes the intention behind it is, and taking metaphors literally.

It's not a metaphor, it's an idiom.

The intention behind it is of course not something that can be feasibly and easily discerned. Blackstone says the best option in going for intent is looking to the reason the law was made, which is not so obscure.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Yes. It doesn't take a genius to deduce that "sheds blood in the streets" is a euphemism for murder.

It's not really a euphemism. It's an idiom. Specifically it wasn't just about murder, but fighting and feuding as well. But what I am saying is that using the letter to override the point of the law is perverse.

Not really, the judge knew what phrases meant and knew it didn't apply and ruled correctly in line with the law since the doctor didn't murder or fight anybody. But since we are talking about US Constitutional law, ruling by the letter of the constitution is a lot better than ruling by intent in the majority of circumstances because you then get into potential slippery slopes.

[The Parkus Empire]

It's not really a euphemism. It's an idiom. Specifically it wasn't just about murder, but fighting and feuding as well. But what I am saying is that using the letter to override the point of the law is perverse.

Not really, the judge knew what phrases meant and knew it didn't apply and ruled correctly in line with the law since the doctor didn't murder or fight anybody. But since we are talking about US Constitutional law, ruling by the letter of the constitution is a lot better than ruling by intent in the majority of circumstances because you then get into potential slippery slopes.

Strict constructionism is doable, I guess

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

There's a difference between following what a document says instead of what one believes the intention behind it is, and taking metaphors literally.

It's not a metaphor, it's an idiom.

The intention behind it is of course not something that can be feasibly and easily discerned. Blackstone says the best option in going for intent is looking to the reason the law was made, which is not so obscure.

Same principle appies.

The reason the law was made is not always clear. The only thing that is (almost) always clear is what the document says, taking metaphors and idioms as their commonly understood meaning. Deciding a law based on the reason it was made could have bad effects, as shown by anti-second amendmenters who say the second amendment was made for 18th century circumstances. Or hate-specch prohibitionists who say that free speech doesn't apply because free speech was created only to create stable democracy and allow one to criticize the government.