Constitution of the United States

[Telconi]

This thread's purpose is to discuss the Constitution of the United States of America. All opinions are welcome. Feel free to express your beliefs based upon your experiences and learning. U.S. citizens, residents, and visitors, as well as foreign nationals who have exposure to the practical application, as well as the ideas of the U.S. Constitution.

Polls will be changed semi-regularly. And previous poll results will be archived in this OP.

Please, I implore everyone to maintain a logical, civil, and meaningful discourse on the subject. In today's political atmosphere I am quite certain NSG posters run the gamut of opinions. And each and every person's opinion is as important to the discussion as it is to them.

For Reference, the complete constitution with accompanying comments. Constitution of the United States of America

We should begin the discussion based upon the question of interpretation. Poll is up, feel free to vote, and discuss your reasoning and justifications for your decision.

[spoiler=Poll Question #1 = How do you believe the Constitution should be interpreted by courts.]

-As a "living document", interpreted based upon the issues of the day. 24 Votes (44%)
-Based upon the perceived intentions of the Constitution's framers. 11 Votes (20%)
-In a manner perceived most beneficial to the parties of the case. 1 Vote (2%)
-As literally as possible. 10 Votes (19%)
-In a manner perceived most beneficial to the United States of America as a whole. 8 Votes (15%)[/spoiler]

Poll Question #2 = Which Amendment of the Bill of Rights do you feel most benefits you in your day to day life? Please explain your choice in the comments. As well as the amendment you feel least benefits you in day to day life.

-Amendment #1 Rights of Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition.
-Amendment # 2 Right to Bear Arms.
-Amendment # 3 Freedom from Quartering Soldiers.
-Amendment # 4 Freedom from Unlawful Search and Seizure
-Amendment # 5 Right to Grand Jury, Freedom from Double Jeopardy, Self Incrimination, Rights to Due Process, Compensation
-Amendment # 6 Rights to Speedy Trial, Trial by Jury, Information on Accusation, Confrontation of Accuser, Counsel.
-Amendment # 7 Right to Trial by Jury in Civil Cases.
-Amendment # 8 Freedom from excessive Bail, Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
-Amendment # 9 Rights not specifically mentioned.
-Amendment # 10 State's Rights on Matters Not Specified to Federal Government.

[Eol Sha]

Generally, it's considered good form to provide a starting topic for us to discuss.

[Telconi]

Generally, it's considered good form to provide a starting topic for us to discuss.

I apologize, I intended the start poll's posed question to be the initial topic

[North America and the Great Lakes]

Well, how's this?

Is the Constitution a living document? Or is it supposed to be interpreted as it was originally intended to be by the Framers?

[North America and the Great Lakes]

To me, the very existence of the elastic clause attests to the document's intended to be a living document.

[Eol Sha]

Generally, it's considered good form to provide a starting topic for us to discuss.

I apologize, I intended the start poll's posed question to be the initial topic

It's cool. Just be sure to incorporate the starting topic in the OP. The mods might lock the thread.

Anyway, I think the Constitution should be treated as a living document where issues are looked at in a modern context and according to modern mores. The world changes everyday and being bound to eighteenth century ways of thinking isn't good or advisable.

[Telconi]

Well, how's this?

Is the Constitution a living document? Or is it supposed to be interpreted as it was originally intended to be by the Framers?

Would it be nonsensical of me to say "both?"

I think that the framer's intent must be taken into consideration by the judiciary. Having said that I believe the framer's intent must be weighed against the current needs of the people. And I believe evidence exists that the framers intended it to be interpreted with flexibility.

[Pandeeria]

All nation states, and with them their constitutions, should be abolished. The US is no exception.

For our present situation, I interpret it definitely as a living, breathing document (as the founding fathers intended).

[North America and the Great Lakes]

Well, how's this?

Is the Constitution a living document? Or is it supposed to be interpreted as it was originally intended to be by the Framers?

Would it be nonsensical of me to say "both?"

I think that the framer's intent must be taken into consideration by the judiciary. Having said that I believe the framer's intent must be weighed against the current needs of the people.

I would agree. The Framers definitely need to be taken into consideration, but the needs of the people must also be a priority.

[Minzerland II]

All nation states, and with them their constitutions, should be abolished. The US is no exception.

For our present situation, I interpret it definitely as a living, breathing document (as the founding fathers intended).

Why?

[Kubra]

Well, how's this?

Is the Constitution a living document? Or is it supposed to be interpreted as it was originally intended to be by the Framers?

as originally intended, so that amendments can properly clarify and rectify instead of folks just putting a new spin on old words

[North America and the Great Lakes]

All nation states, and with them their constitutions, should be abolished. The US is no exception.

For our present situation, I interpret it definitely as a living, breathing document (as the founding fathers intended).

Anarchy is just that.

It doesn't work. Communism and other forms of that type of utopian type of thought are great in theory, but man is too flawed of an animal for it to ever work on a practical basis.

[Balkenreich]

All nation states, and with them their constitutions, should be abolished. The US is no exception.

For our present situation, I interpret it definitely as a living, breathing document (as the founding fathers intended).

Why?

Muh communism

[Pandeeria]

All nation states, and with them their constitutions, should be abolished. The US is no exception.

For our present situation, I interpret it definitely as a living, breathing document (as the founding fathers intended).

Anarchy is just that.

It doesn't work. Communism and other forms of that type of utopian type of thought are great in theory, but man is too flawed of an animal for it to ever work on a practical basis.

I don't subscribe to Utopian Socialism, I subscribe to Scientific Socialism.

[Kubra]

Why?

Muh communism

that's the gist of it
What is problem tho

[North America and the Great Lakes]

Well, how's this?

Is the Constitution a living document? Or is it supposed to be interpreted as it was originally intended to be by the Framers?

as originally intended, so that amendments can properly clarify and rectify instead of folks just putting a new spin on old words

I wholly disagree.

Some nations need to replace their constitutions every few decades to keep up with the times because of their need to interpret it literally without change. Ours has stood for over two centuries, which I believe in of itself attests to its living nature.

[North America and the Great Lakes]

Anarchy is just that.

It doesn't work. Communism and other forms of that type of utopian type of thought are great in theory, but man is too flawed of an animal for it to ever work on a practical basis.

I don't subscribe to Utopian Socialism, I subscribe to Scientific Socialism.

Enlighten me.

[Telconi]

Well, how's this?

Is the Constitution a living document? Or is it supposed to be interpreted as it was originally intended to be by the Framers?

as originally intended, so that amendments can properly clarify and rectify instead of folks just putting a new spin on old words

I concur, if the current needs of the people deviate too far from the "original intent" as perceived by the judiciary, then an amendment is in order. The amendment process exists to permanently modify, which is preferable to increasingly stretched interpretation of the existing clause in question.

[Dushan]

Moderately based upon the perceived intentions of the Constitution's framers.

[Pandeeria]

All nation states, and with them their constitutions, should be abolished. The US is no exception.

For our present situation, I interpret it definitely as a living, breathing document (as the founding fathers intended).

Why?

Why all nation states should be abolished, or why I interpret it the constitution as a living, breathing document?

[Minzerland II]

Why?

Muh communism

Muh withering of the state

[Telconi]

as originally intended, so that amendments can properly clarify and rectify instead of folks just putting a new spin on old words

I wholly disagree.

Some nations need to replace their constitutions every few decades to keep up with the times because of their need to interpret it literally without change. Ours has stood for over two centuries, which I believe in of itself attests to its living nature.

It has been repeatedly modified through those two centuries however.

[Minzerland II]

Why?

Why all nation states should be abolished, or why I interpret it the constitution as a living, breathing document?

The former.

[North America and the Great Lakes]

I wholly disagree.

Some nations need to replace their constitutions every few decades to keep up with the times because of their need to interpret it literally without change. Ours has stood for over two centuries, which I believe in of itself attests to its living nature.

It has been repeatedly modified through those two centuries however.

This is true, but the core document has remained the same, while other nations have revised their entire constitution.

I don't see amendments as comprehensive changes but...well for lack of a better term amendments that allow a permanent change to be made without changing the overarching structure...if that makes sense.

[Kubra]

as originally intended, so that amendments can properly clarify and rectify instead of folks just putting a new spin on old words

I wholly disagree.

Some nations need to replace their constitutions every few decades to keep up with the times because of their need to interpret it literally without change. Ours has stood for over two centuries, which I believe in of itself attests to its living nature.

except that it does so because for one there hasn't been any reason to modify the distribution of judicial, executive, and legislative powers, that's usually why other countries change up their constitution. As for the amendments from the bill of rights onwards, that's the contentious bit, and we've got means to make or revoke amendments, thus ensuring the document remains dynamic.