NationStates Jolt Archive

Are you a strict or loose constructionist? How many people even know what I'm talking about? I'll give you a hint - it has nothing to do w/architecture.

I'm a strict constructionist myself

Bump

After a quick bit of google research into what constructionisms loose and strict are, I've found that I'm a strict constructionist.

How can law possibly be upheld if judges are allowed to make it up as they go along? The purpose of a court is to determine what should happen in each case according to law, not to alter law depending on the case.

After a quick bit of google research into what constructionisms loose and strict are, I've found that I'm a strict constructionist.

How can law possibly be upheld if judges are allowed to make it up as they go along? The purpose of a court is to determine what should happen in each case according to law, not to alter law depending on the case.
Unfortunately for you you live in a country where about half of all law is exactly that - Common Law is entirely by precedent and that includes a wide range of things, including consumer rights, contract law, and much more.

Unfortunately for you you live in a country where about half of all law is exactly that - Common Law is entirely by precedent and that includes a wide range of things, including consumer rights, contract law, and much more.

Quite.

I really think Britain could benefit from a clear written constitution.

Quite.

I really think Britain could benefit from a clear written constitution.

I think that America could benefit from just that!

Quite.

I really think Britain could benefit from a clear written constitution.
We have a dual system of statute and common law running in parallel with statute over riding common. It has the advantages of flexibility and the intent is to create rulings that follow the intent of the law rather than the letter of the law. It allows courts to tune laws as circumstances and society change.

This is a separate issue to a written constitution, but on that I totally agree with you

I think that America could benefit from just that!
Actually I believe our Constitution is clear-written - it's just that politicians seem to interpret it like they've got a blank check to expand gov't power.

Ya gotta love the 'Necessary and Proper' clause. Unfortunately they seem to have forgotten the limits that the Constituion places on Federal power
to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper

Loose Constructionist. And as for a clearer written constitution, I think any country could benefit from that, but unfortunately it's much easier said than done.

I'm all for each branch of the government having clearly defined powers. I don't want my judges deciding what should be, I want them to decide what is. We have Congress to decide what should be through laws.

Judges legislating from the bench would be unacceptable. It'd be as unacceptable as Congress deciding that even though the state courts rulings are final in a given situation that they will only abide by the rulings if they agree with them. Otherwise they'll write legislation that renderes those judges' opinions irrelevent.

But that'd never happen in the United States. Judges keep their jobs because we have the utmost confidence in their ability to do their job correctly. Congress has shown countless times that they don't have the balls to do something like that. Both cases would be a blatent attack on separation of powers.

Fairly loose for me. I think it's a good idea to give constitutional interpretation some wiggle room to adapt to new situations without having to write and pass a new ammendment, which is time consuming. Still, I don't beleive in too lose an interpretation that would violate the whole purpose of having a constitution.

That was easy! Strict as can be. Sorry, but those arrogant judges just don't compare to my founding heroes. :rolleyes:

Actually I believe our Constitution is clear-written - it's just that politicians seem to interpret it like they've got a blank check to expand gov't power.

Ya gotta love the 'Necessary and Proper' clause. Unfortunately they seem to have forgotten the limits that the Constituion places on Federal power

I'm all for new laws that allow more civil rights. However, I'm not for new laws that decrease civil rights, i.e. the Patriot Act.

And would it kill you (and others like you) to type government? I mean, is it really that difficult to add six more letters? Or is it that you like small government so much that you just have to spell it out for us...?

That was easy! Strict as can be. Sorry, but those arrogant judges just don't compare to my founding heroes. :rolleyes:

Right. Those slave owners from 230 years ago were never wrong about anything and could predict the future! :rolleyes:

And they didn't mean it when they created the judiciary to interpret laws in the first place!

And nevermind the judicial decisions -- like Marbury v. Madison -- by "founding heroes" themselves!

And they never said all those things about not limiting the Constitution to their views! :D

And nevermind the 14th Amendment - it didn't change nothin'! :D

I'm all for new laws that allow more civil rights. However, I'm not for new laws that decrease civil rights, i.e. the Patriot Act.

And would it kill you (and others like you) to type government? I mean, is it really that difficult to add six more letters? Or is it that you like small government so much that you just have to spell it out for us...?
Seriously, do you need to get laid? If that warranted a comment on NS, you have a whole lot to cover every time someone saves a second or two with abbreviations. But, perhaps it makes your head hurt to have to fill in all those letters.
Like hangman, only for kids who ride the little bus.

Stop being such a dick for rediculous reasons. Or have a beer or three.

Somethin'.

Seriously, do you need to get laid? If that warranted a comment on NS, you have a whole lot to cover every time someone saves a second or two with abbreviations. But, perhaps it makes your head hurt to have to fill in all those letters.
Like hangman, only for kids who ride the little bus.

Stop being such a dick for rediculous reasons. Or have a beer or three.

Somethin'.

Well, I tend to frequent a lot of forums, and people with the same political stance as this man abbreviate that word in the exact same manner. It's become sickening.

And might I ask: What exactly is your problem?

Right. Those slave owners from 230 years ago were never wrong about anything and could predict the future! :rolleyes:

And they didn't mean it when they created the judiciary to interpret laws in the first place!

And nevermind the judicial decisions -- like Marbury v. Madison -- by "founding heroes" themselves!

And they never said all those things about not limiting the Constitution to their views! :D

And nevermind the 14th Amendment - it didn't change nothin'! :D
Not going to work. You're naming cases that have gotten us to the point we're at today. That's the evolution of our country, becoming more and more honest with the original intentions of the document in question.

It just took time to figure this out.

So what huge, sweeping benefits do we get out of constantly screwing with the intentions of the document?
You think leftist, as if that's the only way to go.
I think of adding "Mariiage=Man/Woman".

Maybe it should just be left alone, taken literally for now until we're actually dealing with something that would warrant such drastic measures and wacky interpretations... like when some group has their own water fountains and restrooms again.

You haven't explained a thing concerning why you believe it's a good thing for judges to be able to interpret the constitution however they please.

Care to?

Well, I tend to frequent a lot of forums, and people with the same political stance as this man abbreviate that word in the exact same manner. It's become sickening.

And might I ask: What exactly is your problem?
1. I happen to be one of those men you're speaking of.

2. Because you're coming off as a nitpicking, whiney bitch. :rolleyes:

Honestly, I've never seen someone make such a mountain out of a molehill here on NS. An abbreviation?
Just becuase you don't like someone's political opinion doesn't give you the right to piss on their appropriate use of the English language.

I've never had a problem with your posts before. This was just really rediculous. If you can't see why, I can't help you.

That was easy! Strict as can be. Sorry, but those arrogant judges just don't compare to my founding heroes. :rolleyes:
Hey, I can't say that, Oh sorry, you are not me after all. :eek:

I'm a loose constructionist as I believe judgements have to adjust to fit the times and cultures in which they are made. Written law is to slow in this respect, so the only hope of having intelligent and reasonable judgements is to have a loose constructionist position.

1. I happen to be one of those men you're speaking of.

2. Because you're coming off as a nitpicking, whiney bitch. :rolleyes:

Honestly, I've never seen someone make such a mountain out of a molehill here on NS. An abbreviation?
Just becuase you don't like someone's political opinion doesn't give you the right to piss on their appropriate use of the English language.

I've never had a problem with your posts before. This was just really rediculous. If you can't see why, I can't help you.

It's not the political opinion. It's how they spell every single word completely, and then go out of their way to abbreviate government, of all things. I was saying that for some reason, it's mostly people of the same political ideals who abbreviate it, and that has been the case on every forum I visit.

What originally started as a comment has amounted to this "mountain of a molehill". And that is entirely your fault.

Hey, I can't say that, Oh sorry, you are not me after all. :eek:

I'm a loose constructionist as I believe judgements have to adjust to fit the times and cultures in which they are made. Written law is to slow in this respect, so the only hope of having intelligent and reasonable judgements is to have a loose constructionist position.
Let's just say that in my view, the constitution should be extremely hard to mess with and "creatively interpret".

Everyone gets warm and fuzzy with the possibility of quick changes for the better, but forget that with the wrong judges in power, very, very bad things can come out of this political approach as well.
Just as quickly. Think 9-11, if something worse happened. Wow, we could wake up and find that the Constitution has been "redetermined" to mean something radically different than it did just yesterday.

It's not the political opinion. It's how they spell every single word completely, and then go out of their way to abbreviate government, of all things. I was saying that for some reason, it's mostly people of the same political ideals who abbreviate it, and that has been the case on every forum I visit.

What originally started as a comment has amounted to this "mountain of a molehill". And that is entirely your fault.
Please, leave me alone. This should keep you busy for a while fuming:

I'm a firebrand libertarian, and I'm now going to go out of my way to use the word Gov.

Just for you.

:p

Not going to work. You're naming cases that have gotten us to the point we're at today. That's the evolution of our country, becoming more and more honest with the original intentions of the document in question.

It just took time to figure this out.

:confused:

Either you are not making sense here or I am not understanding you.

Right or wrong, you usually make some sense.

You seem to be saying Marbury and the evolution of caselaw are good.

You seem to be making the odd assertion that our caselaw is becoming closer to the original intentions of the Constitution.

What then is your problem?

So what huge, sweeping benefits do we get out of constantly screwing with the intentions of the document?
You think leftist, as if that's the only way to go.
I think of adding "Mariiage=Man/Woman".

Um, adding an amendment is not judicial interpretation.

Maybe it should just be left alone, taken literally for now until we're actually dealing with something that would warrant such drastic measures and wacky interpretations... like when some group has their own water fountains and restrooms again.

Can you name some "drastic measures" and "wacky interpretations" that are do to "loose constuctionism"?

You seem to be arguing with strawmen.

You haven't explained a thing concerning why you believe it's a good thing for judges to be able to interpret the constitution however they please.

Care to?

Who advocates judges interpreting "the [C]onstitution however they please"?

There is a tad more to interpreting the Constitution than "what do the words literally say?" and "what would the Founders (whoever they are) think?," however.

Do I really need to run through the list of some of the fundamental liberties that are unenumerated in the Constitution, but protected under the 14th Amendment?

The Founders weren't Libertarians. Get over it.

:confused:

Either you are not making sense here or I am not understanding you.

Right or wrong, you usually make some sense.

You seem to be saying Marbury and the evolution of caselaw are good.

You seem to be making the odd assertion that our caselaw is becoming closer to the original intentions of the Constitution.

What then is your problem?



Um, adding an amendment is not judicial interpretation.



Can you name some "drastic measures" and "wacky interpretations" that are do to "loose constuctionism"?

You seem to be arguing with strawmen.



Who advocates judges interpreting "the [C]onstitution however they please"?

There is a tad more to interpreting the Constitution than "what do the words literally say?" and "what would the Founders (whoever they are) think?," however.

Do I really need to run through the list of some of the fundamental liberties that are unenumerated in the Constitution, but protected under the 14th Amendment?

The Founders weren't Libertarians. Get over it.
Well, I did lose you when you went off topic. We're discussing whether the constitution should be interpreted loosely or strictly.
You seem to be talking about ammending it. Or at least, I'm not sure what you were trying to say becuase you always seem to be posturing as an intellectual without just coming out and making your point. I may be wrong, but I couldn't find the focus of your argument anywhere, but I took a shot anyway.

Also, who the hell said that that the founders were Libertarians? Classical liberals, yes, but I don't believe your familiar with the philosophy if you'd make such a vindictive comment.

But then again, you posted in another thread that you hate Libertarians, a gross blanket statement if I've ever read one.
So I guess I'm just biased to think all of your posts are bullshit, and react that way.

You confirmed my opinion with that last statement.

I'm all for each branch of the government having clearly defined powers. I don't want my judges deciding what should be, I want them to decide what is. We have Congress to decide what should be through laws.

Judges legislating from the bench would be unacceptable. It'd be as unacceptable as Congress deciding that even though the state courts rulings are final in a given situation that they will only abide by the rulings if they agree with them. Otherwise they'll write legislation that renderes those judges' opinions irrelevent.

But that'd never happen in the United States. Judges keep their jobs because we have the utmost confidence in their ability to do their job correctly. Congress has shown countless times that they don't have the balls to do something like that. Both cases would be a blatent attack on separation of powers.

What bothers me is Presidents legislating from the office. That whole "executive orders" bullshit has got to go. He's president, not ceaser. BTW it bothered me just as much when I saw Clinton make up a bunch of laws on his way out of office as when I saw Bush doing it on his way in.

That was easy! Strict as can be. Sorry, but those arrogant judges just don't compare to my founding heroes. :rolleyes:

Strict-constructionism and originalism are two entirely different animals, not to be confused or seen as the same.

Well, I did lose you when you went off topic. We're discussing whether the constitution should be interpreted loosely or strictly.
You seem to be talking about ammending it. Or at least, I'm not sure what you were trying to say becuase you always seem to be posturing as an intellectual without just coming out and making your point. I may be wrong, but I couldn't find the focus of your argument anywhere, but I took a shot anyway.

Also, who the hell said that that the founders were Libertarians? Classical liberals, yes, but I don't believe your familiar with the philosophy if you'd make such a vindictive comment.

But then again, you posted in another thread that you hate Libertarians, a gross blanket statement if I've ever read one.
So I guess I'm just biased to think all of your posts are bullshit, and react that way.

You confirmed my opinion with that last statement.

My original post was sarcasm and intended to be a least a little humorous.

I've never said I hate libertarians. It is true I posted weeks ago that the Libertarian Party is ridiculous. I will stand by that. If that makes you think all my thoughts are bullshit, I'll just have to cry myself to sleep. If you want to discuss the beliefs of the Libertarian Party in a separate thread, I will gladly ridicule it there. (I agree my reference to the Libertarians in this thread was gratuitous, but you do seem to have vindicated the point of that comment.)

Of your several posts in this thread, you've made one on-topic. When it was challenged, you went off. I believe we have had intelligent discourse before, but today you seem to just like insulting people.

You referred to amending the Constitution, not I.

Anyway, you didn't respond to any of my points or questions.

Strict-constructionism and originalism are two entirely different animals, not to be confused or seen as the same.

Excellent and accurate point. One that will undoubtedly be missed, so I've bumped it.

Let's just say that in my view, the constitution should be extremely hard to mess with and "creatively interpret".

Everyone gets warm and fuzzy with the possibility of quick changes for the better, but forget that with the wrong judges in power, very, very bad things can come out of this political approach as well.
Just as quickly. Think 9-11, if something worse happened. Wow, we could wake up and find that the Constitution has been "redetermined" to mean something radically different than it did just yesterday.

As I come from a culture (British) that does not even have a constitution in this sense, my position is really non constructionist anyway. I have always thought that a written constitution needs to be interpreted in line with what it is reasonable to suppose that it's intent would be under the circumstances that apply at the time of the interpretation. This applies to all laws, not just the constitution. (The constitution is, after all, just a particular law. One that is harder to change than the others, but still no more than a law).

Taking obvious intent into account will stop excessive abuse, or gut reaction judgements from occurring, but too literal an interpretation makes the law (constitution) irrelevant and inapplicable.

Don't add liar to the list. That's exactly what you said in that "Things you hate the most" or whatever thread a while back.
If the search function actually worked on NS right now, I would've posted it word-for-word.

Does that refresh your memory?

VERY strict.

Don't add liar to the list. That's exactly what you said in that "Things you hate the most" or whatever thread a while back.
If the search function actually worked on NS right now, I would've posted it word-for-word.

Does that refresh your memory?

I am trying to be civil so I won't respond in kind to your attacks.

No, my memory is not refreshed. And I've tried searching for anything remotely close without finding it. If I did say anything remotely like "I hate libertarians," I do not remember -- which makes me mistaken, not a liar.

Let's be clear: (a) I do not hate libertarians and (b) I do not hate Libertarians, either. If I have ever said anything remotely like (a) or (b), I apologize. I do dislike the Libertarian Party, and will not apologize for it. Big "L" Libertarian != libertarian.

If you are through with the ad hominen attacks, perhaps we could return to the topic.

Or, if you don't want to discuss substance, then--to quote someone else--"[p]lease, leave me alone."

I don't really buy the "strict construction" or "loose construction" dichotomy, but I guess I support loose construction.

I will give a few reasons.

1. Most laws -- and particularly the Constitution -- are written so as to require more than simple literal interpretation. As a practical matter, even the most "strict constuctionist" of judges are able to stick to simple literalism. At the same time, even the most "loose constuctionist" of judges start with the literal words are rarely directly contradict them. The issue is reading meaning and value into the words.

2. Strict construction is usually a euphemism for conservative outcomes -- particularly because some judges happen to prefer the values of the 18th Century. I'd like those who have lauded strict construction to give some examples of what they mean.

3. The Founding Fathers did not believe in strict construction.

4. The Founding Fathers did not intend for strict construction of the Constitution. Exhibit A: the Ninth Amendment, which reads:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Ninth Amendment is one of the many reasons that the Supreme Court has held that the list of fundamental rights in the first 8 Amendments is not to be taken as exhaustive.

5. The Fourteenth Amendment altered the judicial landscape and defies strict constructionism.

6. Here are just a few examples of Constitutional rights that are not "spelled out" in the Constitution but that are taken for granted by US citizens:

the right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud
the right to cast a ballot in equal weight to those of other citizens
the right to a presumption of innocence and to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted of a crime
the right to travel within the United States
the right to marry or not to marry
the right to make one's own choice about having children
the right to have children at all
the right to direct the education of one's children as long as one meets certain minimum standards set by the state (i.e., to be able to send children to private schools or to teach them at home)
the right to custody of one's children
the right to choose and follow a profession
right to bodily integrity


I happen to be glad these are protected by the Constitution. I'm not sure why others insist on rejecting them.

I think that is enough reasons for now.

EDIT: I meant to share this essay I found, "Strict Constructionism and the Strike Zone (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/baseball.html)," which I think is humorous (despite being an argument for strict construction - darn it :D ).

2. Strict construction is usually a euphemism for conservative outcomes
That euphemism has to be the most irrational one I've ever heard.

Simply put, strict constructionism is based on controlling the gov't (I spelled it especially short for Potaria's sake XD), NOT controlling the people.

In other words, unless there's a law that states word-for-word that a government can perform some act, it simply cannot.

That euphemism has to be the most irrational one I've ever heard.

Simply put, strict constructionism is based on controlling the gov't (I spelled it especially short for Potaria's sake XD), NOT controlling the people.

In other words, unless there's a law that states word-for-word that a government can perform some act, it simply cannot.

OK ... although I think it is how the term is often used. Scalia and Bork, for example.

Regardless, would you care to (a) respond to anything else I said and/or (b) give some specific examples as I requested.

BTW, are you referring to the Constitution or statutes in general when you talk about a "law"?

I am trying to be civil so I won't respond in kind to your attacks.

No, my memory is not refreshed. And I've tried searching for anything remotely close without finding it. If I did say anything remotely like "I hate libertarians," I do not remember -- which makes me mistaken, not a liar.

Let's be clear: (a) I do not hate libertarians and (b) I do not hate Libertarians, either. If I have ever said anything remotely like (a) or (b), I apologize. I do dislike the Libertarian Party, and will not apologize for it. Big "L" Libertarian != libertarian.

If you are through with the ad hominen attacks, perhaps we could return to the topic.

Or, if you don't want to discuss substance, then--to quote someone else--"[p]lease, leave me alone."
Hey, I admit, I can be an obtuse prick. Arrogant, too, at times.
It entertains me.

I don't respect your method though. It's weak and cowardly.
Punch and run. "Look I'm being such a cocksmear!", then "No wait, I've been nothing but civil." Hold the Grey Poupon.

At least I can admit when I'm just purposely being an asshole to someone I feel deserves due karma. You put on a pair of geek specs and play grownup after throwing a punch.:p

Put your quasi-intellectual passive-aggressive bullshit under the same scrutiny your quick to serve out to everyone else on the forums who isn't a socialist.

That euphemism has to be the most irrational one I've ever heard.

Simply put, strict constructionism is based on controlling the gov't (I spelled it especially short for Potaria's sake XD), NOT controlling the people.

In other words, unless there's a law that states word-for-word that a government can perform some act, it simply cannot.
I find it incredibly strange that the far-left is usually in support of "creative" judges who reinterpret the constitution.

What's all the bitching about when the NeoCons do the exact same from their Christian reinterpretations?

Our judiciary is out of control, they act like petty gods. It is time for the other two branches of the government to put a boot in their ass.
I am a strict constructionist. If it is not directly mentioned in the Bill of Rights then it is for the states to make their own laws. 10th amendment, if I remember correctly.

Hey, I admit, I can be an obtuse prick. Arrogant, too, at times.
It entertains me.

I don't respect your method though. It's weak and cowardly.
Punch and run. "Look I'm being such a cocksmear!", then "No wait, I've been nothing but civil." Hold the Grey Poupon.

At least I can admit when I'm just purposely being an asshole to someone I feel deserves due karma. You put on a pair of geek specs and play grownup after throwing a punch.:p

Put your quasi-intellectual passive-aggressive bullshit under the same scrutiny your quick to serve out to everyone else on the forums who isn't a socialist.

OK. I'll agree with the gist of your point. I'm not sure I do it as often as you claim, but I'll admit to the occasional sucker punch. I am definitely arrogant and often full of bullshit. But there is nothing "quasi" about my being an intellectual. ;)

By saying I was trying to be civil, I was not claiming I had always worn white gloves. I was saying I wasn't going to respond to being called a "liar" whose every post was "full of bullshit" by calling you names.

I routinely do post my views in detail -- including here -- and it appears to be you that either runs off or tries to turn discussion into a pissing contest. Right now, I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire, so I'd rather discuss substance.

I am perfectly willing to take a punch. You've now called me names in multiple posts. Have you gotten sufficient karma points or do I have to respond in kind to not be cowardly?

Now, are you ready to put my views under intellectual scrutiny or do you want to continue to throw tantrums?

Here are just a few examples of Constitutional rights that are not "spelled out" in the Constitution but that are taken for granted by US citizens:
the right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud
the right to cast a ballot in equal weight to those of other citizens
the right to a presumption of innocence and to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted of a crime
the right to travel within the United States
the right to marry or not to marry
the right to make one's own choice about having children
the right to have children at all
the right to direct the education of one's children as long as one meets certain minimum standards set by the state (i.e., to be able to send children to private schools or to teach them at home)
the right to custody of one's children
the right to choose and follow a profession
right to bodily integrity
You have an unbridled enthusiasm for typing exhaustive posts with too much content. This can be seen as an attempt to tire your retractors before they can reply.
Focus, just a little, and keep your points to 3, max. Unless you're writing a book, this is overkill and comes off as self-involved. You seem to be assuming people want to spend a while looking up, discerning, and responding to a virtual smorgasboard of rhetoric. Less is more.

Let's take the point you've made above (and notice how clear it is, thanks to brevity): Removing the overstuffed frame you've tried to put around the issue...
All of these can reasonably, and without much creative voodoo, fall under the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as they do not involve harming another person and interfering with their equal rights to the same.

If the gov. spent more time protecting our rights within the parameters I stated above instead of nitpicking each and every issue (Schaivo comes to mind), we'd all be spending a lot less time in courts trying to convince judges that we (and only we) really understand the Constitution.

Simplification really does work better than overworked, beareaucratic manhandling.

You have an unbridled enthusiasm for typing exhaustive posts with too much content. This can be seen as an attempt to tire your retractors before they can reply.
Focus, just a little, and keep your points to 3, max. Unless you're writing a book, this is overkill and comes off as self-involved. You seem to be assuming people want to spend a while looking up, discerning, and responding to a virtual smorgasboard of rhetoric. Less is more.

Let's take the point you've made above (and notice how clear it is, thanks to brevity): Removing the overstuffed frame you've tried to put around the issue...
All of these can reasonably, and without much creative voodoo, fall under the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as they do not involve harming another person and interfering with their equal rights to the same.

If the gov. spent more time protecting our rights within the parameters I stated above instead of nitpicking each and every issue (Schaivo comes to mind), we'd all be spending a lot less time in courts trying to convince judges that we (and only we) really understand the Constitution.

Simplification really does work better than overworked, beareaucratic manhandling.

So, I've gone from hiding my views by not providing enough detail to providing too much content. :rolleyes:

Regardless, saying all those rights "under the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is granting my point against strict constructionism. They have all been held by SCOTUS as falling under "liberty" in the 14th Amendment.

So, I've gone from hiding my views by not providing enough detail to providing too much content. :rolleyes: Now that you've admitted that you too can be an arrogant ;rick, I find this exchange much more entertaining than the pussymandering. Thank you.

Believe it or not, albeit wicked geeky, I do come to NS to be entertained. :D

Regardless, saying all those rights "under the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is granting my point against strict constructionism. They have all been held by SCOTUS as falling under "liberty" in the 14th Amendment.
I'm not seeing the point against strict constructionism.

So, I've gone from hiding my views by not providing enough detail to providing too much content. :rolleyes:
And as is apparent above, you arrived where you started from. :p

Now that you've admitted that you too can be an arrogant ;rick, I find this exchange much more entertaining than the pussymandering. Thank you.

Believe it or not, albeit wicked geeky, I do come to NS to be entertained. :D

Right back at ya. :D


I'm not seeing the point against strict constructionism.

OK. Strict constructionism usually means reading the Constitution literally. None of those rights appears literally in the Constitution. Nor does "pursuit of happiness."

There is a protection against deprivation of "liberty" without due process of law. SCOTUS has found the rights I listed to be freedoms protected under that reference to "liberty." Unless a judge reads the Due Process Clause of the 5th & 14th Amendment broadly, there are no such rights protected by the Constitution. Hence, they go away under a strict constructionist view.

BTW, I've still yet to see any examples from anyone of how a strict constructionist would interpret the Constitution.

And as is apparent above, you arrived where you started from. :p

WTF? :confused:

BTW, I've still yet to see any examples from anyone of how a strict constructionist would interpret the Constitution.
Don't take it personally. You honestly sound very well-versed on the constitution, but an otherwise breezy conversation has started to sound like C-Span.

You should become a lawyer for the ACLU. Most people don't have the document etched that specifically. And nobody wants to do all the research reading the whole damn thing. :p

Take it as a compliment.

Don't take it personally. You honestly sound very well-versed on the constitution, but an otherwise breezy conversation has started to sound like C-Span.

You should become a lawyer for the ACLU. Most people don't have the document etched that specifically. And nobody wants to do all the research reading the whole damn thing. :p

Take it as a compliment.

I do take your entire post as a compliment. :D Thanks. :)

I do happen to be a lawyer and belong to the ACLU. I don't work for them, but have worked with them on a case.

Although we got off to the wrong start here, I have always appreciated your (usually :p ) thoughtful input on issues.

I do take your entire post as a compliment. :D Thanks. :)

I do happen to be a lawyer and belong to the ACLU. I don't work for them, but have worked with them on a case.

Although we got off to the wrong start here, I have always appreciated your (usually :p ) thoughtful input on issues.
Holy crap, we do have something in common. I'm a member of the ACLU, and have been for several years. Sounds exciting to be involved directly, save all the legaleze rhetoric. (zzzzzzzzzzz)

See, we Libertarians aren't so bad! ;)

(And the capital L doesn't denote a firebrand libertarian, it just specifies a member of the Libertarian Party. as opposed to a philosophy independant of political affiliation. I'm a member of the LP, so I'm a Libertarian. It's not a cute visual statement.)

Strict.

Holy crap, we do have something in common. I'm a member of the ACLU, and have been for several years. Sounds exciting to be involved directly, save all the legaleze rhetoric. (zzzzzzzzzzz)

See, we Libertarians aren't so bad! ;)

(And the capital L doesn't denote a firebrand libertarian, it just specifies a member of the Libertarian Party. as opposed to a philosophy independant of political affiliation. I'm a member of the LP, so I'm a Libertarian. It's not a cute visual statement.)

Hee hee. :D

I think we actually have a lot in common.

I'm afraid some legaleze is in my blood, but it can be boring or nauseating. :D

Sometime we'll have to have a friendly discussion about the LP. Maybe if we're both blizted. :p