[detbuch]

[QUOTE=wdmso;1118564 But isn't that the problem "the interpretation of data" if we had the same "interpretation" why even take about it?


detbuch: If there are different interpretations of data, are all interpretations correct? If you're saying the Constitution is data, which is a big stretch, but if we consider it data, and we use that data as a measure for deciding a case, and different judges read the data in different ways to come to different conclusions, is the data being used correctly by all the judges? Let's say we call a ruler data (a sort of measurement Constitution), and the length of a stick is to be decided. And when the ruler is applied to the stick the number on the ruler at the end point of measurement is 12. If 5 judges interpret that to mean the stick is 15 inches long and 4 judges interpret it to mean the stick is 12 inches long, are the majority of judges correct?

wdmso: My concern is to you all losses Taken have been nefarious ... when I in fact see the March of time and the modern age and technology our founders had great vision but it was impossible for them to provide a document that would address every scenario presented in todays world

detbuch: There may have been some good losses. But there have been many bad ones. Whether a loss is good or bad is not the relevant point for me. How it was done is what is important. The nefariousness is not in the loss, but in the process. If the loss is done in the proper constitutional manner, so be it. If it is done unconstitutionally, it is nefarious.

The Constitution was not meant to address every scenario, but to address which Branch or which level of government from federal to local, if any, had the power to regulate classes of scenarios. The founders certainly knew that technology and knowledge would advance new ideas and products. That's why they didn't try to specify scenarios but instead mentioned very broad classes of scenarios--regulation of interstate commerce for instance. This would encompass all manner of new things that could be involved in interstate commerce. If any type of scenario doesn't fit within the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution, then the federal government has no power to regulate it. And if some new type of scenario arises, that does not fall within enumerated powers but the people and their representatives believe that government should have the power to regulate it, the Constitution can be amended to include an enumeration giving some branch of government power to do so. I don't know of any such new scenario having arisen. For instance, the Founders probably didn't know that jet airliners would be invented. But the broad areas covered by the enumerations easily allow jets as well as all other inventions to either be regulated by the federal government or left alone for the people or the states to regulate or not.

wdmso: The constitution is not a size fit all document

detbuch: Yes and no. Some sizes (most) are to be left to states and to the people. The size created by the constitutional enumeration of powers all fit federal government regulation.

wdmso: The Constitution of the United States is a living document because it was written to be adapted by future generations. If it had not been written with such intentions, the government would be unable to ratify new amendments since this in itself is a change.

detbuch: We have an old wooden spoon that has been handed down by a couple of generations. It is used for different purposes and to stir new and different stews and soups than it did when it was new. Is it a living spoon?

The "living document" schtick was an invention of the early Progressives like Woodrow Wilson who considered the Constitution to be an outdated impediment to their notion of government which was one that needed to be unshackled from restricted enumerations of power. Government, for the Progressives, was to be a central power able to do anything it considered good for all citizens without being limited to a few specific categories. It was too difficult to amend the Constitution, so it had to be given a new breath of "life" simply by interpreting it in any way necessary to suit its needs.

The Progressives didn't fear unlimited government because they thought history had come to a good place in time where enlightened men ruled the day. And, besides, Americanism, the American character, would not allow despotic authoritarians. American authoritarians would only do good, not evil. If you want to swallow that bilge, no one (except a nefarious authoritarian) can stop you. I think that Progressive notion is idiotic. History has never arrived at the good place Progressives imagined. Human nature has not changed. We still have wars and dictators and evil despots. We will always have power seekers, and they will eventually be found at top levels of government. American or otherwise.

The nature of living things is they eventually die. It is only those inanimate abstractions such as ideas that don't actually die because they were never alive. They can exist forever. They can be forgotten. They can be remembered again by following generations after having been forgotten

If a document were somehow "living," then it will die. If it is an abstract idea formed by words, it can exist and be used as long as generations choose to. If it is to survive through change, then some words have to be changed--amended. If generations do in its name what the document does not allow, without changing its words, then the document no longer exists except as a picture on the wall. Neither alive nor dead. Just defunct.

wdmso: so well have to agree to disagree[/QUOTE]

Why can we not agree?