You guys are disappointing me

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I'll stick with this, change the names as you wish. I am assuming that they will be Good and Evil.
The sphere is not a physical sphere but a description of how our society moves and changes and apparently too hard to comprehend.
"That by whatever name you call the two sides of the argument about Constitutional Law, they are both important. That while the Constitution is a largely static document, it can change thru amendment and interpretation. The interpretation part is controlled politically by the appointment of Judges for life so that a political party gets to choose and it has a long term effect but not a permanent one.
One may choose to select Originalist appointees or Living Constitutionalists, but neither is prohibited or required by the Constitution."

You and Spence have a lot in common in your use of language. Your posts, like this one, are a flow of vague words that seem to imply something substantial but never really deliver it.

And what does the quote you will stick with mean by "the two sides of the argument about Constitutional Law" and that both are important? Important in what way?

There are more than two Progressive methodologies taught and used by Justices to "interpret" constitutional cases. e.g., Monumentalism, Instrumentalism, Realism, Formalism, Cognitive Jurisprudence, Universal Principal of Fairness, Rule According to Higher Law, Preferred Freedom (or Selective Rights Jurisprudence), Utilitarian Jurisprudence, Positivist Jurisprudence, Sociological Jurisprudence, among others such as strict scrutiny, etc. These are mostly concocted ways to skirt constitutional text and deliver verdicts that could not otherwise be found in the structure of the Constitution and are means which are not bound by any form of originalism or strict constructionism. This is especially true in cases which test actual articles in the Constitution. In cases needing decision on statute law, there is a little more leeway since many statutes are not as strictly written as is the Constitution.

I assume your quote is lumping all forms of "originalism" into one "Originalist side" in which change can only be made by amendment, and all of the Progressive concoctions lumped into a loose construction, a "Living Constitutionalist side" in which change can also be made by "interpretation."

The writers of the Constitution did not conceive of constitutional text being changed by interpretation. Text was only to be changed (replaced) by amendment. "Interpretation" was to be the application of the text to the facts of the case. "Interpretation" that changed the meaning of the text in order to arrive at a decision not grounded in the original text is obviously not an application of the text but actually a rewriting of it. This sort of "interpretation" does not create a "Living Constitution." It leads to a "dead" one. It creates a new unwritten constitution that replaces the written one which no longer applies since the text is completely malleable and therefor meaningless. The "Living Constitution" nullifies written text and adjudicates instead by unbounded and unprescribed judicial opinion. The Living Constitution, in effect, is not a document, it is the constant mill of personal opinions cranked out by the majority of the SCOTUS jurists.

And how are both "sides" important?

The "originalist" side of the argument secures unalienable individual rights and liberties which can only be abridged by the representative vote of those individuals.

The "Living Constitution" side guaranties no individual rights but secures to government the ability through its Court the power to decide what rights individuals and collectives have

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"Interpretation" that changed the meaning of the text in order to arrive at a decision not grounded in the original text is obviously not an application of the text but actually a rewriting of it.

BINGO

this is akin to Spence taking the exact wording of a statement and claiming that "taken in context"....those words mean or were intended to mean something completely different than what was actually stated....I've lost count of how many times he's attempted this....it's all about arriving at a desired conclusion...who needs Google or a Constitution when you can just make it up as you go along

[scottw]

Jonah G was praising retired Justice Stevens yesterday for at least having the audacity to be honest.....something that has been rare in the debate where the left has spent considerable time mocking and attacking 2A advocates for "unfounded fears" that the left would like to make significant changes to the Rights of Americans where guns are concerned...Wayne inferred and all but admitted his best "solution" recently but I couldn't quite get him to step out of the shadow...


"Stevens’s argument cuts through all of the fictions and double-talk and says plainly what millions of Americans and lots of politicians and journalists truly believe: Law-abiding citizens shouldn’t be able to buy guns easily, or at all, if it makes it easier or even possible for non-law-abiding citizens to get their hands on them.

But there’s another reason I applaud Stevens’s position. He seeks to change the meaning of the Constitution the way the Founders intended: through the amendment process.

For more than a century, progressives have argued that the Constitution should be seen as a “living and breathing document,” in the words of Al Gore and countless others. What they usually mean is that judges and justices should be free to discern in its text new rights that progressives like, from the right to privacy to the unfettered right to abortion. One needn’t be absolutist about this. I do think we have a right to privacy, because I think you can find that right implicit in the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments, among other places.

What is ridiculous and despotic is when courts radically reinterpret the text to conform to contemporary norms or fads. Often, when I rail against the “living” Constitution, someone will say to me, “If the Constitution didn’t change, we would still have slavery,” or, “Women wouldn’t be allowed to vote.” That’s true. But those changes weren’t the product of a living, breathing Constitution. They were the result of constitutional amendments, which are as valid and binding as the original text."

those progressives are a sneaky bunch...never take your eyes off of them

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

this is akin to Spence taking the exact wording of a statement and claiming that "taken in context"....those words mean or were intended to mean something completely different than what was actually stated....I've lost count of how many times he's attempted this....it's all about arriving at a desired conclusion...who needs Google or a Constitution when you can just make it up as you go along

Good lord I hope you never read the Bible.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Good lord I hope you never read the Bible.

I forgive you....

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

I forgive you....

You might want to save that forgiveness for Michael Cohen he's going to be needing some very soon.

[Got Stripers]

Wonder if DJT is regretting bringing in Rudy after he confirmed he not only knew about the payoff to silence the Storm, he paid Cohen back. I swear Donald must have the worst case of foot in mouth in history. The untruths that have come out of his mouth are in the thousands now, I think I saw one of the Washington papers stating it's now over 3000, but DJT likes things to be the biggest, the largest, the best; only makes sense he'd end up being the biggest liar ever elected.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Wonder if DJT is regretting bringing in Rudy after he confirmed he not only knew about the payoff to silence the Storm, he paid Cohen back. I swear Donald must have the worst case of foot in mouth in history. The untruths that have come out of his mouth are in the thousands now, I think I saw one of the Washington papers stating it's now over 3000, but DJT likes things to be the biggest, the largest, the best; only makes sense he'd end up being the biggest liar ever elected.

He does everything bigger and better.