The Constitution is DEAD!

[Ammo Amy]

The Herald of War

Ammo Amy

The Herald of War

Ammo Amy

Then why bother even interpreting and amending it if it's nothing but a dead piece of goddamn paper?

You have to make me wonder if you're becoming some kind of parody. Because all he means is that the interpretation should remain the same as when it was written essentially. Interpretation should remain static and not account for new circumstances. This would, in fact, suggest there should be more amending to update it to allow for new meaning to be put in.

Very astute.

But how much amending should or could be done without having to start over from scratch?

Maybe write Constitution II: The Next Document?

I'm not suggesting he's right, I'm saying you're really warping what he was saying. I think it'd be terribly inconvenient, needing to change what is supposed to be the fundamental framework of our government repeatedly. It's like trying to rebuild mess with your computer's hardware every time you install a new program. Much better to let it be interpreted anew given relevant new circumstances.

Am I warping what he's saying? You mean this guy?

I mean, he sounds barely more balanced than any other Fox News pundit, which seems to be his favorite venue for getting his views out. Might as well appoint Steve Doocy.

[azulmagia]

Ammo Amy

Quote:

Ammo Amy

Maybe write Constitution II: The Next Document?

That's what I've been saying for years. It's the only real way to put the executive branch in its cage, end legislating from the bench, and ending minority rule in the Senate.

That depends a lot. It seems that at least in the case of the Senate, the majority has ceded control to the minority once again. There's nothing in the Constitution about that.

Actually it is. The Constitution give 2 senators per state, REGARDLESS of population. Given the current demographics (which are unlikley to change even in 50+ years), this amounts to a minority in the national population having a MAJORITY in the Senate, if they can but agree. Which is completely outrageous.

It was also a cause of the Civil War, since the only way to keep the balance in favour of slavery was to keep on creating new slave states. In the end, the only solution (for them) was to make all new states potentially slave states, hence the Dred Scott decision.

[Ammo Amy]

azulmagia

Ammo Amy

Quote:

Ammo Amy

Maybe write Constitution II: The Next Document?

That's what I've been saying for years. It's the only real way to put the executive branch in its cage, end legislating from the bench, and ending minority rule in the Senate.

That depends a lot. It seems that at least in the case of the Senate, the majority has ceded control to the minority once again. There's nothing in the Constitution about that.

Actually it is. The Constitution give 2 senators per state, REGARDLESS of population. Given the current demographics (which are unlikley to change even in 50+ years), this amounts to a minority in the national population having a MAJORITY in the Senate, if they can but agree. Which is completely outrageous.

It was also a cause of the Civil War, since the only way to keep the balance in favour of slavery was to keep on creating new slave states. In the end, the only solution (for them) was to make all new states potentially slave states, hence the Dred Scott decision.

The Senate is supposed to give states equal representation, whereas the House is supposed to be based on population. Up until about 100 years ago, Senators were elected by the state legislature, but that was changed, and the people now elect Senators directly. Senators tend to be less affected by the gerrymandering that gave the House a Republican majority despite being beaten by over a million votes nationally.

[The Herald of War]

Ammo Amy

The Herald of War

Ammo Amy

The Herald of War

Ammo Amy

Then why bother even interpreting and amending it if it's nothing but a dead piece of goddamn paper?

You have to make me wonder if you're becoming some kind of parody. Because all he means is that the interpretation should remain the same as when it was written essentially. Interpretation should remain static and not account for new circumstances. This would, in fact, suggest there should be more amending to update it to allow for new meaning to be put in.

Very astute.

But how much amending should or could be done without having to start over from scratch?

Maybe write Constitution II: The Next Document?

I'm not suggesting he's right, I'm saying you're really warping what he was saying. I think it'd be terribly inconvenient, needing to change what is supposed to be the fundamental framework of our government repeatedly. It's like trying to rebuild mess with your computer's hardware every time you install a new program. Much better to let it be interpreted anew given relevant new circumstances.

Am I warping what he's saying? You mean this guy?

I mean, he sounds barely more balanced than any other Fox News pundit, which seems to be his favorite venue for getting his views out. Might as well appoint Steve Doocy.

That doesn't mean that you accurately represented what he was saying in your first post. I don't care if he's Hitler, Stalin, and Mao combined, that has nothing to do with what you said.

[azulmagia]

Ammo Amy

azulmagia

Ammo Amy

Quote:

Ammo Amy

Maybe write Constitution II: The Next Document?

That's what I've been saying for years. It's the only real way to put the executive branch in its cage, end legislating from the bench, and ending minority rule in the Senate.

That depends a lot. It seems that at least in the case of the Senate, the majority has ceded control to the minority once again. There's nothing in the Constitution about that.

Actually it is. The Constitution give 2 senators per state, REGARDLESS of population. Given the current demographics (which are unlikley to change even in 50+ years), this amounts to a minority in the national population having a MAJORITY in the Senate, if they can but agree. Which is completely outrageous.

It was also a cause of the Civil War, since the only way to keep the balance in favour of slavery was to keep on creating new slave states. In the end, the only solution (for them) was to make all new states potentially slave states, hence the Dred Scott decision.

The Senate is supposed to give states equal representation, whereas the House is supposed to be based on population. Up until about 100 years ago, Senators were elected by the state legislature, but that was changed, and the people now elect Senators directly. Senators tend to be less affected by the gerrymandering that gave the House a Republican majority despite being beaten by over a million votes nationally.

Yeah, I know it's supposed to give the states equal representation.

The problem is that giving the states equal representation, is to put it mildly, [******** stupid.

If you don't believe me, get the state population statistics, and starting from California (the most populous state) and working your way down, add up the numbers and stop when you've got an amount tipping over the 50% mark for the national population. Then count how many senators that amounts to.

So, you guys didn't think your cunning plan all the way through now, didn't you?

[Wendigo]

Xiam

Wendigo

Certainly it's dead. Parchment really ought to be dead; if it were to start moving around hundreds of years after it was peeled off the animal it came from, I'd freak out, myself.

I thought parchment was made from paper... eek

(After a quick Google search...)

Oh, well. I learned something new today.

Parchment lasts a good while longer than the other stuff, since it's basically really thin leather, and leather is tough as hell.

[Ammo Amy]

azulmagia

Yeah, I know it's supposed to give the states equal representation.

The problem is that giving the states equal representation, is to put it mildly, [******** stupid.

If you don't believe me, get the state population statistics, and starting from California (the most populous state) and working your way down, add up the numbers and stop when you've got an amount tipping over the 50% mark for the national population. Then count how many senators that amounts to.

So, you guys didn't think your cunning plan all the way through now, didn't you?

I don't know what the "you guys" portion refers to, but comparing states to populations is apples and oranges. Each state is supposed to have equal value in the Union, which is why they have equal representation. It has nothing to do with how populated they are, but the entity they are. After all the United States is just that, a union of member states. The House of Representatives, on the other hand, is a representation of the people that make up the population of the Unites States. This is where more populates states are supposed to gain their advantage. Each state gets at least one Representative, but states like New York, Texas, and California dominate. This was to supposed achieve a balance.

The Herald of War

That doesn't mean that you accurately represented what he was saying in your first post. I don't care if he's Hitler, Stalin, and Mao combined, that has nothing to do with what you said.

I quoted him. If his own words don't speak for themselves, I'm the wrong person to complain to.

[The Herald of War]

Ammo Amy

The Herald of War

That doesn't mean that you accurately represented what he was saying in your first post. I don't care if he's Hitler, Stalin, and Mao combined, that has nothing to do with what you said.

I quoted him. If his own words don't speak for themselves, I'm the wrong person to complain to.

None of those make the reaction:

Quote:

Then why bother even interpreting and amending it if it's nothing but a dead piece of goddamn paper? Why not start over from scratch? Isn't the Constitution something like the Bible of the United States? Is the Bible dead, too?

Any less nonsensical. Those were specific positions he has. So what?

[azulmagia]

Ammo Amy

azulmagia

Yeah, I know it's supposed to give the states equal representation.

The problem is that giving the states equal representation, is to put it mildly, [******** stupid.

If you don't believe me, get the state population statistics, and starting from California (the most populous state) and working your way down, add up the numbers and stop when you've got an amount tipping over the 50% mark for the national population. Then count how many senators that amounts to.

So, you guys didn't think your cunning plan all the way through now, didn't you?

I don't know what the "you guys" portion refers to, but comparing states to populations is apples and oranges. Each state is supposed to have equal value in the Union, which is why they have equal representation. It has nothing to do with how populated they are, but the entity they are. After all the United States is just that, a union of member states.

That's the Confederate "compact" theory.

And no, each state does not have equal value in the union. That's just crazy and for reasons I've already explained.

Quote:

The House of Representatives, on the other hand, is a representation of the people that make up the population of the Unites States. This is where more populates states are supposed to gain their advantage. Each state gets at least one Representative, but states like New York, Texas, and California dominate. This was to supposed achieve a balance.

Some balance. A measure is passed in the House that has the overwhelming support of the people of the United States, then it's shot down in the Senate by a minority.

For minorities to cockblock the wishes of the minority, is tyranny.

[Ammo Amy]

The Herald of War

Ammo Amy

The Herald of War

That doesn't mean that you accurately represented what he was saying in your first post. I don't care if he's Hitler, Stalin, and Mao combined, that has nothing to do with what you said.

I quoted him. If his own words don't speak for themselves, I'm the wrong person to complain to.

None of those make the reaction:

Quote:

Then why bother even interpreting and amending it if it's nothing but a dead piece of goddamn paper? Why not start over from scratch? Isn't the Constitution something like the Bible of the United States? Is the Bible dead, too?

Any less nonsensical. Those were specific positions he has. So what?

Oh, you mean the hyperbole where I was responding to other posters in this thread. Well, why didn't you say so in the first place, and where did I attribute that to Scalia specifically?

azulmagia

Ammo Amy

The House of Representatives, on the other hand, is a representation of the people that make up the population of the Unites States. This is where more populates states are supposed to gain their advantage. Each state gets at least one Representative, but states like New York, Texas, and California dominate. This was to supposed achieve a balance.

Some balance. A measure is passed in the House that has the overwhelming support of the people of the United States, then it's shot down in the Senate by a minority.

For minorities to cockblock the wishes of the minority, is tyranny.

However, the population also now gets to pick their Senators, where as state legislatures used to do it. The thing about Senators is they are less prone to being gerrymandered and are more representative of a state as a whole. Sure, it gives states like Wyoming and the Dakotas more power, but one never knows if or when people get fed up with Florida and California and decide to all move to those places.

[Wendigo]

azulmagia

A measure is passed in the House that has the overwhelming support of the people of the United States, then it's shot down in the Senate by a minority.

A bill passing the House doesn't mean that it has the overwhelming support of the people of the United States. Neither does its passing both houses and then being signed by the President.

Each House Rep, of course, represents a district. Districts are, of course, somewhat amorphous divisions which may or may not contain an equivalent number of constituents. Like, Alaska's represented in the House by one at-large Rep for 731,000 people. That makes Alaska roughly equivalent, in the house, to Delaware's single at-large Rep for 917,000 people. Between the two, a couple hundred thousand people go missing.

Each of those states is the rough equivalent of one of the Congressional districts representing Greater Los Angeles.

[azulmagia]

Wendigo

azulmagia

A measure is passed in the House that has the overwhelming support of the people of the United States, then it's shot down in the Senate by a minority.

A bill passing the House doesn't mean that it has the overwhelming support of the people of the United States. Neither does its passing both houses and then being signed by the President.

You know what I mean. stare

[The New Wineskin]

Ammo Amy

Maybe write Constitution II: The Next Document Revelation?

I fixed it.

[Honey of the South]

I believe that the Constitution is a very important document that is, and always should be, open to interpretation. Take the Eighth Amendment, for example. It forbids cruel and unusual punishment. In that case, it made the death penalty illegal for some time. But now each state has it's own rules when it comes to the death penalty; Texas uses the electric chair, and many states use lethal injection.

Many of the terms and phrases in the Constitution are subject to change as our society does, but the basic meaning of each amendment is still pretty clear no matter how one looks at it.

[Wendigo]

The New Wineskin

Ammo Amy

Maybe write Constitution II: The Next Document RevelationElectric Boogaloo?

I fixed it.

No, you didn't.