You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #19: A. FREAKING. MEN. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
Travelman Donating Member (326 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #16
W/R/T the OP, every strict constructionist I've come across recognizes that there is a method for changing the Constitution, and it's enshrined in the Constitution itself. I have seen a few who have argued that some Amendments were not arrived at "legally." Usually it's the XVIth Amendment kooks who just want to avoid paying taxes, but there are some who argue that perhaps the XIIIth and possibly the XIVth weren't arrived at properly due to the whole states not yet back in the union thing, plus some states joining the union when the Confederacy were "not states." AFAIC, it's a pretty weak argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -About strict constitutionalists OneGrassRoot  May-06-11 08:17 AM   #0 
  - If a law doesn't say something, it doesn't say something.  originalpckelly   May-06-11 08:26 AM   #1 
  - Thank you. :) n/t  OneGrassRoot   May-06-11 08:30 AM   #3 
  - I'm asuming you're being sarcastic?  Hamlette   May-06-11 11:27 AM   #9 
  - Most "strict constructionists" don't really care that much  MineralMan   May-06-11 08:28 AM   #2 
  - Now THAT makes a lot of sense...  OneGrassRoot   May-06-11 08:31 AM   #4 
  - You must be talking with some crazy "strict constructionists"  VEI   May-06-11 11:51 AM   #11 
     - Then I've never spoken to a sane one. All I have spoken with claim you have no rights, not ...  ieoeja   May-06-11 12:54 PM   #17 
  - strict constitutionalists want the constitution strictly followed  AdrianInOcala   May-06-11 08:41 AM   #5 
  - Great example. Thanks very much. :) n/t  OneGrassRoot   May-06-11 08:44 AM   #7 
  - T. Jefferson  safeinOhio   May-06-11 08:42 AM   #6 
  - Gold. Pure Gold.  OneGrassRoot   May-06-11 08:46 AM   #8 
  - the Constitution sets up a process to change wrong in the document.  VEI   May-06-11 11:53 AM   #12 
  - My experience.  Igel   May-06-11 11:47 AM   #10 
  - I find this thread to be confusing  Xicano   May-06-11 12:10 PM   #13 
  - I think the comparison you made is a good one  Johonny   May-06-11 12:17 PM   #14 
  - If you ask me, I think strict constructionism is nothing but cover for corruption on the bench.  backscatter712   May-06-11 12:41 PM   #15 
  - you wrote: "I personally don't see how any document can ever be literally interpreted..."  Gravel Democrat   May-06-11 12:53 PM   #16 
     - I've seen people argue about the definition of the most basic words...  OneGrassRoot   May-06-11 03:08 PM   #18 
     - A. FREAKING. MEN.  Travelman   May-06-11 03:42 PM   #19 

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC