What do the US & state constitutions say about social aspects of the EvC debate?

Just a few points.The placement of semi-colons is important. They indicate pauses, changes in the thought pattern. So, in this case, the significant sections are from where you began bold up to the next semi-colon.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I guess my second point was, if this is so, then it is important that what is decided in the courts isn't taken to be timeless or "right" (i.e. decontextually "right", "absolutely" "right"), but rather right in the context of the current state of the US.Probably more of a comment to myself than anything else; I've pretty much tuned out all thinking of these kinds of things until now.Ben

It goes beyond even that.One of the most unique parts of the US Constitution was that it was designed from the beginning to be changed. Not only is interpretation of the document left vague, but the content itself was meant to evolve as conditions changed.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Is such an intention documented anywhere within the legal documents, or is this something that can be determined only indirectly, either through interpretation as we've done here, or through historical accounts of the thought that went behind the creation of the US Constitution and Constitutional Amendments?

Sure. The method of modifying the Constitution and the procedures needed to do so are included in the original document.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

And if you are asking about the intentions regarding literal interpretation (known legally as "strict constructionalism"), that issue was laid to rest about 200 years ago.The Louisiana Purchase was widely regarded as a Constitutional problem. No where does the Constitution give the Congress the ability to buy such large amounts of Territory. This sounds strange to us, but this was widely regarded as an important Constitutional issue. But the Purchase was clealy in the best interests of the United States, so President Jefferson went ahead with it, Congress approved the treaty and appropriated the funds, and there were no serious objections raised. And, by the way, Jefferson himself was one of the main proponents of "strict contructionalism".

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

But the purchase is just one issue. Just because Jefferson went back on his earlier ideas for pragmatic reasons does not mean that every original meaning of the Constitution should be thrown out.This is especially critical when dealing with the Bill of Rights as those are suppossed to be a partial lists of unchanging rights. If other aspects of the Constitution are bent for pragmatic reasons, that does not mean we should tamper with the Bill of Rights, which we have done.

what is the original meaning of the constitution? the view point your debating against is the one that essentially says the ideas are more important than the text.so for instance, although the 4th amendment says nothing about making laws regarding someone's day-to-day life, the intent behind it is that the government has no jurisdiction over someone's privacy except in extenuating circumstance where a warrant can be provided.the 4th amendment for instance doesn't define what is and what is not reasonable, and only says about searches and seizures, not jurisdiction. a strict constructionalist could read it and say it only protects "persons, houses, papers, and effects" but not computer, telephones, or cars. how do we justify saying the government can't search our cars or tap our phones without a warrant? well, the problem is that the times they are a-changing. the founding fathers couldn't predict cars and televisions and computers. don't you think that the principles the bill of rights is trying to protect are more important than what it says or does not say, strictly literally?

---

אָרַח

That, of course, is patently false. The so called Bill of Rights is actually the 10 amendments, changes and modifications to the Constitution. Like any of the Amendments, they are meant to be changed, modified and revised as conditions warrant. It is the basic Articles of the Constitution, specifically Article V that outlines the authority and procedure for ammending the Constitution, including the right to repeal even the 1^st. Amendment. So far you have show no, zero, zip, none, nada, zilch exaamples where the Bil of Rights has been tampered with.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Lam,I'm doing some background reading on "Selective Incorporation", but maybe you can provide some useful information on it and talk a little about how it fits in here?That would help me out, at least.Thanks,
Ben

I disagree. The inclusion of the term "unreasonable" denotes a broadness.But at the same time, the expansion of federal powers just because of the commerce clause is absurd on the face of it, and not Constitutional if you accept any normal reading of the text and ideas.Additionally, the 2nd amendment is unequivocal. People have the right to form militias and bear arms, which is a military term, and means people can form private armies if they want.Not that may be outdated, but the right way to correct that would be a Constitutional amendment, not some twisted legal jurisprudence, and no, the National Guard does not count since this was a right granted to the people directly, not just a right of their representatives.

Uh, you don't think the 2nd amendment has been infringed, or the free exercise clause, or the 10th amendment?

that's why i picked it. how do you define unreasonable?actually, don't bother answering that, it's a rhetorical question. you can't answer it, nor can i (and i've taken a 4000-level class entirely on the fourth amendment). which federal powers, specifically? you realize also that the 14th amendment applies a standard of jurisdictional hierarchy -- if the federal government can't make a certain kind of law or violate a person's rights in some way, neither can the state. yes, because it's the right of the people. are you talking about the federal gov't's ability to legislate and prosecute guns that are shipped across state lines?

---

אָרַח

Classic randman cheating tactic message. When he has been shown to be totally wrong, completely refuted, see if he can convince folk that he's been playing a different game all along.Let's not wander afield from our discussion. Perhaps someday you might even be able to respond to someone's post without misrepresenting what they said, repeating assertions that have been completely refuted, playing musical definitions or moving the goal posts.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Cute response on gun control, but that is correct, but considering the 14th amendment, I think you cannot have cities and states deny this right either.On the expansion of federal powers, I don't want to get into it as you already know the answers. If you are serious about discussion of that, you can start another thread listing some specific examples for discussion.