Strict Constructionism

[KyleW]

I'm curious who views themselves as a strict constructionist.

The gun issue has brought this up.

I posted this in another thread:

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Those that see that as meaning the government can not infringe in any way on their ownership of guns, do they see themselves as strict constructionists?

Let's clear up for the question, we're not going to talk about bazookas, or rocket launchers, but instead reasonable guns.

 

[Disgustipated]

*views post *

 

[unregistered]

 

[Byron In Exile]

I'm curious who views themselves as a strict constructionist.

What's a non-constructionist, then?

 

[Peregrinator]

Read the Heller decision for as close to an originalist opinion as you're going to get today. the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is pretty clear to me. The part I bolded indicates the founders belief that the right predates the Constitution itself.

This, more or less.

 

[KyleW]

What's a non-constructionist, then?

You know, so I don't know why you're asking.

Loose constructionist or people who view it as living document.

This, more or less.

Yes but I'm very specifically asking do you see yourselves as strict constructionists?

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

It says arms, not guns.

 

[Byron In Exile]

You know, so I don't know why you're asking.

Loose constructionist or people who view it as living document.

Ah. You mean the people who make stuff up and pretend it's what the Constitution says?

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

It says arms, not guns.

It's the little things like that that make me smile. It's not the document that's living, society is. When phaser pistols are invented, it's covered.

 

[Peregrinator]

You know, so I don't know why you're asking.

Loose constructionist or people who view it as living document.



Yes but I'm very specifically asking do you see yourselves as strict constructionists?

I answered you in that other thread, but no, I do not see myself as a strict constructionist.

Mostly because I'm not entirely happy with any label at any time. I'm not sure what that one implies.

The Constitution contains within it a provision for repealing or amending parts of it. I know that's obvious, but I tend to facts, and that's the one that's relevant to your question, I think.

 

[eyer]

I almost begged you not to go King0 on this...

...and you did anyway.

I have no idea how friggin' weak weasels are...

...but your demonstration here makes you the weakest one I've ever seen.

 

[KyleW]

I almost begged you not to go King0 on this...

...and you did anyway.

I have no idea how friggin' weak weasels are...

...but your demonstration here makes you the weakest one I've ever seen.

I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand,

I'm actually curious. Some people see the constitution as a living document, others don't. And I'm trying to open up a discussion. Take your attempts at a pissing contest somewhere else.

 

[cjh]

There is a very real difference between originalism and strict construction. Heller, a split decision, exemplifies originalism. It probably does not reflect strict construction.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Why aren't we talking bazookas?

 

[cjh]

Why aren't we talking bazookas?

Or sawed-off shotguns.

 

[eyer]

Some people see the constitution as a living document, others don't...

...next on Oprah!



And don't worry...

...I have no doubt King0 will insert himself in this thread at some time and Google-straighten everybody's azz out.

Oh, and btw:

It's Constitution with a capital C...

...I realize it's probably no big deal to you, but it's strictly required if you actually do want to have a meaningful discussion of it. Elsewise, without that reverence it's rightfully due, this will just turn into another subjective mosh pit.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

"Strict constructionism," as I understand it, is an even narrower basis for Constitutional interpretation than the doctrine of "originalism" with which it is often confused.

Strict constructionists place far more emphasis on the specific meaning of the specific words than the original contextual meaning of the legislative authors.

That's one reason why it is so funny observing liberals who fancy themselves as legal progressives trying to constrain Second Amendment rights solely to the support and functioning of the "militia." That is a classic exercise in strict construction, and they are, in all likelihood, oblivious to the irony.

In my opinion, originalism does not necessarily solve every Constitutional dilemma, but I fail to see how any honest, conscientious examination of a law or Constitutional provision can begin from any other perspective. For example, the framers could not have possibly anticipated how the protections of the First Amendment would apply to broadcast journalism over TV and radio. But if jurists today don't have a clear understanding of how the framers meant those protections to apply to colonial pamphleteers and what they hoped the country would gain from the free flow of ideas, then our courts have no intelligent basis by which to set a new "interpretive plowshare" into uncultivated "legal ground."

Judicial modernism or "living Constitutionalists" cannot possibly hope to have any credibility if their creative legal conclusions for the current day cannot be shown to have logically and rationally traversed a path from an unambiguous legal port of origin.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Does NO mean no? And if it does not who decides what anything means?

But the Constitution is irrelevant, because pols and bureaucrats routinely ignore it and break our laws to suit themselves.

 

[KyleW]

...next on Oprah!



And don't worry...

...I have no doubt King0 will insert himself in this thread at some time and Google-straighten everybody's azz out.

Oh, and btw:

It's Constitution with a capital C...

...I realize it's probably no big deal to you, but it's strictly required if you actually do want to have a meaningful discussion of it. Elsewise, without that reverence it's rightfully due, this will just turn into another subjective mosh pit.

Oh capital C? I assume you make the point because you want me to show respect to the document. Yea, I'll abide by that as soon as people say President Obama, or Mr. President in respect to him. It's a silly little jab to try, why bother throwing it in?

I don't know who you are or care to play little games. If you want capitalization, then seek it elsewhere.

I just read your post on the other thread so I now have some reference. I guess KingO is the oreo man. But I don't post links, and C & P stuff. I wanted to have a discussion about the different ways people view the constitution but apparently you're so used going douchey during discussion that you just couldn't help yourself.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Oh capital C? I assume you make the point because you want me to show respect to the document. Yea, I'll abide by that as soon as people say President Obama, or Mr. President in respect to him. It's a silly little jab to try, why bother throwing it in?

Little-c constitution refers to any constitution. Constitution refers to the US Constitution.

And, yes, it's President Obama, not president Obama.

 

[KyleW]

Little-c constitution refers to any constitution. Constitution refers to the US Constitution.

And, yes, it's President Obama, not president Obama.

It's picking at a point that is really meaningless. I referenced the second amendment in my OP. We know we're talking about our constitution. So if we're picking, I expect everyone to properly refer to our President.

 

[Byron In Exile]

It's picking at a point that is really meaningless. I referenced the second amendment in my OP. We know we're talking about our constitution. So if we're picking, I expect everyone to properly refer to our President.

Who's referred to him as "president"?

 

[KyleW]

Who's referred to him as "president"?

I guess you have a lot of people on ignore.

How many threads do you see in the front two pages that just refer to him as Obama?

He is President Obama. Not Obama. Not president. Not obummer.

To be honest I don't give a fuck how people refer to him. We know who and what we're talking about. And if you don't, then disconnect from the internet.

But since a point was stupidly made about the capitalization of constitution in a thread that was clearly about our constitution, then now I'll expect from here on out to see "President Obama" when speaking about him.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=44005228&postcount=1057

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=43908043&highlight=Obama#post43908043



http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=43868524&highlight=Obama#post43868524

Stop being disrespectful to President Obama. When you do that, I'll capitalize C in constitution every time.

 

[Liar]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Any editor worth half a damn would send this line back with a giant red mark. It's like they intentionally made it gramatically ambigous.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Any editor worth half a damn would send this line back with a giant red mark. It's like they intentionally made it gramatically ambigous.

There's no ambiguity in it.