Kagan

[PLAYER57832]

So yes, it is possible to know their intentions when writing the Constitution because they had been written 11 years prior.

I see, so you believe that the signers of the declaration and the writers of the constitution were exactly the same people?

And you believe that a nation that has gone from 13 colonies to 50 states, that includes cultures not even imagined back then, that includes things like rights for women and people of all color, with airplanes, instant communication, etc.. you believe that what those original writers wanted is utterly complete for our day?

Funny, because it seems that the writers themselves never thought so, which is why they allowed for the process of amending the constitution. They also established a judiciary that would continually, not just once and leave it forever, but continually address new problems, new issues and sometimes, yes, evaluate old decisions in the light of changes in society and law, both.

I clearly said that "Many of the same men...", not exactly the same ones. Those original writers set out the ideals of this nation, all of which revolve around personal freedoms, not government control. The current government wants more control (and has ever since Lincoln, but especially since Wilson), and the judiciary, instead of doing their proper role of reviewing laws by looking at the Constitution, they choose to create new interpretations to "correct social ills". The judiciary has ABSOLUTELY NO responsibility to correct social ills: it's the job of the Congress to pass laws to change those problems as long as they are within the scope of the Constitution.

See, the problem here is definition and I, many others say that just because conservatives wish it were so doesn't make it so.

You wish to claim that the constitution is about personnal freedoms, which is very much is, but you Ignore that it is the government's role to PROTECT those freedoms.
I find it pretty hypocritical of you that you get angry because the court affirms other people's rights to be as they wish whether it is to have an abortion their doctor feels is required or to live in a union with someone they love, etc. YET, suddenly any time you don't get to do what you wish, whether it is carrying a firearm into a public place without any restrictions, etc... suddenly then it is rights that are being impinged upon.

The main difference between a liberal and a conservative is not our values, it is that liberals believe in tolerance of others with whom we disagree, including, ironically enough conservatives like you who would see OUR rights shut down.

YOU get angry because you claim that the court is redefining, correcting "social ills". I say that when the constitution was frist established not everyone was even considered fully human. Women, minorities and even those who did not own property were not fully citizens, were not even fully human in many senses. You want to back off from that extreme, but then like to conveniently go back to the "origins" when it suits you.

The point is that time goes forward, not backward. Change happens and, whether you (or I) agree with any individual decision, the Supreme court IS given the full authority to interpret the constitution. Yes, Congress can amend that. That ability to amend INCLUDES changing laws because congress doesn't like what the Supreme court rules. That does not negate the Supreme court's right to decide, it enhances it.

And, I find it pretty peculiar that you get all fired up about the supposed "social ills" corrections, things that seem very much within the purvue of our GIVEN constitution .. namely protecting the rights of ALL, regardless of anyone else's individual views or morals. YET, you take a null stance when the Supreme court takes the quite extreme step of labeling an artificial entity, namely a company/corporation to be a "person", with rights of free speech. Now THAT was redefining the constitution!

[tzor]

So yes, it is possible to know their intentions when writing the Constitution because they had been written 11 years prior.

I see, so you believe that the signers of the declaration and the writers of the constitution were exactly the same people?

And you believe that a nation that has gone from 13 colonies to 50 states, that includes cultures not even imagined back then, that includes things like rights for women and people of all color, with airplanes, instant communication, etc.. you believe that what those original writers wanted is utterly complete for our day?

Funny, because it seems that the writers themselves never thought so, which is why they allowed for the process of amending the constitution. They also established a judiciary that would continually, not just once and leave it forever, but continually address new problems, new issues and sometimes, yes, evaluate old decisions in the light of changes in society and law, both.

First of all, there was overlap between the two groups. Those who were not present did do a lot of correspondance.

How many signers of the US Constitution were also signers of the Declaration of Independence?

Answer

Six. From Pennsylvania, Robert Morris, Ben Franklin, George Clymer and James Wilson; from Delaware, George Read; and from Connecticut, Roger Sherman.

Second of all, I have to start nick picking from the first sentence ...

"And you believe that a nation that has gone from 13 colonies to 50 states ..."

This is so wrong in so many ways that it is not even funny. Let's be clear, the colonies declared themselves "States" (technically speaking not every state called itself a state, but that is a nit pick) in 1776 with the Declaration. The term is somewhat vague. So let's make it perfectly clear. In 1776 13 nationstates were created. They formed the "United States of America." They then formed a league of states as it were under the articles of confederation. That was a miserable failure.

At the time of the writing of the constitution, the 13 "states" were true nationstates in their own right. Several had thier own navies. Each one had their own currency (which was one of the reasons why the articles was a failure). Even after the signing of the Constitution, these states were still, for the most part nationstates (just as the nations in the EU are still nationstates in their own rights). The states still had a significant number of sovergein powers.

• The role of the federal goverment was limited and enumerated with all other powers remaining with the states.
• The states had control of 1/2 of the legislature - The senate
• The states had to approve all changes to the constitution

It is interestng to note that the "United States" was, until the end of the civil war, always in the plural. It is only after Lincoln that the United States became singular, with a supreme federal government amd subordinate states. Gradually as the 19th century ended and the 20th century passed, the powers of the states diminished significantly.

Consider the following: In the years before the civil war, it was common for states to "nullify" federal law within the state. Several northern states used this to nullify the federal laws that required them to return escaped slaves. Several southern states used this to nullify the excessive exercise taxes by the federal government to promote northern industry at the expense of agriculture. Today, the states are so non-sovereign that the thought that they should actually support Federal law when the federal government will not support it is considered political heresy and high treason.

The same thing is true for the judiciary. While the power to declare a law unconstitutional was dreamed up by the earliest justices (it's not in the constitution) the notion that this power is unique to the supreme court is a byproduct of the post Lincoln era.

The writers of the constitution came up with a brilliant plan; by dividing the power instead of concentrating it in one person or a few, they were able to balance the forces of greed that eventually corrupt all governments. This division, both vertical and horizontal was key to the success of the nation. The collapse of the vertical divisions in the 20th century is a major factor in the current mess our government is in today.