I had a debate on another BB with a 'bagger calling himself a "strict constructionist".

[arbusto_baboso]

He was really very transparent, too, as 'baggers aren't nearly half as smart as they think they are.

In any case, on what is SUPPOSED to be a non-political board, he started in about how anyone who isn't a "strict constructionist" like himself is a fake patriot at best.

I couldn't leave that alone, even knowing that his post - and my reply - would likely be deleted in short order.

I asked him what he would bring back or change in order to be strictly in line with what the Constitution actually says. Without waiting for a reply, I stated that the Founding Fathers were obviously okay with slavery, and did he want that restored to its rightful place? He hemmed and hawed, knowing he couldn't really answer that question either way without looking like an ass. So I followed up by saying that since the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written in the late 1700s, perhaps we should also interpret the 2nd Amendment to allow citizens to only bear the arms that were available in that time frame, since that would only be "strict construction".

When he stated that my 2nd Amendment example was ludicrous (yes it was, but I was trying to make a point), I concluded by telling him that he was not in fact a strict Constitutional constructionist, but he wanted to interpret the Constitution to support certain points of view, just like I do. I told him that we were no different from one another, except that I have the intellectual integrity to admit it.

Shortly after that. All our posts were deleted. But I can only hope I shook his religious fervor a little.

[FreakinDJ]

1. "Dick Obstructionist" maybe

[arbusto_baboso]

3. So, would that make him a Koch Blocker?

:hide:

[FreakinDJ]

5. Well played

[patrice]

2. That's good work!

[unblock]

4. strict constructionism is a great example of "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds"

in order to be a strict constructionist, you have to believe that the process is more important than the results; that the literal word is more important than common sense; and that if there's any problem with the narrow interpretation, it can be fixed only by amendment, and in the meanwhile, it's perfectly fine to insist on ludicrous interpretations.

if it were discovered that there was a secret, long lost amendment that was in fact properly ratified and now that we know about it, it's a valid part of the constitution in every way, and it said something completely outrageous, say, that first-born children of indian decent were to be executed.

well, a strict constructionist would be stuck and would have to say that these executions would have to be carried out until the constitution could be properly amended to repeal this crazy clause, even if that process were to take a few years. the executions would have to continue in the meanwhile, and any judge that tried to put a stay on them would be an "activist judge legislating from the bench" and they would have to be subject to impeachment.


it's the strict constructionist who can look an innocent man in the eye and say, "damn shame the jury came to the wrong conclusion, but you get a fair trial, not a correct trial, so i must wring the life from your neck now."


in short, strict constructionism, as with most republican thought, is based on the notion that a theory need only be consistent; it need not incorporate any facts. there is no testing of the theory. if it's consistent, it works, period.

[arbusto_baboso]

6. And the problem with most "strict constructionists", as I was trying to point out...

Is that they're not. Not really. because as you state, such a position is totally at odds with facts and how the world actually operates, and is unsustainable in the long run.

[MattBaggins]

9. Strict constructionist is like "porn" or "nympho"

A strict constructionist is one who writes opinions I agree with. An activist is one who writes opinions I disagree with.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[unblock]

11. i never said process is irrelevant. i only said that it doesn't completely TRUMP results.

that's why we have due process of law is conducted by people, not machines, and why we have judges using judgement instead of computers mindlessly applying legal code.

that's why the nazis were permitted to PEACEFULLY march through skokie but why they couldn't do anything more than that to deliberately provoke those the jewish residents into violence.

that's why both republicans and democrats keep changing the rules when they don't appear to be working properly. well, eventually.


and what kind of grown-up interested in a real discussion makes ad hominem attached, dismissing the proponent of a point of view he disagrees with as childish?

[originalpckelly]

7. There is nothing wrong with reading a law the way it is actually written.

However, I also think the US Constitution is an out-dated piece of governing technology that needs to be updated for the 21st century.

Not reading a law with it's original meaning intact is what lead to the torturing of detainees, for example.
That dick John Yoo wrote the Bybee torture memo in such a way that it was possible to torture someone.
That happened because he read into the law an absent meaning.
I'd suggest the doctrine of a living constitution is one of the reasons that this happened. There is a reason the framers wrote a codified constitution, and not wiggling out of it is one of the reasons it was done.

[arbusto_baboso]

10. Your post title needs a qualifying statement.

There is nothing wrong with reading a law the way it is actually written, IF THE LAW IS STILL RELEVANT AND APPLICABLE TO THE SITUATION FOR WHICH IT WAS WRITTEN.

[originalpckelly]

12. If the law is outdated, strike it.

Don't simply imagine a false meaning in the law.

That's the problem, we feel we can do this without a real legislative process.

[arbusto_baboso]

13. Shouldn't THAT also require a legislative process?

After all, the process is important, right? Can't just go striking laws willy-nilly...

[originalpckelly]

14. Well, that is implied.

:eyes:

Either that or I was implying we should leave laws up to a good game of bowling.

[arbusto_baboso]

15. But it wasn't stated.

And I never assume that people are consistent in their logic.

So, "striking" outdated laws would also require a legislative process. Which means, in effect, it would never actually happen. Thank you for answering my questions.

[unblock]

16. you wrote a fraudulent, political memo that would not stand up to proper scrutiny.

it was a political fig leaf to provide the pretense of legal cover so that the torture-lusting monsters in the previous administration could get their rocks off.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5554134

The Supreme Court decision striking down the military tribunal system for detainees directly rebuked a memo written by a former Bush administration Justice Department official, John Yoo. That memo said that detainees in the war on terror were not subject to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.



NOTHING not the constitution, not an updated version, NOTHING can prevent criminals from violating laws, treaties, and human decency if they're so inclined. the previous administration was hell-bent on torture and they were going to do it one way or another. this is not a matter of strict constructionism or any other form of interpretation of the constitution.

yoo's assignment was to provide a false pretense of legal cover by hook or by crook. the actual nature of the fraudulent justification for torture is a matter of trivia. he could have done it any of a number of ways, all equally illegitimate.