This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

What's wrong with looking at the text of the Constitution?

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Politics
  3. What's wrong with looking at the text of the Constitution?

User Info: lilORANG

lilORANG
7 months ago#11
The_Undying_84 posted...
lilORANG posted...
zerooo0 posted...
JOExHIGASHI posted...
They have studied the Constitution more than you


Not this administration


The Supreme Court is not part of the Trump administration, save for one idiot, and he is an extreme and utterly asinine textualist.

I know. I just like insulting Trump.
#FeelTheBern
http://i.imgur.com/q5z4CUu.jpg http://i.imgur.com/6B9oFXh.jpg http://i.imgur.com/sy42Dlf.jpg

User Info: Emerald_Melios

Emerald_Melios
7 months ago#12
I think the SCOTUS referring to this:

First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

User Info: lilORANG

lilORANG
7 months ago#13
Emerald_Melios posted...
I think the SCOTUS referring to this:

First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Nah, the right to abortion was decided on Due Process grounds.
#FeelTheBern
http://i.imgur.com/q5z4CUu.jpg http://i.imgur.com/6B9oFXh.jpg http://i.imgur.com/sy42Dlf.jpg
Barenziah Boy Toy 7 months ago#14
M_Project posted...
How is it not? It's provided in the "common defense".

Right to privacy is not explicitly stated in the text of the Constitution. Do you believe that you shouldn't have it?
You don't need a treaty to have free trade. M Rothbard
{Self-Hating Token Asian of the Ivory Tower's Zionist Elite}

User Info: mrplainswalker

mrplainswalker
7 months ago#15
lilORANG posted...
SCOTUS has literally said that the right to abortion is implied by the Constitution. That's such a weirdly specific thing for the framers to have thrown in there. Isn't that a bit of judicial overreach?

c'mon.


Which is why the constitution needs to be updated. When they wrote it, the 2nd amendment only applied to muskets that took 30 seconds to reload. The 4th amendment only applied to searching physical property, when we now have computers and cloud storage and whatnot.

SCOTUS attempts to shoehorn the constitution into new situations like these, but it's really just ad hoc legislation.
It's like punching a round bottom dummy. We all know it's futile, but occasionally it's fun.
- willythemailboy on the subject of stray orcas

User Info: lilORANG

lilORANG
7 months ago#16
Barenziah Boy Toy posted...
M_Project posted...
How is it not? It's provided in the "common defense".

Right to privacy is not explicitly stated in the text of the Constitution. Do you believe that you shouldn't have it?

Privacy is cool, that makes sense, but abortion is like a specific service. What's next, a constitutional right to orthodontic braces? A right to have my suit properly altered? Just seems to specific to really be found within the const.
#FeelTheBern
http://i.imgur.com/q5z4CUu.jpg http://i.imgur.com/6B9oFXh.jpg http://i.imgur.com/sy42Dlf.jpg

User Info: M_Project

M_Project
7 months ago#17
Barenziah Boy Toy posted...
M_Project posted...
How is it not? It's provided in the "common defense".

Right to privacy is not explicitly stated in the text of the Constitution. Do you believe that you shouldn't have it?

We do have privacy due to the 9th and 10th amendments. If it's not explicitly stated in the Constitution and does not violate/contradict other articles, then that is reserved to the states and the people. Issues due arise for national security however. And I agree with you, it's a slippery slope.

User Info: McSame_as_Bush

McSame_as_Bush
7 months ago#18
M_Project posted...
McSame_as_Bush posted...
Right?!? Like who decided the air force is constitutional? Don't see that in there.

How is it not? It's provided in the "common defense". It's not like the air force infringes on our Bill of Rights or anything. It is the responsibility of the federal executive to provide for common defense granted by appropriations from Congress.


The preamble doesn't grant the government any Constitutional powers or limitations, it's just a...preamble. Article One is where it begins. It specifically mentions the army and navy, but not a single word about the air force!

(Note: of course I think the Constitution allows for an air force, but if you want to look at it in the most textual interpretation possible, it really does not.)
I wonder if you're making people laugh, cuz you're funny, you're funny.

User Info: mustachedmystic

mustachedmystic
7 months ago#19
mrplainswalker posted...
When they wrote it, the 2nd amendment only applied to muskets that took 30 seconds to reload.


What? It also applied to primitive handguns, and squirrel guns.
Guns; freedom you can hold in your hand.
Sampson, Terrordactyl

User Info: fudrick

fudrick
7 months ago#20
mrplainswalker posted...
Which is why the constitution needs to be updated.


Might sound like a good idea, but do you really want anyone currently involved in government to have influence over the text of the constitution?
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
  1. Boards
  2. Politics
  3. What's wrong with looking at the text of the Constitution?

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived