Declaration of Independence

The premise is we accept that there is a trade off between liberty and equality. They build from there.

 

Yeah. We're still waiting for you to show us the White Supremacist groups affiliated with the Tea Party.

More than you can imagine.

I have addressed your O/P more than you have. You posts have been about me.

 

My answer is on-topic because you brought up unanswered challenges. Like the one I posted here.

 

The conclusion is that our founding documents should be considered "living" so extreme far left liberals like crabby can interpret them how ever they see fit.

 

Happy July 4 to all the Americans on the board!!!:wavey:

 

On behalf of all of Americans :We thank you!!

As I type there are thunderous fireworks in the background. But they aren't celebrating the 4th of July. Their explosive noise is sounded every single day of the year!

 

More dishonesty.

And everyone has read it. Stupid question.

 

I can tell you one thing for sure. When extremists try to turn our founding documents into living documents that can be interpreted in any way not intended by the founding creators of those documents then there will be an uprising in this country like it has not yet seen. Just go ahead and test it.

 

... just like they do the Constitution.

 

More dishonesty like usual. Seriously have you no shame?

 

It takes a fool to engage a fool. I should know that. But I'll do it anyway, one time.

The word is "static" which you are fully aware. It is a constructionist document, meaning it is the framework upon which the laws of the land are hung. Your use of the word "dead" is stupid. It is meant to inflame, raise the ire, spark sharp response. I won't do that. And no, that first sentence is not a violation of that intent.

The Constitution of the United States of America is a legal document. Like any legal document, it says what it says and it says no more nor less than what it says. It is the blueprint for writing, legislating and enacting the laws of the land. It just as inviolable in its structure as is a house built from an approved and engineered set of plans. A departure from those plans will not only be met with disapproval by the inspectors responsible for enforcing the building codes, it will also in all likelihood make the structure unsafe. Just so, the Constitution is as static and constructionist as a union contract or a divorce decree.

If a union contract defines the terms under which employers and employees will interact, no action or decision by either party that goes against that contract can be legally taken.

If a divorce decree defines the terms under which a marriage will be dissolved, the property divided and custody of the children determined, no action or decision by either party that goes against the decree can be legally taken.

In either case, there is flexibility available within those frameworks, but nothing that attempts to stretch or redefine that framework is legal, and will be successfully challenged in a court of law by the wronged party.

The framework of the Constitution is equally static and constructionist in nature. It cannot be stretched, redefined, or given a different meaning than that of the original intent. That doesn't mean the civil and criminal law systems of the country cannot be flexible within that framework.

Rulings such as are coming out of the liberal courts are not legitimate in light of the framework in which they must hang. They also will eventually be successfully challenged and overturned by a high court that properly views the Constitutional as a static, constructionist document.