And here is our next big fight for freedom:
http://dprogram.net/2009/07/05/strange-martial-law-via-food-control-hr-2749/

Nowhere does the Constitution sanction flogging and, aside from slavery which was properly eliminated by amendment, nowhere does it negate any citizen rights that we, today, think should be protected.

It does however say “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”

There’s not a lot of interpretation required for that phrase and the principle is just as legitimate and integral to freedom today as it was then. But, today, there are no end to the exceptions that the Supreme Court has read into that short simple dictum.

The Constitution is a prescription for government. You can’t give government the authority to redefine what it says and still expect the document to be effective.

As it stands now, the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court decides. There’s an amendment process to facilitate modernization, if required, but government doesn’t even propose amendments anymore because there’s no need. They just declare it a “living document” and change it’s meaning at will.

Because 99.99% of the folks are improperly educated wrt our form of government, natural law, Rights, and such.

If the Constitution was a “living document” to be reinterpreted as needed, why the f–k did the Framers implement such a rigid method of change, ie the amendment process. Answer: Because the Constitution IS NOT a living document to be reinterpreted as needed. If you want change, AMEND. If the majority agrees, you win. If not, you lose.

And since none of the branches of government hold any authority to interpret (research fundamental law theory and then think a while), just who interprets. Subordinates do not define superiors.

Tiocfaidh ar la!

Also, there are just too many areas open for interpretation. I dare say you and I could read the exact same passage and get diametrically opposed interpretations. If the constitution wasn’t meant to be flexibly interpreted, it would have been 200 pages long and go into deep detail. It would also have a attached glossary.

Take a deep breath and think about this sentence from Dave Krueger’s post: “Back in the 18th century they didn’t have television where Satan could beam naughty words directly into your children’s heads.” That is all.

–J.P.

At one point the majority of the population of the United States believed that slavery was just and right, that alcohol should be banned and that women shouldnt vote.

Also we dont live in a democracy, we live in a constitutional/representative republic… this helps (sometimes) to keep the majority from trampling on the rights of the unpopular minority.

I don’t particularly care for the “living” Constitution that allows for government that is continuously growing and expanding into new areas; to me that is too close to “metastasizing”. But, I suppose I should be more open-minded. After all, cancer is alive, right? Not great for the host, but alive…

Yup, just the way most self-proclaimed “christians” I know would be lining up to crucify their supposed savior if he suddenly showed up and started spouting his pro-tolerance/anti-hypocrisy views.

Nice marketing campaign there Reason. I’m sure libertarians will make huge gains in the next elections.

No one, Republican or Democrat, advocates scrapping the Bill of Rights. They just believe in interpreting them according to modern circumstances.

Back in the 18th century they didn’t have television where Satan could beam naughty words directly into your children’s heads. They didn’t have guns that could actually shoot without having to reload. People weren’t gaming the 4th Amendment by breaking laws in their houses and vehicles. Society wasn’t perpetually on the verge of apocalyptic collapse from an people walking around with pockets full of drugs and child porn. Finally, they didn’t have terrorists who hate us for our freedom.

Thankfully, we have three branches of government who, if they agree on anything, believe that the Constitution is a “living document” that can mean whatever it needs to mean at any given time. Just remember, this is a democracy. If a majority of the population thinks the word FUCK should be banned from existence, who the hell are you guys to complain about it? You should just go start your own country, you gaggle of whiny-ass pussies.

[I]t’s unsurprising (if a little sad) that so many people would be opposed to the basic freedoms outlined in the first ten Amendments, given that the highly symbolic placement of these rights was essentially a prediction on the part of the Founders that later generations would desire to circumscribe them.

JP, I wish I could click the Thumbs Up button fifty times.