oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

I understood what you were trying for but I also looked at what you said as an attempt to tell us that our Constitution is also outdated as their thinking is. That is where you were aiming, isn't it?

straightUp Loc: California

Not exactly, but I can see where you might have got that impression. What I am *trying* to say is that our interpretation of the Constitution is out of date. After all, WE are the ones living in the 21st century.

As far as I am concerned, the authors of the Constitution were nothing less than genius, they KNEW that times would change which is why they were intentionally vague on the details and provided the Judicial Branch with the power to interpret the Constitution. Their objective was to create a dynamic constitution that would adapt to the changing times while maintaining the "spirit of the letter" which is essentially described in the preamble.

We the People... In order to... (OBJECTIVE) do ordain and establish (RULES).

So the OBJECTIVE is the actual purpose of the Constitution and the rules are only there to facilitate the OBJECTIVE. The authors prescribed the most intelligent method possible for preserving the relevance of the OBJECTIVE over the changing times by generalizing it as the Constitution's "spirit" and keeping the RULES separate and subject to amendment.

So their thinking was anything but outdated and to their credit this system is still functional 200+ years later. However, there are many so-called Constitutionalists today that aren't following the method. Instead they think the RULES are the purpose of the Constitution.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Surely I am one of your Constitutionalists in that I agree with the early people that we must interpret the thing according to what it says, not what many of us want to change it to. I am what has always been called a strict constitutionalist and that kind of thinking isn't acceptable to most loose constructionists. Most of the loose people want to change the whole document any time they come up against something they just don't like. For instance, those who want to read one thing into the 1st Amendment that is not there, separation of church and state. What the loosies want to see is that those words require that the state not approve of any kind of religion, but too many of them want we Christians to accept Islam in ways other than what they want to see for us.

We can discuss this all day long and I don't think ever come up with much different other than what you call rules and I consider a part of the document.

Thanks for the explanation. We just aren't so very far apart.

ABBAsFernando Loc: Ohio

straightUp Loc: California

Obama the C*******t and all his c*******t followers... They just want to DESTROY the nation! Grrrr!

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Always use an emoticon when you want to be sarcastic. Some people may really believe this one.

straightUp Loc: California

Thanks for the advice... But I assure you the lack of an emoticon was intentional. In this case, "Grrr..." serves the same purpose 'though it's a little more subtle than a winky face, but the comment wasn't meant to be obvious nor do I mind if people think I'm being serious. Also, it was a direct reply to ABBAS, more or less in his own language.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

That Grrr was intended to be anything but sarcasm so I guess you got your point through.