Popcorn Anyone??

ironpony

Professional Pot-Stirrer
Supporter
She said REinterpret- FYI- you see what you want to see.

There doesn't need to be interpretation or reinterpretation- words mean things.
Injun Injun and I carry on with this discussion on FB. I don't "reinterpret" the Constitution, but contend that it must be interpreted in light of today's reality. "Strict constructionists" contend that the meaning of the Constitution must be limited to the precise usage of the language of 1788: in today's world that is illogical. It is quite logical, however, to interpret the intent the authors of the Constitution set down then, in terms of today's reality.

E.g., the government contended that the contents of a smart phone was open to unlimited search by the government since the Constitution did not specifically mention this device until a recent ruling by SCOTUS. They ruled that smartphones typically held so much data of a personal nature that they were a technological extension of the individual, and that the government shall be required to obtain a search warrant to rummage through them.

There is no possible way that the authors of the Constitution could have conceived of a device like this, or of the intensely personal nature of the data they hold. It is not "reinterpreting" the Constitution that led to this decision, but evaluation of its meaning in light of modern reality that led to it.
 

Gdjjr

Well-Known Member
Injun Injun and I carry on with this discussion on FB. I don't "reinterpret" the Constitution, but contend that it must be interpreted in light of today's reality. "Strict constructionists" contend that the meaning of the Constitution must be limited to the precise usage of the language of 1788: in today's world that is illogical. It is quite logical, however, to interpret the intent the authors of the Constitution set down then, in terms of today's reality.

E.g., the government contended that the contents of a smart phone was open to unlimited search by the government since the Constitution did not specifically mention this device until a recent ruling by SCOTUS. They ruled that smartphones typically held so much data of a personal nature that they were a technological extension of the individual, and that the government shall be required to obtain a search warrant to rummage through them.

There is no possible way that the authors of the Constitution could have conceived of a device like this, or of the intensely personal nature of the data they hold. It is not "reinterpreting" the Constitution that led to this decision, but evaluation of its meaning in light of modern reality that led to it.
Words mean things. Period. Gov't contention is typically contentious to liberty- interpretation doesn't exist without definition- words have meaning. As far illogical is concerned, gov't has no patent on that- one man's trash is another man's treasure- intent is impossible to ascertain unless you (or the District of Criminals) was there when the arguments were made- the federalist papers are the closest we can get though we can also use quotes from the founders- the context of the times (with an eye to the past and the future) is what determined the plain, simple English used- caveats are "interpretation" usually based on a preconceived notion of we have to do something- constitutional or not. Do you want to engage on tit for tat about that little gem? If so we can start with the 2nd amendment-
 

ironpony

Professional Pot-Stirrer
Supporter
Words mean things. Period. Gov't contention is typically contentious to liberty- interpretation doesn't exist without definition- words have meaning. As far illogical is concerned, gov't has no patent on that- one man's trash is another man's treasure- intent is impossible to ascertain unless you (or the District of Criminals) was there when the arguments were made- the federalist papers are the closest we can get though we can also use quotes from the founders- the context of the times (with an eye to the past and the future) is what determined the plain, simple English used- caveats are "interpretation" usually based on a preconceived notion of we have to do something- constitutional or not. Do you want to engage on tit for tat about that little gem? If so we can start with the 2nd amendment-
OK... explain 2nd A.
 

Injun

Rabid Squaw
Staff member
Supporter
How can you not interpret the Constitution in light of today's reality? Our level of technology alone demands it.
Here's what it says and in parentheses, what some have reinterpreted it to mean.
Free speech (except if somebody calls it "hate" speech)
Freedom of religion and expression thereof (unless somebody wants to force you to participate in activity your religion specifically prohibits or if someone feels offended by seeing symbols of it in the town square)
Freedom of association (unless somebody doesn't like your friends)
Freedom of the press (unless somebody doesn't agree with you)
You can have demonstrations to gripe about whatever's bugging you (as long as you have a permit)

OK... explain 2nd A.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A disciplined militia... Basically minutemen. Just regular old citizens who work together in a "regulated," or disciplined, manner and can come together at a moment's notice, fall into formation and function as a unit
...being necessary to the security of a free state... To keep government from becoming an overbearing monstrosity and taking over everybody's life like George III did...
...the rightof the people... you, me and everybody else who live under the authority of the US Constitution
...to keep and bear arms... to own and carry knives, guns and other weapons
...shall not be infringed. ...is not to be limited. Period.
(unless we don't like you or we think what you have is too scary...or if we don't think you "need" it.)

Soldiers can't take over your house if there's no war going on. (unless it's just the local guys on a stakeout)
If there is a war going on, well, we'll just make that up as we go. Yes, it actually says that.

Here's the cell phone mention:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects... The word "effects" covers anything that belongs to you. That would include cell phones. [Jeez, those guys were smart!]
The government and its thugs can't go through your stuff or take anything from you unless they have a warrant. (except if we think you're going to flush it down the toilet, if we think you maybe, might have acquired it through activities we don't like or if we just don't want you to have it and want it ourselves)

You're not required to tattle on yourself. (unless we say you have to...then you have to or we'll throw you in jail)
The government isn't allowed to take your property without compensation (unless we want it for our own purposes and can get the building inspector to say it's condemned)
You can't be tried twice for the same crime (unless we can get you charged in a State court and then a federal court)
_____________

That's just parts of One through Five. Do you really need me to point out how every single one of the Bill of Rights has been reinterpreted since the guys who wrote it made it pretty clear why they did? Technology does not make any difference as to what your rights are.
 

Duck

Bumper sticker slogan goes here
Supporter
Imagine that. Absolutely no legitimate response- from an admitted troll- not taking "this stuff" seriously is the why we are as divided as we are- I'd suggest, first and foremost, to stop telling others what to do. The longest journey begins with the first step. I should do what I want to do as long as no harm comes to another person, or property which is THE point.
Yeah how about drink some beer and get off your high horse before you have a stroke? 🙄

This is a forum for truck drivers. You're not arguing case in front of the Supreme Court or something. Chill the hell out.
 
Last edited:

Gdjjr

Well-Known Member
Yeah how about drink some beer and get off your high horse before you have a stroke? 🙄

This is a forum for truck drivers. You're not arguing case in front of the Supreme Court or something. Chill the hell out.
I don't do alcohol and truck drivers count. Stop telling others what to do.
 

Duck

Bumper sticker slogan goes here
Supporter
I don't do alcohol and truck drivers count. Stop telling others what to do.
Go drink organic carrot juice then. :harumph:

Maybe I'll lobby Big Government and have them pass a law that forces you to drink carrot juice. :D
 

Duck

Bumper sticker slogan goes here
Supporter
WOW! Totally amazing explanation. I think we should reevaluate you as the worst troll on the forum.
He's not a troll. We're the trolls, you idiot. And that bumbledink fella. And dchawk81. And Mike sometimes. 😁
 

ironpony

Professional Pot-Stirrer
Supporter
He's not a troll. We're the trolls, you idiot. And that bumbledink fella. And dchawk81. And Mike sometimes. 😁
I didn't say he was a very good troll... far from it. I said he was the worst troll.
 

Latest posts

Top