Originally Posted by GomerPyle
Originally Posted by abolt300
Gomer, with all due respect, based solely on your insanely great off road driving ability, I have to disagree. The constitution has not been interpreted literally as written, on any number of issues. Like this one for example: the 2nd amendment and the right to keep and bear arms. When the 2nd was written, the most powerful weapons in the army were cannons and common folk could own and keep one at their house. As weapons advanced, it was determined that only the military could have certain ones. The supreme court upheld the federal ban on fully automatic weapons for civilian ownership that took effect on May 19, 1986. The SC saw no relevant use, for civilians to have full auto weapons, so they simply tightened up the definition of what the 2nd amendment actually meant. At the time the 14th was written, it was done solely to allow the freed slaves to obtain citizenship. At the time, you couldnt jump on a flight and be in the US from Europe, Africa, or Asia in a matter of hours. Birth tourism was not a thing and not even contemplated by the founding fathers. It was not ever even assumed, that people openly would violate immigration laws and come into the county illegally. Neither was it assumed that the US would ever have a completely open border and millions of people coming in each year, to have babies in the US as a way to almost guarantee their ability to get into the US themselves. This was a similar opportunity to tighten up exactly what the 14th means. They managed to do it for the 2nd but failed to do the same thing with the 14th. My issue is that they are free and loose as to when they interpret the constitution literally and when they feel it should not be interpreted exactly as it is written. One way or the other but not both and sometimes in between. It's either absolute or it is not. It's very clearly written.
You kinda just proved my point though....you criticized the SC for "tightening" what they thought the 2A meant instead of simply ratifying what it actually SAID.......then in the very next sentence criticized the current SC for not doing that very same thing.

I 100% agree that lack of consistency and judges taking political sides is a problem....but the answer to that problem isn't "well their team judged politically in the past, so "our team" should judge politically now". That is absolutely NOT a precedent we want to set, even if it might benefit us in the short term. The answer is to insist that judges rule impartially and uphold what the Constitution SAYS, not what we wish it said. There is a totally different procedure for making it say what you want it to say (and it is difficult, and for good reason)
I can agree with that to some extent and yes that was my point too. Rulings should all be impartial and made to uphold the constitution, as written. Constitutionally, Barrett's is a correct interpretation but it is not correct for today's political situation. Impartial, non-political rulings appear to be a thing of the past, and almost every time there is one that obviously goes against the framer's intent, it is happening in the liberal's favor. Only one side seems to be doing it. Same with the house and senate. Dems get control and ram everything they want through. Republicans get control and say, "well the rules of order say we cant do this and the democrats dont want us to, so it'll make them mad, so we'd better not push this through". What you're saying correct but you're also not correct in my opinion. Liberal justices are going to continue to make liberal rulings to undermine or revise the original intents of the founders and shape the constitution, through their rulings on it, into their liberal view, no matter what the constitution says or how explicitly it is written. If they are the only ones that are ruling to move the interpretation of the constitution in their favor, then we have a major issue that simply must be addressed. The more conservative justices (I'm not sure there is a true conservative justice currently on the bench) can either do the same, to shape rulings to favor a more conservative interpretation, similar to the original intent, or they can allow it to continue for years and years until they are fully consumed and all the standing rulings favor more liberal viewpoints and interpretations. The democrats play the long game and they are eating that elephant one piece at a time, over years and years. The blacks have finally wised up and are leaving the democrat party at a steady pace. The democrats see the hispanics and other illegals as their next voting base, and key to power, which is why they fight so hard to keep them here and having babies which coincidentally are US citizens. Small victories end up winning major battles. It will continue until one day we realize, hey, we're done. It's over, the constitution no longer resembles what was written and I'm not sure how but they won the battle and I didnt realize it when it was happening, but they did it one tiny ruling, one tiny new law, and one tiny little piece of the puzzle at a time. If conservatives and republicans fought and played the game like current liberals and democrats, they wouldnt exist. It's not hard to win when you dont follow the rules or laws, or you just bend them to your favor. The game is being played and it's the fourth quarter and conservatives are still sitting in the locker room, looking at a set of rules that were written 100 yrs ago and not realizing that the rulebook they are holding has been re-written and changed 50 times since then. Then again, maybe they do and they are just part of the uni-party. America will not ever be defeated militarily, it will be brought down, slowly, one piece at a time, from within.

Last edited by abolt300; 06/30/26 01:48 PM.