Oh I know. I don't think I worded my sarcastic response in a sarcastic enough manner to make it clear that I think today's polls are probably accurate, and Trump is going to be trounced.
Like gravity, Poe's Law strikes again.
Oh I know. I don't think I worded my sarcastic response in a sarcastic enough manner to make it clear that I think today's polls are probably accurate, and Trump is going to be trounced.
Off the top of my head 'living document' might do it
I understand the "living document" theory. Even the Bible has been modernized these days, but the general meaning of the original text hasn't changed. There can be amendments added to the Constitution, like has been done in the past to extend rights of the people, but once you start taking away from the original meaning, taking away rights, or giving special privileges to a limited class, you start down the path of creating a ****storm. IMHO we need to update the Constitution, but only to clarify the original meaning and spirit of the document.
When the latest polls show both Clinton and Sanders crushing Trump in the general election, you know the GOP has the wrong candidate representing them.
RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Sanders
RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton
Y'all better be backing Kasich, then. Because Clinton and Sanders are beating your other boy like a drum too.
Before we start down this path, can you clarify a bit what you mean?
1) I understand "living document" to be shorthand for someone who believes the Constitution should be adapted for modern times, possibly different from how the author(s) intended it. So, would Trump have to use the phrase "living document" or would it be enough for you if he advocated for a change of interpretation to conform to modernity?
I had to think about this. In general 'living document' to me means that a person believes any and all of the Constitution and the BofR are open to reinterpretation. I envision it as a general statement and not a nuanced one. Upon further review, though, asserting that any part of the Constitution might be open to modernization/interpretation other than through the legal processes contained therein would be a bridge too far
2) Would it make a difference if you agreed or disagreed with how he wanted the Constitution interpreted?
I can provide an analogy. Relatively recently, SCOTUS rejected some "living document" style argument in Heller. The majority opinion (and a concurrence) detailed the history of the 2A and overall tried to conform the opinion to the intent of the author(s) - which may have "good" and "bad" results. I say "bad" because some regulations are likely to be supported, because the Founding Fathers tolerated certain regulations.
I would like to think that it would not. As much as I would like a Constitutional right to privacy I know one does not exist and would not want to see reckless attempts to ammend the document to add one. 2A though for me would be a bad analogy. I believe that 2A has no limits and the founding fathers fully intended for citizens to have access to and to possess the best weapons they could afford up to and including current military weapons. Thus I would view any restrictions as against the intent of the ammendment and any removal of said restrictions as moving in a more Constitutionally sound direction
Let's say for the sake of argument, Trump decides that - even though it is clear that reasonable regulations were intended in the Constitution [what? not sure we are reading the same document]- that he will have the Constitution interpreted such that every US citizen is allowed to purchase every kind of armament. That would make him popular on INGO, but would be a non-traditional/"living document" interpretation.
See above. In this case I would not see it as reinterpreting the Constitution so much as restoring its intent. I do not set much store by 'traditional' interpretation unless it is clearly underpinned by the document. NFA and GCA are 'traditional' interpretations that need to be eradicated as the language of 2A clearly states that there should be no restrictions on a citizens right to keep and bear arms
Would you put Trump in the "living document" category for that?
No, I don't believe I would. If Trump were to get in trouble with me I would expect it to be relative to I, IV, X and maybe VII
Its the right to a trial by jury part. The Lewandowski thing may yet become an example
To be fair to Trump, he was goaded into making that statement.
Y'all better be backing Kasich, then. Because Clinton and Sanders are beating your other boy like a drum too.
Is this the Republican Primary Race thread?
Frankly, I like Kasich more than Cruz, but Kasich never really had a chance.
Well, the Constitution itself describes the process for updating it - by amendment. That is the best/only way to truly do it.
As it relates to Trump, I'm just interested in exploring where Trump stands on this issue of interpreting the Constitution and whether his statements on the topic influence INGO Trump supporters.
Many a Republican's political campaigns have been ruined because they've been goaded into making awkward statements. The politically savvy candidates don't tend to go for it. Shows Trump is weak in that area. But I bet he learns from it.
At this point I almost don't care which R it is. They all scare me on some issue or other. Kasich scares me on more issues than Cruz. Trump scares me on more issues than Kasich. I'm just voting for not-democrat.
No, it's just one of the [STRIKE]many Trump threads[/STRIKE] eightfold paths to Trumplightenment. Either way it's fair to discuss which Republican has better support with the general public.
Y'all better be backing Kasich, then. Because Clinton and Sanders are beating your other boy like a drum too.
Whatevs. I mean, unless he's a member here, I'm only interested for the sake of curiosity.T. Lex a little off topic (that never happens in a Trump thread, does it?) but of everything I've read in the last few weeks, this guy is best channeling how I feel. It might help you understand what is driving this particular Trump supporter
Why I Support Donald Trump
Whatevs. I mean, unless he's a member here, I'm only interested for the sake of curiosity.
I mean you. Using your definition of "living document" status: asserting that any part of the Constitution might be open to modernization/interpretation other than through the legal processes contained therein.
If I show you that Trump has done that, would you reconsider your support? I'll even stipulate to the following format for 3 examples: I give you an example, you present your retort, and I offer no argument and move on to the next example.
hahaToo obtuse? When I said "...might help you understand what is driving this particular Trump supporter" the particular Trump supporter I was referring to was myself, not the author
"If I show you that Trump has done that, would you reconsider your support? I'll even stipulate to the following format for 3 examples: I give you an example, you present your retort, and I offer no argument and move on to the next example."
Do I have to use logic and be consistent and stuff. That's hard for us Trump voters, you know
Sure, fire away
Nope. Your response is your response, and I'll leave it alone."Do I have to use logic and be consistent and stuff. That's hard for us Trump voters, you know