The Constitution is a Living Document

[sweetwater5s9]

The Constitution provides for adding amendments and it is clear on the process.   That is the only way the document is "living".

[D2D]

 

Again, 1965hawks reads what isn't written!

Saying the Constitution can be amended only through constitutional means doesn't mean it is a living document that changes with the direction of the political winds!

Read it again, 1965hawks!

Obviously you failed to comprehend what I wrote!

[1965hawks]

Dan: The [C]onstitution can only be amended by amendments[;] [n]ot by creative interpretation.

Dan, I don't remember your objecting to Scalia's "creative interpretation" in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). 

[Dan]

Dan, I don't remember your objecting to Scalia's "creative interpretation" in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). 

What creative interpretation?  Scalia applied the literal meaning of the Constitution.  The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  That's not a "creative" interpretation.  That's a direct reading.

No wonder you didn't hear me object to it; because "it" never happened.

[KensanIV]

Sweetwater, Thanks, I appreciate the research that you are willing to do in order to prove the left-wing Obama lites wrong, as well your patience.  I would have told them they were full of **it and go pound sand up their patooties.

[1965hawks]

Dan: What creative interpretation?

Scalia's judicial activism in District of Columbia v. Heller. That creative interpretation, Delusional Dan.

Scalia applied the literal meaning of the Constitution--"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." 

That's not the literal meaning of the Second Amendment, Delusional Dan. That's Scalia's "creative re-interpretation of the Second Amendment, which, in effect, rewrote that amendment and changed its meaning entirely. In 1791, the states ratified the Second Amendment with the understanding that it would eternally preclude Congress from making any law that would infringe the right of the people to render service in a state's federally recognized militia without due cause. The great fear at the time was that Congress might some day pass laws that would disarm state militias. The constitutional right to own, possess, or have access to firearms for personal use was never the issue. And the states, whose primary concern was the preservation and efficiency of their militias, would had never ratified the Second Amendment  had known they were ratifying a constitutional amendment that protected the peoples' personal firearms rather than the military arms of their "well-regulated militias."


That's not a "creative" interpretation.  That's a direct reading.

Obviously, you're still confused, Delusional Dan. Compare the so-called originalist Scalia's creative interpretation of the Second Amendment

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

to the direct and original reading of that amendment.

"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." 


No wonder you didn't hear me object to it; because "it" never happened.

[1965hawks]

Dan: No wonder you didn't hear me object to it; because "it" never happened.

Oh yeah, Dan, "it" did happen. Scalia's judicial activism was in full view and his creative interpretation of US history and the Second Amendment was witnessed by all. But you apparently didn't object because you had your head crammed up either Scalia or Lapierre's lying ass.

[sweetwater5s9]

Sweetwater, Thanks, I appreciate the research that you are willing to do in order to prove the left-wing Obama lites wrong, as well your patience.  I would have told them they were full of **it and go pound sand up their patooties.


Thanks.   It is hard not to at times... 

[1965hawks]

weetwater,


Thanks, I appreciate the research that you are willing to do in order to prove the left-wing Obama lites wrong.


KensanIV, reply#124, 25 April 2016.



KensanIV, I hope you aren't referring to sweetwater5s9's sloppy research that got her ass nailed in
"Militias and the Second Amendment, Abortion, and Feminism," reply #141, 25 April 2016.

LOL

[sweetwater5s9]

You were already debunked on militias and the Constitution, hawk.   No need to keep lying...

[Dan]

Scalia's judicial activism in District of Columbia v. Heller. That creative interpretation, Dan.

That's not the literal meaning of the Second Amendment, Dan.

Delusional Hawk,

Why do you think the Constitution does not say what it says?

[D2D]

You see 1965hawks believes the Second Amendment is the only part of the "Bill of Rights" that doesn't apply to the people!

As if government fears having its arms taken from it!