And more to ideology and should the right shut their mouths when Democrates don’t read the constitution with the same bias as a right winger
ACTUALLY the constitution does allow congress to regulate interstate business. What that really means is up to you
ACTUALLY the constitution does allow congress to regulate interstate business. What that really means is up to you
ACTUALLY the constitution does allow congress to regulate interstate business. What that really means is up to you
Home » The Constitution » Since the constitution is small (only 4543words) does this make it more open to interpretations?
Since the constitution is small (only 4543words) does this make it more open to interpretations?
Posted in The Constitution and tagged as 4543words, Constitution, interpretations, more, only, open, Since, small, this
10 comments on “Since the constitution is small (only 4543words) does this make it more open to interpretations?”
Leave a Reply
Mark
May 12, 2010 at 2:25 am
All the democrats say it just a marshmellow that can shaped how ever THEY want it.
Demorates have become the ANTI-AMERICAN party
It is very clear what they are trying to do.
obama at the helm !
Master Obi Con
May 12, 2010 at 3:01 am
The Federal govt taking over banks, GM, health care, etc…is no where in the Constitution, and isn’t open to interpretation.
Mogollon Dude
May 12, 2010 at 3:14 am
No , the simpler the better to understand .
FreetobeFree
May 12, 2010 at 3:48 am
No. If liberty is up for interpretation then it isnt really liberty.
Fan of Reductio ad absurdum
May 12, 2010 at 4:31 am
no, less open to interpretations.
Nathaniel
May 12, 2010 at 4:39 am
The Constitution is subject to interpretation but conservatives believe that interpretation should be based on the general principles & intent of the founders who wrote it. This is available in the Federalist Papers, the founders’ correspondence, etc. This is fundamentally opposed to interpreting the Constitution according to the changing winds of current political expediency &/or absent any knowledge of the founders’ intent, as favored by the left.
BHO's drug dealer
May 12, 2010 at 4:48 am
NO, the Constitution is “short” because it is very clear and easy to understand, it does not need to be “interpreted” it needs to be followed
its a very simple, easy idea to understand, in fact any sane, clear minded 8 year old can understand exactly what the Constitution says
Toni
May 12, 2010 at 5:29 am
Yes to your question, and that is exactly what was intended. The framers of the Constitution were definitely thinking ahead. They knew that as times change, so do societal norms. For the Constitution to be able to survive, it had to be flexible enough to change as the country changed. They put in the important ideas but did not elaborate on how exactly these ideas would be implemented. Because of their foresight, the US Constitution is both the shortest and the oldest written constitution still in use by any country today.
I’m not really sure I understand your comment about anyone shutting their mouths? You might want to read the First Amendment to the Constitution about the right to free speech, which is a right belonging to everyone in this country.
The framers of the Constitution were all classic liberals and they wanted to create a country that thrived on diversity and change. Remember that it’s easy to respect the rights of people you agree with, but a true liberal will respect and defend the rights of everyone, regardless of personal opinion.
Hope this helps!
Pete'R
May 12, 2010 at 5:48 am
I’m a Brit – and we don’t have a written constitution. If we did, we wouldn’t get any real benefits – but the lawyers would!
While noble words sound impressive they’re bound to be misinterpreted – how can it be posible to understand the words and their meaning of some 200+ years ago?
Libertarian 4 Life
May 12, 2010 at 6:23 am
the principles is what bugs big government advocates. because everybody knows the main principles of the constitution was to have a small republic form of government. look at it this way, the constitution is like a contract that a lawyer( big government advocates) reads around to find loopholes and only focuses on the literal aspect of the document. The Bill of Rights is a good example of anti-big government advocacy. They probably knew people would be like “ahha, it never said anything about freedom of speech, let’s tell everybody what they can and can’t say”. Am I making any sense to you? Pretty much, the liberals want a very literal interpretation, which means that they can go “It doesn’t say anything about ______ being unconstitutional, let’s try that”. While a conservative focuses on the constitution and it’s main principles, they go “_______ advocates big government, which therefore goes against the very foundation of the Constitution.”