How the Constitution should be read and interpreted.
Constitution Lectures 2: Interpreting the Constitution (HD version)
25 comments on “Constitution Lectures 2: Interpreting the Constitution (HD version)”
Leave a Reply
 |
Copyright © 2024. Liberty Walk. All rights reserved |
ArcyTheFurryArcanine
August 17, 2010 at 2:30 am
@freatork1
Blocking me for attacking the credibility of your sources is no excuse for blocking me. It is a genuine objection to your argument for if your sources are invalid or non existent your conclusion remains unsupported. Second OED is invalid for we nor the framers do not use OED. Thus your OED definition is irrelevant. And last Google is NOT a source. You never gave any link to any website. You just said google it, a half ass job of a source. Saying Google doesn’t cut it.
freatork1
August 17, 2010 at 3:02 am
@ArcyTheFurryArcanine – ”
No. I posted the definition of “bear arms” from the Oxford English Dictionary. You then asked for the source. I then said that I’m not subscribing to the OED just to post you a link, but if you Google it, you’ll discover it’s genuine. I said that you’ll get a link to Heller where Scalia himself referred to the definition. Then you just kept repeating that Google isn’t a source and declared that you were the winner. And you wonder why I blocked you?
ArcyTheFurryArcanine
August 17, 2010 at 3:12 am
@shanedk
freatork1 is a pussy. After I disproved his arguments be blocked me and erased all of my arguments. What a coward. You could say 1+1=2 in plain English and freakdork still wouldn’t get it.
shanedk
August 17, 2010 at 3:12 am
@freatork1 Geez…watch the fucking video again! I EXPLAIN that! EXPLICITLY!!!
freatork1
August 17, 2010 at 3:44 am
“…the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified..” – Madison.
You dismiss the original intent because, you say “the only way we could ever determine the original intent of the founders is to read their writings, but.. how are we to interpret those writings.” But then you refer to a letter written by Madison in 1824 to support your argument. But that quote DOESN’T support your argument. It’s a funny way of saying “just look at the words alone.”
Surhotchaperchlorome
August 17, 2010 at 4:36 am
@jbz3
That was fuckwin. X3
shanedk
August 17, 2010 at 5:10 am
@cristoballs Just like with words today, the particular meaning is made clear in context. Especially in the case of the Constitution, since in the debates they were very careful about making sure that there was one clear meaning of the words they chose.
cristoballs
August 17, 2010 at 5:38 am
@shane, as some words often have more than one meaning, won’t we have a similar problem in determing the original meaning as we would in determining original intent?
protest911
August 17, 2010 at 6:09 am
ture
protest911
August 17, 2010 at 6:10 am
wow that awefull help me out here sucker;s in your face police tax land tax taken over your mind yet
evensgrey
August 17, 2010 at 7:08 am
Yes, but religious texts most commonly mean anything by actually SAYING everything, no matter how many times they contradict themselves.
shanedk
August 17, 2010 at 7:36 am
It’s demonstrated by the Double Slit Experiment.
darkfireball12
August 17, 2010 at 8:09 am
“Except that in the case of QM it doesn’t have to take any certain path.”
I know it’s been a week but I really want to know how you know this.
darkfireball12
August 17, 2010 at 9:01 am
No Shane, that is not okay with me. You are NOT allowed to sleep. When I post a comment you better fucking reply within ten minutes OR ELSE!!!. Is that understood mister?!
P.S. I was joking then and I’m joking now. Please take this comment lightly 🙂
shanedk
August 17, 2010 at 9:53 am
Geez, I went to bed! Is that okay with you?
jbz3
August 17, 2010 at 10:26 am
“A document that can mean anything means nothing”
Kinda like religious texts.
darkfireball12
August 17, 2010 at 10:49 am
too*
darkfireball12
August 17, 2010 at 11:23 am
@Alexr197
watch?v=S3-E5Id5Buk
At 2:41 you can see Mauhadeeb28 typing at his computer.
Alexr197
August 17, 2010 at 12:07 pm
He’s resilient as a Imperial Army Soldier. He will type and type until his fingers come off 😛
darkfireball12
August 17, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Why? He’s so easy to refute.
Alexr197
August 17, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Dude, just save your time. I spent 3 hours arguing with this guy over the War on Terrorism. Call it a hard shell to crack, whatever the case is. Just drop it, he’s not worth the effort in commenting back (but seriously, this guy needs to step off his keyboard and do something else besides being on YouTube and the computer).
darkfireball12
August 17, 2010 at 1:21 pm
If the “universe” had a beginning then that means it came from somewhere. Why not just call that somewhere the “universe”? And if you do call that somewhere the “universe” then it’s not really a beginning now is it. Therefore the “universe” can’t have a beginning, which is why it was always here. When I say “universe” I mean all that exists and excludes all that does not. It’s logical.
darkfireball12
August 17, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Yes I can and you can to. The “universe” having a beginning is a contradiction.
Mauhadeeb28
August 17, 2010 at 1:51 pm
I can’t. You can’t either. That is the whole point. There is no possible way to prove any of it. Until then all we have is theories and speculation, but to take an opinion with no proof and call it fact is ridiculous. We can’t prove God does or does not exist just like we can not prove the universe was created or always existed. We can speculate all we want, but it doesn’t simply become fact because you say so.
darkfireball12
August 17, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Ok then why don’t you tell me how it’s remotely possible for the “universe”(all existences) to have a beginning without coming from nowhere?