Edwin Vieira, Jr. – four degrees from Harvard: AB (Harvard College), AM and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and JD (Harvard Law School) – discusses original intent and living document interpretations of the Constitution of the United States of America from the documentary “FIAT EMPIRE – Why the Federal Reserve Violates the US Constitution.” The entire film, Fiat Empire, can be accessed at www.FiatEmpire.com or directly at Google Video at http “This Telly Award-winning documentary on the Federal Reserve System was inspired by the well-known book, “The Creature From Jekyll Island” by G. Edward Griffin, and features presidential candidate, RON PAUL. To order a high-quality DVD or VHS tape (by mail) with up to 160-minutes of additional interviews, go to www.FiatEmpire.com To get instant downloads in a range of qualities, go to www.mecfilms.com and select from the “Documentaries” menu. Find out why some feel the Federal Reserve System is a “bunch of organized crooks” and others feel its practices “are in violation of the US Constitution.” Discover why experts agree the Fed is a banking cartel that benefits mainly bankers, their clients in need of easy money and a Congress that would rather increase the National Debt than raise taxes. Produced by William L. Van Alen, Jr., the 1-hour documentary is a co-production between Matrixx Productions and Cornerstone Entertainment and features interviews by, not only G. Edward Griffin, but Congressman Ron Paul (R …
Constitution: Original Intent Vs Living Document – Ed Vieira
25 comments on “Constitution: Original Intent Vs Living Document – Ed Vieira”
Leave a Reply
loya2
August 2, 2010 at 1:45 am
I disagree with the Living Document theory, but he misrepresented it.
buddo1999
August 2, 2010 at 2:03 am
To late for words, Dem’s have tested the grit of America, zip happend!?
So they just keep pushing.
It will take guts to put congress and the President under house arrest for subverting the constitution!
Let the supreme court pick up the pieces!
But any more ignorance of those watching the gates to Washington will be the end of this country! We cannot keep turning away! Who is in charge of the constitution when it’s under defiance!!?? No body!
Chuichupachichi
August 2, 2010 at 2:32 am
There are those who employ the practice of objectivity & others employ subjectivity. But it’s ridiculous that there should even be an argument. For just as with science, subjectivity is undesirable for obvious reasons. As he explained, objectivity does not concern itself with what one particular framer wrote, but the understanding that the writing gives the reader
Thus, “separation of church & state” is not only a mere excerpt from a private letter. But also,
Chuichupachichi
August 2, 2010 at 2:47 am
an extremely subjective, private opinion of 1 particular man. That same man signed, thus agreed with the objectively discernible identification of solely “Congress” being disallowed from making such laws
The horrendous results of employing subjectivity were seen after prop. 8 when it was being taken as far as believing that its unconstitutional for private citizens to vote according to their religious beliefs. Now the subjective ones even want separation of church goers & the democratic process
danwk7
August 2, 2010 at 3:43 am
because in their Utopian view of the world, there needs to be equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. In order to effect social change in society according to their sense of morality, they need a strong powerful central government where the power is taken from the hands of the average man and the taxpayer, and given to political experts who “know whats best” for the majority of men in the community.
danwk7
August 2, 2010 at 4:22 am
The idea of relativism and historicism as it applies to the constitution were originated at the beginning of the progressive movement in the late 18 hundreds. Most of the misinterpretation of the constitution comes from liberals on the supreme court. Its just a fact, simply because the constitution and the bill of rights limit the government in size and in power, and most liberals view this as a wall in front of progress.Progressives want to use the government to engineer socioeconomic equality
Twisteddreamer78
August 2, 2010 at 5:09 am
Correct, there is no word about executive privilege. I’d like to hear your definition of “wing nut”
In order to adequately respond. I do know that Democrats and Republicans are guilty of picking and choosing what they like and dislike about the Constitution and then emphasizing what they agree with while ignoring what they don’t. If you’re trying to attack a single party with this accusation then you’re way off base.
gumpydoood
August 2, 2010 at 5:49 am
If you’re going to speak to the “original intent”, then there is not one word in the document about “executive priviledge”. The problem with the entire subject is that wingnuts always speak about original intent until it interferes with their idea of how things should be and then it flies right out of the fucking window.
Twisteddreamer78
August 2, 2010 at 6:00 am
Actually what Original intent refers to is the literal meaning of the words in the constitution. For example. When it says in the second amendment for example that this right shall not be infringed upon. We believe that it means literally……That the Government does NOT have the power to infringe on those rights. Got it?
There are several elements in the constitution that go against my preferences but I accept them as part of the whole Constitution which is the supreme part of the land.
Texpilot22
August 2, 2010 at 6:31 am
Yes, you make a good point, we were a new born nation in 1789. We have come a long way, to long for us to lose our rights now. Socialism is around the corner, pretty soon uncle Sam will own everything, including our Constitutual rights as free citizens. Socialism with a happy face..
gumpydoood
August 2, 2010 at 6:44 am
It has always been FOUGHT FOR and WON.
gumpydoood
August 2, 2010 at 7:14 am
Four degrees in Bullshit.
gumpydoood
August 2, 2010 at 7:18 am
What wingnuts argue when they speak of “original intent” is really simply “rule it my way”. They don’t give a damned about original intent. For example, there is NOTHING in the Costitution about “executive priviledge” but it diidn’t stop the criminal Bush administration from invoking it every single chance they got.
Go fucking cry in your SOUR GRAPE TEA and let the adults finish their work. Booo fucking hoo.
Texpilot22
August 2, 2010 at 7:53 am
With four degrees, this guy knows what he is talking about. A lot more then the box of rocks we have in office now.
phenom10304
August 2, 2010 at 8:10 am
Right on !
Twisteddreamer78
August 2, 2010 at 8:25 am
Good point.
shopken1
August 2, 2010 at 9:13 am
Or “Claimed” The Constitution is only a piece of paper unless we fight maintain its restrictions upon our government or a poor interpretation of special interests.
Poole1Dan
August 2, 2010 at 9:32 am
“You won’t win any arguments by citing cases especially since the early 1900’s.”
I’m not citing supreme court cases cause I think the supreme court was RIGHT about those issues. they may have been dead wrong. I’d have to read the cases on a case by case basis (no pun intended). the reason I’m citing those cases is to prove my point that the constitution IS ambigious and that there ARE many many legal questions to be answered.
Poole1Dan
August 2, 2010 at 10:29 am
“I’d bet a paycheck you’d be able to find a lawyer that argues”
Yes, thats true. but give me an example of where any supreme court in the history of the USA is guilty of this. Cause as far as I’m concered, they have NEVER challenged obvious things like ‘you must swear on oath to protect the constitution.’
you may yet get an amendment saying grass is blue. but when has that ever happened? you can say the 16th amendment, but that amendment is protected by Article 1 section 8
Poole1Dan
August 2, 2010 at 11:27 am
loophole: an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance.
example: the 1st amendment only says no religion should be established, so left wing statists go out and rule that any mention of God in public is an establishment of religion.
it is because of examples like these that the entire constitution MUST be CLEAR CUT, DETAILED, and PRECISE.
Twisteddreamer78
August 2, 2010 at 12:06 pm
The meaning of the word “people” has not changed.
Look at it this way…..After the Revolution The Constitution basically applied to White men.
After Blacks fought for their rights in the mid 1900’s the Constitution also applied to them…
Then Women Fought for and gained access to the ideals described in the Constitution.
When you step back and look at it, Freedom, personal rights and self government has never been “given”
It has always been achieved.
Twisteddreamer78
August 2, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Not sure this Occurred after the Ratification of the Constitution or even the articles of Confederation before that.
I’m pretty sure it didn’t though.
Twisteddreamer78
August 2, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Define “loophole”…….I can say “the grass is Definitely green” and I’d bet a paycheck you’d be able to find a lawyer that argues Because I didn’t say when the grass is Green or even if the grass is green all the time this must mean that the grass is sometimes possibly blue.
Then a few years later you’ll get an amendment added to the Constitution saying that the grass is definitely blue and citing that court case as evidence.
Now green means blue means pink means purple.
Twisteddreamer78
August 2, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Dan The Supreme court is a long way from being Constitutional any more.
You won’t win any arguments by citing cases especially since the early 1900’s.
The Constitution does not give us rights. they are innate and UNALIENABLE. The Constitution merely lists some of the basic rights to which we are entitled.
They are not granted by the Constitution but by God. They are simply described in the Constitution.
Poole1Dan
August 2, 2010 at 2:33 pm
its not a matter of me misunderstanding what you are saying. its a matter of your premise being ambigious. you make it sound like everybody automatically knows when he’s violating anothers rights. its not clear cut at all. hence why there have been multiple supreme court decisions regarding the right to protest.