20 comments on “Is it absurd to literally apply the Constitution to situations the founding fathers could not have envisioned?”

• 

  alby

  January 20, 2011 at 10:25 pm

  So amend the Constitution. We can do that

• 

  Ron K

  January 20, 2011 at 11:02 pm

  because

  that is all

• 

  da_hal

  January 20, 2011 at 11:26 pm

  no, because they were smarter than us. it is not absurd.

  if you read the first amendment, they had the foresight to cover all forms of communication, not just newspapers and pony express.

• 

  What Happened to the Patriot?

  January 21, 2011 at 12:24 am

  The constitution does not give the government the power to regulate our markets.

  Just like it didn’t give us the right to invade Iraq, police the world, and pass bills like the Patriot Act.

  But it happened anyway.

• 

  Xinio64-Noldor Mage

  January 21, 2011 at 12:34 am

  It’s the same thing with relying on a 2000 year old book of fairy tales (AKA: the bible) for moral guidance in the 21st century. It’s a stupid thing to do. Things need to be updated and expanded upon in these new times.

• 

  Big Bear

  January 21, 2011 at 1:15 am

  Common sense.

• 

  MisterTattiePie4U

  January 21, 2011 at 1:31 am

  That very argument is even one of the differences between members of the Supreme Court. I doubt it will be resolved, or go away any time soon.

• 

  Cody The Conservative

  January 21, 2011 at 1:36 am

  No it’s not. The founding father faced pretty much the same things we do today. And they made the Constitution to be a document that can be applied throughout the years.

• 

  8***L

  January 21, 2011 at 1:40 am

  Let’s just shape it anyway you want – then what’s the point of it?

• 

  vwvw20

  January 21, 2011 at 1:41 am

  The Constitution covered all possibilities by allowing the States and Local jurisdictions put into place laws not covered by it. Seems Democrats can only read the first few sentences of the Constitution if they thing EVERY issue is a Federal one.

• 

  grump56

  January 21, 2011 at 2:12 am

  Pretty absurd yes. That is why there is a bunch of amendments to that fine writing.

• 

  as.erwin

  January 21, 2011 at 2:22 am

  That is exactly the point of the 10th amendment!
  I mean, the bill of rights hasn’t been much affected by technology.

  In fact, I remember Conservatives using that exact same logic to justify wiretapping of foreign nationals on U.S. soil.

  But here is the beauty of the Bill of Rights. You can wiretap anyone you want without violating the 4th amendment… simply by not using what you hear to prosecute! (and by the way, the wiretapping plan was/is only for intelligence gathering, never has it been used to prosecute ANYONE!)

  I think there is plenty of room here. The Bill of Rights is pretty broad… as for the internet, that is (I admit) a tough one. But, consider this… MANY countries restrict all internet traffic to their own country. We are one of the only countries on earth that can literally surf the ENTIRE web… and states still have rights in regard to prosecutions.

  So far, so good… IMHO.

• 

  bellachris

  January 21, 2011 at 2:53 am

  The constitution can be applied to these issues if you understand the background of those that created it or what it actually says. What it mainly does is give the states power to decide these things in their own individual legislative branches, not make the federal government the bloated overpowering radical bureaucracy it is today. Maybe you should read the constitution…

• 

  GoYankees&Giants!

  January 21, 2011 at 2:59 am

  No. I recommend that you read a book called: “The 5000 Year Leap: A Miracle That Changed the World”. It will change your mind about the constitution.

  http://www.amazon.com/5000-Year-Leap-Miracle-Changed/dp/0880801484

• 

  ruth

  January 21, 2011 at 3:43 am

  Taking your example, I think the founding fathers would say if it isn’t in the US C, the government cannot do it. On this basis, I don’t find strict constructionism absurd at all. What is absurd is liberals’ lack of understanding about our position.

  The interstate commerce clause, in the case of the internet, is a stretch. It is the worldwide web, not the US web. The US government has no “compelling need” to regulate it, no power to tax it and therefore, should keep their hands off it. What’s so difficult to understand about this? Now, safety issues, such as preventing terrorism or restricting sites which are not protected by US free speech (such as child porn) are another matter and are within the power of the government according to the US C. What remains is for the balancing test between our personal freedoms and the government need to fulfill its obligation to keep us safe.

  Added: Regulating commerce “with” foreign governments is not regulating other foreign governments’ speech. The US government can only curtail the rights of Americans according to the balancing test I mentioned above. The US government cannot usurp another sovereign any more than another sovereign can usurp the US. The phrase “caveat emptor” comes to mind, especially today with the internet. Don’t do business with foreigners on the net and you won’t need Uncle Sam to play nanny.

• 

  dewdrop

  January 21, 2011 at 4:33 am

  I think your point is well taken. There are indeed new situations that require a new look at the Constitution. I feel that as long as our courts do a good job of handling this problem we should let them. But when they fail, our recourse is to amend the Constitution to bring it up to date with current affairs. On the other hand, the courts have no right to change the meaning of the Constitution on common things that have not changed, as freedom of speech.

• 

  Willows

  January 21, 2011 at 5:08 am

  The states should have the power and not the federal government. Where have I heard that before ? Oh yea, it was the constitution.

  Term Limits for Congress, Now !

• 

  David H

  January 21, 2011 at 6:06 am

  “Why should we assume the wisdom of a document at face value in any situation when the realities it is applied to could not have been predicted by its makers?

  It’s not a question of the wisdom of the document. Interpretation is part of law. You can’t have a constitution without interpreting it. The idea is common law:

  Common law refers to law developed through decisions of courts and similar tribunals (called case law), rather than through legislative statutes or executive action, and to corresponding legal systems that rely on precedential case law.
  -Wikipedia

  The Founders understood it well. It is what gives the judicial branch its power.

  A constitutional scholar chimes in:

  “The constitution does not give the government the power to regulate our markets.”

  Read section 8 of the US Constitution.

  “Just like it didn’t give us the right to invade Iraq…”

  Section 8 again. Powers of Congress. They voted to give
  Bush the power to declare war. It was constitutional. not smart, but constitutional.

  Ruth, I like your post but I have one problem with it:

  Section 8 again Powers of Congress:

  “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”

• 

  WereTurtle

  January 21, 2011 at 7:05 am

  Given that the Constitution doesn’t govern interstate commerce, our founding fathers didn’t intend to do anything about commerce. That was for the states to decide.

  The Interstate Commerce act began the federal regulation of interstate commerce. That was written in 1887, long after the founding fathers died.

  So, yes, we should take the Constitution at face value. Any right not granted is left for the states to decide.

• 

  khard

  January 21, 2011 at 7:34 am

  @Liberal AssKicker: Why don’t you answer the question rather than spew your hatred?