Bush believes in strict, constitutional constructionism

[AKcurly]

And yet:

He favors amending the constitution

1.  to prevent gay marriage
2.  to outlaw abortion
3.  criminalize flag burning
4.  to balance the budget
5.  to enshrine victim's rights

Lol, read Sunday's Doonesbury - it's a hoot.

BTW, no one has collected Doonesbury's offered reward of $10,000.00 to anyone who would swear they saw Bush in Alabama during the period of time he was assigned there (national guard.)

curly

[NUKE]

Originally posted by AKcurly
And yet:

He favors amending the constitution

1.  to prevent gay marriage
2.  to outlaw abortion
3.  criminalize flag burning
4.  to balance the budget
5.  to enshrine victim's rights

Lol, read Sunday's Doonesbury - it's a hoot.

BTW, no one has collected Doonesbury's offered reward of $10,000.00 to anyone who would swear they saw Bush in Alabama during the period of time he was assigned there (national guard.)

curly

I don't see anything wrong with any of these, other than the terms you use to describe each one.

1. to define marriage as between a man and a woman..good
2. to protect human life..good
3.good
4.good
5.to protect victim's rights...good

[AKcurly]

Originally posted by NUKE
I don't see anything wrong with any of these, other than the terms you use to describe each one.

I agree Nuke, but unfortunately, that isn't the point.  The point is that on the one hand, Georgie is saying one thing (strict constitutional constructionism) and on the other hand advocating changes to the constitution.

Which are we to believe?  Both?

curly

[NUKE]

Well, it depends

The constitution allows for change by amendment, so is he really against constitutional constructionism?

maybe I'm misunderstanding what constitutional constructionism means?

[AKcurly]

Originally posted by NUKE
Well, it depends

The constitution allows for change by amendment, so is he really against constitutional constructionism?

maybe I'm misunderstanding what constitutional constructionism means?

Dunno - in this context it means ... sacred document and all changes to the constitution must be "constructed from the original document."  It excludes amendments since constructionism in the face of amendments is meaningless.

curly

[lada]

sometime i have feeling that US is second most HC theocratic country, whitch trying to hide it



Is it still mandatory to say that non sense evry morning before school start ?

[Thud]

Regardless of the issue of constructionism, can't think of better amendments to reverse progress and yet again move somewhat closer to the debilitated moral vision of GWB and his co-religious right goons...

sad and frightening to see the perhaps most influential man of the world without any clue whatsoever.

[Leslie]

Perhaps he should ask you how to do things Thud, since you seem to know what you're doing.




Les

[Mini D]

Sad to see this from you too curly.  You'd think GW didn't give you a reach around on his last visit with the overall quality of your posts lately.

Either that or you're taking your current political cues from bumper stickers.

MiniD

[straffo]

Regardless of the subject of this post how can't the US constitution be changed ?

I mean (for example) should the new constitution have 60% of the sena voter or any other condition ?

[Eagler]

just another  "admire kerry curly" post - nothing of substance folks

look at the alternative curly .... you truely think it is better than the present admin?

[Gnslngr]

If we didnt have radical jusdges on the bench creating law through precidence there would be no need to amend the constitution.  But every time somonthing GOOD comes from the govt some fringe aclu group representing a minority of opinion ssues the govt to change it AND They allways flie this suite with a libral radical judge

[AKIron]

Where'd you'd get the idea that Bush is a "strict constitutional constructionist" Curly?

I've always had the impression that he was more of a "historical contructionist" and interested in the intent of the framers. I don't think we need an amendment to define marriage. However, I'm from the south and don't really see marriage and the family unit disappearing without laws defining marriage in the traditional sense. I could be wrong. If marriage and the traditional family unit disappears in a few generations what do you suppose we'll have in it's place?

[Saurdaukar]

This is horrible.  I think maybe George needs to pay closer attention to JFK II when he takes both sides of an issue.

[lasersailor184]

Curly, I don't think you get what constructionism is.



Constructionism, be it loose or strict, is based solely off of how you read it.  

I.E.  Most liberals favor Loose Constructionism.  This can actually change the meaning of the constitution.  They believe that the constitution is up for interpretation and can be interpretated however they like.  Meaning you can interpret everything from the constitution.

Most conservatives favor strict constructionism.  This means that the Constitution is meant exactly how it is written.  It is not up for interpretation.

Who's right?  Don't know.


However, each side can change the constitution via Ammendment.  There is nothing wrong with this.