Do most Americans still believe in the Constitution anymore?

Aug 2019
Albuquerque, NM
No, that's exactly how law words, and especially contract law. The question of intent is central to what words mean.

For example, when a contract says "payments are due on the last day of the month," does that mean the last working day? The last day even if it's a weekend? Does it mean your payment is late if it arrives after the sun goes down? How do we know "month" is referring to a month on the modern Gregorian Calendar and not the months of the Julian or Inuit calendars?

A reasonable assessment of intent is fundamental to interpreting virtually all law.
that example seems pretty clear to me, payments are due on the last day of the month," you don't get any clearer than that. If they meant "working day" they would have put in in specifically if they thought it out well and drafted it smartly

And people trying to argue intent from people long dead is absolutely pointless. We have over 200 years of history showing that intent doesn't matter, it show the current courts interpret current laws and how that fits into the constitution, you know, how its set up in the constitution itself

And for those that complain about interpretation and fluidity of the constitution, take that up with the framers. They are the ones that kept the constitution short with tons of room for interpretation, and set up judicial branch. To me, that's the beauty of it. To dishonest people, they just use that as a dumb deflection for rulings they don't like
Dec 2018
I never said they nullify Article I. You keep resorting to straw-men which is a sure sign the argument is getting away from you.

I am saying that the 9th and 10th Amendments come chronologically after the general welfare clause and even Article I. To the extent that anything in the 9th and 10th conflicts with implied or expressed intent in earlier versions of the Constitution we are logically compelled to honor the language of those later amendments.

Let's get to what they actually say (emphasis added):

  • The 9th: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

  • The 10th: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

How on earth could anyone honestly read those words and say an open-ended interpretation of the federal governments powers and authorities exists?
Thanks for your idiosyncratic interpretations, but the High Court has disagreed for decades. If the courts now adopted your ponderous reasoning and rejected Hamilton's, Helvering would be overturned and Social Security ruled unconstitutional. Have you bothered to peruse the 1937 Helvering decision?

Dec 2018
New England
And people trying to argue intent from people long dead is absolutely pointless.
... because the intent of those who agreed to the contract language is manifest. They don't have to define "month" because we can reasonably infer what they meant, and that's the point.

Furthermore, Intent is crucial where contract language is either vague or contradictory. Have you ever been involved in a contract dispute? If so, was intent of either party really a non-factor?
Nov 2005
"hate speech" is like saying "politically incorrect" in that "hate speech" means different things to different people.
Thus, just asking people "Do you think hate speech should be illegal?" is ridiculously insufficient to understand what is really being said. The person being interviewed is left to apply their own definition.

We already have laws on the books that make some "hate speech" illegal or provides a civil lawsuit route for redress for other examples.
# illegal => "hate speech" that incites violence.
# civil lawsuit redress => "hate speech" that amounts to harassment

I personally support the existing laws as I describe above, but do not support making any more "hate speech" illegal.
  • Like
Reactions: NatMorton