Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[Topper]

I am not advocated that we halt change, I am advocating that society changes in a way that promotes fidelity to the Constitution. So, I am not really sure why you quoted what you quoted, as I agree with the quote as a whole.

If the meaning of the words of the Constitution have no meaning as you appear to be advocating, then we literally have no Constitution.

WTF is that supposed to mean? It means interpret how you want it interpreted. If it were so easy to achieve that objective everybody would agree. The term you use is loaded and has no interpretive benefit.

[Topper]

There shouldn't be flexibility. The Justices job should be to interpret what was meant when the words were written and apply the facts of a given case accordingly. The argument should be about what the meaning of the words were when written and not about what the words ought to mean today.

What happens to a rigid item? It breaks easily.

[imanihonjin]

WTF is that supposed to mean? It means interpret how you want it interpreted. If it were so easy to achieve that objective everybody would agree. The term you use is loaded and has no interpretive benefit.

Quit being obtuse. You know exactly what it means. When you can simply change the meaning of any word in a contract the contract has no value. Don't change the meaning of the words written at the time they were written.

[imanihonjin]

What happens to a rigid item? It breaks easily.

And what of the flimsy item? It cannot support any weight.

[Uncle Ted]

Quit being obtuse. You know exactly what it means. When you can simply change the meaning of any word in a contract the contract has no value. Don't change the meaning of the words written at the time they were written.

[Topper]

And what of the flimsy item? It cannot support any weight.

Flaccidity is not the object, firmness but flexibility is.

[Moliere]

There shouldn't be flexibility. The Justices job should be to interpret what was meant when the words were written and apply the facts of a given case accordingly. The argument should be about what the meaning of the words were when written and not about what the words ought to mean today.

I'm an accountant and even I can see how silly this post sounds.

[imanihonjin]

I'm an accountant and even I can see how silly this post sounds.

Feel free to present and justify your theory of constitutional interpretation. You too Topper.

[smokymountainrain]

http://bycommonconsent.com/2013/12/2...ch/#more-47938

[Moliere]

Feel free to present and justify your theory of constitutional interpretation. You too Topper.

I've spent many years interpreting accounting literature (FASBs) and while I know it's nothing like Constitutional Law, even the best written rules cannot provide for a black and white answer in every case. In fact, some of the best written laws allow for interpretation based on individual circumstances.

[Flystripper]

http://bycommonconsent.com/2013/12/2...ch/#more-47938

pretty clever!

[imanihonjin]

I've spent many years interpreting accounting literature (FASBs) and while I know it's nothing like Constitutional Law, even the best written rules cannot provide for a black and white answer in every case. In fact, some of the best written laws allow for interpretation based on individual circumstances.

Your first mistake is to compare anything to a FASB. Generally, the Constitution is a document that provides the government with negative rights, that is to say that the Constitution tells the Federal government what powers it has and the Federal government is not permitted to act outside of the specific powers it is granted. The Bill of Rights provides certain protections to individuals' rights, upon which the government has limited authority to act upon. The Constitution was not meant to speak to all issues only the issues defining governmental roles and an individuals relationship with his/her government. It is hard to say that something or the other is unconstitutional, when the very document you look to, to determine the thing unconstitutional, does not speak to that thing. Herein lies the wisdom of our founding fathers....our Constitution can be changed, no not by some ruling by a justice who thinks his idea of defining a governments role a persons life should look like his vision of government, but by the methods outlined by the Constitution itself.

This is not to say that there is a black and white to every issue and that my view of the Constitution would end all debate as to the meaning of Constitutional provisions. However, to me, the only way to retain value to the Constitution is focus the debate on the meaning of the words as they were written at the time they were written (and minds will vary on this issue) not on what ought to be.

[Applejack]

Your first mistake is to compare anything to a FASB. Generally, the Constitution is a document that provides the government with negative rights, that is to say that the Constitution tells the Federal government what powers it has and the Federal government is not permitted to act outside of the specific powers it is granted. The Bill of Rights provides certain protections to individuals' rights, upon which the government has limited authority to act upon. The Constitution was not meant to speak to all issues only the issues defining governmental roles and an individuals relationship with his/her government. It is hard to say that something or the other is unconstitutional, when the very document you look to, to determine the thing unconstitutional, does not speak to that thing. Herein lies the wisdom of our founding fathers....our Constitution can be changed, no not by some ruling by a justice who thinks his idea of defining a governments role a persons life should look like his vision of government, but by the methods outlined by the Constitution itself.

This is not to say that there is a black and white to every issue and that my view of the Constitution would end all debate as to the meaning of Constitutional provisions. However, to me, the only way to retain value to the Constitution is focus the debate on the meaning of the words as they were written at the time they were written (and minds will vary on this issue) not on what ought to be.

Does this mean that you think that Loving v Virginia (which held that laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional) was wrongly decided? As I understand your theory, since interracial marriage (or marriage of any kind) is discussed in the Constitution, it isn't protected by the Constitution.

[Jeff Lebowski]

http://bycommonconsent.com/2013/12/2...ch/#more-47938

That poem is really gay.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I wonder what his excuse will be when he decides to eat again? It's got to be some loophole he can create to let him eat while also trying to save face. I'm guessing he'll have a vision or personal revelation telling him his efforts were noble but the Lord wants him to continue his fight against SSM and to do that he needs to have energy so he's now allowed to eat. I'll track his FB page so I can see if I'm right as I figure in about 4-5 days he'll crack....or at least his wife (is he married? probably since no good Mormon is unmarried at his age) will force him to eat.

Think again, senor Aggy. SU's favorite Mormon is prepared to give his life in support of this noble cause.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...usaolp00000009

"Some things in life are worth sacrificing one’s health and even life if necessary. I am but a man, and do not have the money and power to make any noticeable influence in our corrupt system. Nevertheless, I can do something that people in power cannot ignore."