Republicans The GOP's Presidential Candidates

I supported that idea for a long time, but it became clear that what I had considered to be a semantics issue was deeply felt by gays as well as by traditionalists. It did not seem "equal treatment under the law" without the same terminology. The term is apparently important to everybody. To me all legal issues including the "marriage license" could be a civil union and everybody gets the same civil license. Marriage could remain a religious/social term in its traditional form for churches who refuse to accept gays in their religious rituals.

I do not think the succinct document was intended to cover all things for all time. It seem clear to me that the founders made a document that was broadly worded and intended to be flexible, modifiable, and updated as society evolves. Most nations rewrite their Constitution frequently. We have never had to because the document is not inflexible at all.

For instance the constitution gives us the freedom of speech. But freedom of speech is understood two centuries later as a multi-faceted right that includes not only the right to express or disseminate, information and ideas, but also the right to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas.

The founders could not know of radio, television and the Internet, but the Constitution can be interpreted to include electronic and computer journalism under freedom of the press. All natural systems evolve including social and legal systems. The best ones allow for and accommodate this.

But I think it was. It carefully covered the issues of privacy in their time. The Bill of Rights reflects the concern of the framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information.

In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." This means that there are other rights not "enumerated" within the document that are retained as valid in the Bill of Rights. This is important for strict adherents to understand.

Surely the framers could not have dreamed of the kind of privacy invasion that modern electronics, photography/videography, the Internet and other technological advances have created. But they did make it possible to include other basic rights that were not specifically stated to cover instances that they could not yet fathom.

But that is exactly their job! It was understood that political and social disagreements would arise and that the final arbiter would be the Supreme Court who had the duty to define and interpret the Constitution to cover whatever arose. The Constitution cannot be a static document and remain relevant to an evolving reality.

We have hundreds of legal rights that do not appear in the Constitution. They need only be consistent with the principles of the Constitution and it is the responsibility of the Court to determine what does and does not.

They have that right. You have the right to disagree and stand in the parade against it. Freedom is always a good thing.

 

Isn't this interesting . . .

When I made the exact same argument for Hillary, you refused to accept it and insisted that she was a liar. So I ask you . . . how could Trump be broke when he turned right around and made $4 billion dollars.

Unlike the Clintons, who paid off their creditors through their subsequent earnings, Trump stiffed his creditors through bankruptcy.