Our Constitution: How Relevant is it?

The Constitution is a remarkable document relevant today as always and as the founder understood it would be a political football vulnerable to partisan misuse. Its why it was written to amended and the governing body removed with the electoral process. I am proud to be American with our tumultuous changeable hot cold system.

I'm proud to be an American, too. That's why I consider it my responsibility to defend our Constitution when others would use it by warping it's intent to fit their own personal agenda. It's time for a few more Amendments too, starting with overturning the SCOTUS Citizens United decision. If anyone believes that that's a strict Constitutional opinion, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell them.

This is the best commentary I have read on the Constitutional tug-of-war that is going on right now, both in the Congress and in the SCOTUS.
The writer is correct that neither the Left nor the Right is completely consistent in their interpretation, but he also makes it clear that it is the Right that is the most flagrant in their distortion and deliberate misinterpretation.

Depending on which way a decision goes, the other political party always says that the SCOTUS is an "Activist" Court. The only thing for certain, to my mind, is that the SCOTUS is, & always been, a political entity, particularly in today's partisan environment. The fact that the Justices are appointed for life, without any real recourse, troubles me, & I don't have a solution.....

Yeah, I don't know enough of the history of the SCOTUS to say that it is more politicized now than it was in the past.
I just know that since Dubya's appointments, there has been a massive turn to the right...and I do not think that change is reflected in the political views of the majority of the American people.
So...if the Court is political entity, why are they opposing the current political thinking in the nation?
It's clear that the answer is...that they have THEIR political agenda, and intend to pursue it, regardless of what the American people want.
To that extent, I would say that the SCOTUS is NOT political...but ideological.

Which is even worse.....

Ha, ha, ha, the beauty of the American Constitution is that everyone can interpret it, every one can be right or wrong, or right and wrong in the same time...

If somebody wants absolute power, the Constitution makes sure that no side ever wins, be it Right of Left.

I think that is the perfect Tic-Tac-Toe game supposed to teach us sportsmanship...

The game is best played by kids, who don't have the necessary experience to realize that it is obvious that there are no winners in the game...

I guess that we, Americans, are still young and don't have the necessary experience to understand that perfect real life does not mean one side or the other being in complete charge...

I see your point Crin, but what is the result now? Gridlock, when our country needs change. That ain't Tic-Tac-Toe. Is that good?

Jim, you see my point, it is right, but you are overlooking a little detail: "If somebody wants absolute power, the Constitution makes sure that no side ever wins, be it Right of Left."

The people in charge of this country today, a least part of them don't want to solve the problem, they only want absolute power, and the Constitution is protecting us... Now it is the grid lock...

I don't agree, Crin. The Constitution is not protecting us. Instead, factions argue about what various text in the Constitution means.
The Constitution is just a vehicle...and a pretty good one...for starting the political discussion.
But the founders were intentionally (I believe) vague. They knew that times would change and society would change...and that interpretations of their broad principles would change.
I think they got it wrong in a few places...like on gun ownership...although even that is subject to interpretation. They didn't say EVERYBODY whould be able to own guns...they said an armed 'militia' should be established.
That is a lot different from every idiot pointing a gun at everybody else.
But, it all comes down to interpretation....

Bert you may think that you don't agree with me, however when you explain why, you show us how much you do...

You see, "us" is an inclusive pronoun, meaning you, I, him, her, them... It protects every one's interests, thus giving you the impression that some are not protected.

You are right, the Constitution was designed to start political discussions, and it was written so vaguely with a very well determined intention to be vague. That is why it is so vague.

Society is a living organism, so the law governing it should be living and allowed to change. However the change is as ephemeral as the society's changes. They are only active for a while, being replaced by new ideas.

That is why the Constitution is the same and the amendments with few exceptions survived the time.

The beauty is that changes don't have to be written in the Constitution permanently, they can be made active by different interpretations which can be overturned if they don't work after a while... Remember your origins in Michigan! The Supremes are famous in the judicial world for overturning themselves on the same constitution line, in two different cases...

You are lucky and you don't really know what changing the constitution means. During my years in Romania the constitution of the country was changed by Ceausescu, probably almost as fast as he was changing his underwear... I remember we studied it in the last year of high school. It changed twice during the school year from September to June of next year...

You are very right, "it all comes down to interpretation". Sometimes our side interprets it, sometimes, their side interprets it, and the wind change, although the basic frame is the same...

By they way, speaking about your Michigan nostalgia, today I heard in the news that one of the Supremes of Michigan, one of the few Liberals in a predominantly Conservative court resigned and the governor, who is a Republican, obviously will bring in another Conservative, boy are we screwed...

Crin has an excellent point in that our constitution structures ou government in a way which prevents any side from having complete power. It also insures that both (or all) sides must work together. Now all we need to do is get them to realize that the common good is for live humans not corporate greed.

The problem with the Constitution is that we ignore it when it's inconvenient. It isn't the document, it isn't what it says, the fault, dear readers, is in ourselves.

If this were on facebook, I'd have been pressing the like button. Exactly. It is no surprise we can't agree on it's meaning today, at times. Neither did the founders.

We sometimes forget that the Founders were people, too. Special largely in their situation and a few among them.

Having studied that period of history pretty extensively, there were no larger than life men there, some had more integrity than others, just like today, but there was a larger than life (at the time) body of age of enlightenment philosophy that motivated the majority of them.

Those people were not larger than life physically, but they were very cultured and educated people, whose political foundation was based on the European Enlightenment, actually post Enlightenment... They had something we very much hate today: thirst for knowledge, and desire to study. Their ideas were not new, however they made sure that they translated them from theory into practice...

Actually they were bigger than life... They were people of ideas, they were thinkers, and they were not ashamed to support their thoughts, no matter how many feathers they ruffled in the process...

It's funny, Franklin picked up some of Voltaire's principles and came up with the American Constitution, the French Revolution modeled itself after the American Revolution, but could not keep its spirit, and that is why a few years later they fell into monarchy again...

Sigh, Crin, speak for yourself, I have a very healthy thirst for knowledge, and desire to study, or I wouldn't have studied them, you should try it, and so do a lot of other people. If you don't, that's fine with me, but don't try to speak for me, or the members of the National Academy of Science, or a lot of other people. As for the rest of that, it would appear to be your normal concoction of BS, misconceptions, and something else I can't mention on Gather because of TOS.