I disagree with that last statement. I've never heard a liberal attempt to justify their position on a legal decision based on the author's intent. I've only heard them start making vague statements about how it *should* mean something else, about how the constitution is flexible and needs to be living (i.e. changing) in today's world. In fact, *that* is exactly what is taught in public schools and colleges today. My daughter just got done having a debate with her professor about this and he certainly wasn't interested in what the authors of the constitution intended. He had some other really strange views too, but I'm not sure he wasn't attempting to stimulate the argument with the rest.

My point is, the rank and file liberal is not concerned about original intent, they are concerned about how the ruling will advance their cause and argue from that perspective. When I bring up the original intent issue, they don't usually know what I mean, or if they do, quickly dismiss the issue. I've never had one address the issue, or argue that the framers where arguing for their view.

Take the latest Hobby Lobby case. Clearly the majority in this case was reading the original intent of the law, where the descent was all over the place and argued all sort of "unintended consequences" of the decision that hadn't gone their way. They where NOT arguing original intent, they didn't argue from the meaning of the law as written, they argued their position based on what they thought the results of the ruling would be.

So, I'm willing to discuss original intent with any liberal who cares to think about it. There are some valid questions to be raised at time, but I find few willing and fewer able. This isn't a straw man argument, where I define my opponents position and sweep them away, but I won't sit here and engage in much debate with somebody who won't acknowledge the logic of original intent having merit.

Then go away.

Look, if we don't intend to interpret our laws based upon what the laws where intended to mean when they where written, then what's the use of having courts? What's the use of having any laws to start with? They apparently don't mean anything today if they can mean something else tomorrow.

What the *framers* (the guys that authored the document, argued about it and signed it) wanted it to mean *IS* important. IF you don't want to admit that, then I'm not sure if we have any common ground from which to continue a discussion on, much less would I want to try. All you need do is go back and re-interpret anything you wrote to suit your current logical needs and leave me trying to nail jello to the wall. No thanks, I have better things to do than debate the equivalent of astrophysics with a 2 year old who cannot read.

Go ahead, stick your tongue out at me..

So, can we not agree that "original intent" *should* be what is used to interpret the constitution? That we should be appointing judges who have this ideology?

Because I don't care what "team" you are on or if you consider yourself your own player, there is grave danger in the abandonment of "original intent" in the courts. We simply MUST be appointing judges with the correct ideology, regardless of party, and I firmly feel that seeking "original intent" based judges is the ONLY logical way this can work. Anything else is folly and will destroy us. My reasons for saying so are plain and logical.

Yet, you would accuse me of political bias? My argument is from history, from logic, not from political association or rhetoric. How anything other than "original intent" can be tolerated by the public is something that amazes me. As a people we have forgotten from where we came, many now look upon our forefathers in scorn and tolerate such errors in logic like the one I've been arguing cannot continue, if we are to survive as the same country, on the same principles as we where founded. If we abandon these principles, we will do so to our discredit, and destroy what we inherited, a free country, purchased and kept free for 200+ years by the blood of it's patriots and our forefathers. This is not about politics...

You have stepped out on the slippery slope with both feet and I'm not so sure you realize it.

My Healthcare is NOT your business, nor are my choices about what I eat. Why do I say this? Remember the HIPPA rules? My medical care is SUPPOSED to be between me and my doctors, only after the government inserted itself in the health care did such things become important to government, and this NEVER should have been the case. All sorts of things get justified this way, because all you need to do is come up with a reason it costs the government (heck, invent a program to make that true) and volia, you have a "right" to mandate things in law. You see, now that we have universal health care, we will have HHS telling doctors what treatments we can get, which ones we can't get. Don't fool yourself, people will use your EXACT logic to make it happen. We will all end up going to a health care system that resembles what the VA is today, it's just a few short steps away and with your logic there is nothing to stop it.

So, I'm guessing you are not for what NSA does, snooping on your phone calls, yet you want the government to intrude even more into our lives? If so, Do you see the logical problem you have? On one hand you decry the NSA's data collection efforts that include information about you, but you don't have a problem with a law that intrudes into my personal life because you think it's for my own good.

I don't want to be involved in your personal life, AT ALL. That includes passing laws that govern how you must live, who you associate with, what you read, what you say or what you eat. In return, I would ask that you return the favor. Everybody needs to take responsibility for their OWN lives and we all need to keep our noses out of each others business, either directly or by using government to pass laws.

Government's place should be to make sure that there is fairness on the playing field and the field level. They should remove players who are unable to play fairly and the criminals (jail). Government should protect those who are incapable of playing and even help coach substandard players so they can play better, but for the most part, government should not be part of the game. The rest of us should be free to play the game as we see fit, doing what works for us. It's what Freedom, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness is supposed to be. People with your logic are allowing freedom to be stripped away, bit by bit. Please consider carefully what I'm saying, for all our good.

What planet do you live on? (or what internet do you use?) I'm fairly sure that the NSA has been tracking bitcoin transactions for about as long as the criminals have been using it. Heck, even the FBI likely has the capacity.... You do realize that ALL transactions are public knowledge by design, ANYBODY could track everything.

That's what they said about Hula Hoops and skate boards.... Ye of little faith, there is no bottom to the deaths of the stupidness of the American consumer.

My mod points! Where did they go!

Mod this post up.

You are drinking the blue stuff... Look, the ACA has not added to the insurance rolls, and in fact has been close to a wash (assuming the unverifiable numbers from HealthCare.gov can be trusted.) But the main selling points where 1. Increase coverage by 70 Million (everybody will have insurance) [FAILED], 2. Costs would go down [FAILED], and 3. You can keep your doctor [Not exactly true], 4. You can keep your insurance [Not true for most of us].

I'm being charitable on the enrollment counts vrs the number of people who lost health insurance because of the ACA too. I'm pretty sure that we have LESS people insured than we had before and certainly we didn't get 70 Million onto the insurance rolls. Don't get me started on the website issues being a harbinger of how these kinds of programs go.. Oh my..

So, if you want to trumpet something from the left's social programs, I suggest you pick something else. Obamacare is so far a abject failure that hasn't made progress on ANY of it's stated goals that has and will cost us trillions. Hopefully it can be done away with in about 2.5 years.

OK, then we generally agree that what we have now is beyond what the framers intended. Where we differ is on the advisability of what we have done to date.

But I also think that we need to be STRICT in our understandings of original intent and accept nothing less from our judges. You see, the reason we are here is that many in the USA believe that the Constitution is squishy, that it can have all kinds of interpretations, that I can choose to read it in any way that I like. They DON'T think that original intent is a valid argument, that we can simply "redefine the words" and change it's meaning as the language changes. We have a lot of judges who follow such views, who don't mind refactoring the constitution to fit what they want it to say, not what the framers intended it to say. This practice needs to stop. Because you are right, there IS an amendment process prescribed, and we should be forced to use one of those processes to change the meaning of the constitution, to alter or clarify what the framers intended and how this country should work in the modern world. We should NOT be allowing our judges to rule on any other basis but original intent, and if that doesn't allow us to do what needs to be done, we must go though the hard process of proposing and ratifying amendments.

But there is at least one party in this country which does not hold fast to such ideals, where original intent is not the measuring stick used to evaluate the judges they nominate, but the judge's stand on the social issues of the day are more important. This kind of thing subverts the whole process and needs to stop... See where this goes?

You do know that the "custom OS" is really Android both on their tablets AND their phones. They just took the Google branding out of it and rolled their own interface layer. Sorta like CentOS does to Red Hat Enterprise, only under the Apache license.

I'm guessing that they will continue to keep the "Fire OS" close to Android, but they are free to deviate if they want.

They like Apple Sauce, Perhaps?

Dang, even if you buy it outright it is LOCKED to the AT&T network. Amazon has got to undo that mess or I'm NOT EVER going to think about it.

Any phone you buy outright should come UNLOCKED by default. Any phone you own after the contract is over should be unlocked upon request, if not automatically by the carrier...

Isn't that was AT&T is doing... Ripping out a tooth every month for 24 months... I don't think I have that many teeth.... Left that is....

Oh, stop punching numbers into that calculator, reading the fine print and just sign the contract you rube.

AT&T (and all of the major carriers) do this kind of thing all the time. Car dealers do this, credit card companies do this, realtors do this all kinds of retailers do this.. They turn things into monthly payments, rip you a new one while you pay an arm and a leg. They bleed you dry one drop at a time and most of us don't notice how we've been played. We just complain that everything costs so much.

You are NOT supposed to catch on to the ruse and actually put numbers in the calculator and hit the multiply key...Wana be really upset with your carrier? Ask them how much it is just to buy the handset outright vrs what they end up collecting if you buy it monthly. Ouch... Now THAT'S a finance charge!

Nice try... But you are apparently re-defining "original intent" here.

What the INTENT was for the creating of the Department Of whatever is not the question. What is the question is both the advisability of their creation and constitutionality of how they now operate. I.E. What the framers of the constitution would say about how all this works now. I dare say, they would not be pleased as they obviously did not envision the mammoth size and scope of the Federal government and took steps to keep this from happening. Have you read the constitution lately? The Bill of Rights? Specifically the 10th amendment? So what did they originally intend? Not what we have now.

Don't believe me? Then you need to read their arguments about what the constitution said. I suggest the Federalist Papers as a start.