Why do both sides hide behind the half of the constitution they like and ignore the other half?

Question

In the last year or so, I've heard the left complaining about threats on free speech, warantless searches & wiretaps, the Patriot Act, etc...

And I hear the right complaining that their gun rights are under attack, they realize that 75% of the federal spending we're being taxed for goes to unconstitutional activity, and even worries about free speech related to the 'fairness doctrine.'

So, my question is, does anyone support the WHOLE constitution?

And, why do people who do not care for half of whats in there use it to defend their 'right' to the other half?

And ultimately, why is anyone surprised that our politicians pay no attention to the ultimate law of the land, when we sit here arguing amongst ourselves about how to destroy it, desecrate it?

Answer 1

while im against all of the violations youve mentioned (including wiretapping), wiretapping being unconstitutional is an extrapulation, and was originally made legal under democrats in the 1970's (FISA). the constitutional issues youve mentioned that conservatives are concerned with are concretely unconstitutional. there is a 2nd amendment, that is written in clear language; and the writer of the constitution (james madison) is on record against unconstitutional spending. there's also the first amendment that provides freedom of speech and thought (without government interfering).

Answer 2

most of the reason that people feel so differently can be related to the way you interpret the constitution.

the two most popular schools of thought are originalism and (imaginatively enough) non-originalism.

the originalists think that we should interpret the constitution in the way it was founded. speech, press, equal protection, etc., should all be based upon what people thought and did at the time of the amendments were passed.

of course, that has problems with things like the internet--an idea that no one could even have thought of when they passed the first amendment.

the non-originalists claim that the constitution lives, breathes, changes, etc.

the effect that this has becomes widespread. suddenly, the popular interpretation of things becomes the descriptive meaning of the constitution.

brian (the family guy dog above:-P) has pointed out that there are some people who dig the whole thing.

generally, these people are libertarians. even if they vote republican, there are two factions of the republican party--the business end and the anti-government people.

unfortunately, from the libertarian viewpoint, the anti-government folks are becoming an unfortunate minority. so it's very lonely around there.

but to answer your question concisely--most people don't know how to answer a lot of the questions. most of them don't even know what the important questions are.

there are still some, however, who want to make sure they get the right answer all the time.

Answer 3

Put it this way: Anyone who has ever exceeded the speed limit does not support the whole Constitution. Yes, you have people on both sides of the aisle arguing about what things are constitutional and which ones aren't, and each side tries to justify their constitutional abuses, but the root of the problem is no one really cares about the law anymore. The attitude of your average American is that rules were meant to be broken and it's not a crime unless you get caught. What's the point of having a Consitution, or any body of law for that matter, when the vast majority of the population violates it in one way or another and hardly anyone bats an eye? The Patriot Act and the Fairness Doctrine need to be put on the back-burner and the issues of responsibility and accountability (of our elected leaders first and foremost, then of each individual citizen) need to be addressed by John and Jane Q. Public.

Answer 4

Over simplified at best. I think you are assigning a context to people opinions based on certain subject matter. Rarely do we see questions on Yahoo Answers dealing with the Constitution as a whole. The reason is because such discussions would be long and cumbersome and every answer would require pages rather than mere lines of text. If you ask specific questions related to specific sections of the Constitution I think you would find that opinions on both sides are not that far apart in this area, although the interpretations might vary significantly.

Answer 5

No... Although I do reference certain Articles more than others. It's not because I disagree with or ignore any part of the Constitution, I just refer to what's relevant for the specific topic. BTW... I'm a Libertarian.

Answer 6

Libertarians support the whole Constitution. It's such a popular position, that thier candidates often meet the threshold to apear on the ballot, and have even been known to win a seat in the odd city council...

Answer 7

The Second Amendment isn't half- conservatives seem content to throw the entire thing out except one paragraph.

Kris B. - The importance of manners aside, if 15% of your vocabulary is invective, you might seriously consider investing in a dictionary and broadening your ability to communicate. There are many many words in the English language that aren't derogatory.

Answer 8

My opinion is that are constitution needs to be interpreted according to the current climate in which we live. Our founding fathers could not have anticipated that people living within our country would be communicating via telephone and internet to terrorists overseas.

Unfortunately there is no cut and dry answer. We are in danger of terrorist attacks, so we need to do whatever we need to do to prevent them. If that means Joe Hippie is afraid that the government is going to listen in on him buying weed, then maybe he shouldn't buy weed over the phone.

Answer 9

It's like the way people read their Bibles.Add and take away the content in order to fit the life style that" they" chose to live.

Answer 10

The left is concerned with Free Speech? They're the ones trampling it all the time with PC bs telling me I can no longer use 15% of the words in my vocabulary because I might "hurt someone's feelings." They only care about threats on Free Speech when the speech is liberal.