st0wandgrow
Well-Known Member
Is it infallible?
Should we forever as a society abide by the words written by men centuries ago?
Should we forever as a society abide by the words written by men centuries ago?
The Consitution
- Thread starter st0wandgrow
- Start date
justanotherbozo
Well-Known Member
what say you read it before you criticize it.
st0wandgrow
Well-Known Member
The bible is optional. The constitution is not.
"are there unisversal truths that withstand the ages?"
That's kinda what I'm getting at.
"are there unisversal truths that withstand the ages?"
That's kinda what I'm getting at.
st0wandgrow
Well-Known Member
I have, and I didn't criticize it.
What say you read the post before you respond to it.
justanotherbozo
Well-Known Member
...i did read it, your phrasing suggests you don't understand it and i gave you the benefit of the doubt that it was because you hadn't read it, ...if you have read it and yet you still don't understand it then we have nothing to say to each other.
...the Constitution and the wisdom of those men all those century's ago guarantees your right to remain ignorant and mine to not feel obligated to educate you.
bozo
st0wandgrow
Well-Known Member
This isn't about "understanding" it. It's written in pretty plain English.
The question is, will those principals hold true forever, or will unknown circumstances ever prompt us to revisit them?
justanotherbozo
Well-Known Member
'forever' is too absolute a term and while i don't see the Constitution as an immutable object, i do believe it to be the best framework for self-government ever to exist, ...most of the problems with the Constitution are brought about by the amendments and not the original document.
...it's kinda like you don't need to be a genius to know that 'thou shalt not kill' is a pretty good rule of thumb, even if you're not a Christian.
BadDog40
Well-Known Member
The Constitution was created to be changed, thus we have amendments.
Article V outlines just how to do that:
Article V
Article V outlines just how to do that:
Article V
- The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
nontheist
Well-Known Member
Every time our leaders figure out a way to sidestep the constitution it ends horribly for the citizens. The constitution is a protecting document for me, you, and everyone else. To "revisit" it is to do only one thing strip the protections from us and doing so restructuring the country. A snowball has a better chance in hell than you convincing us to give our rights up to our leaders. Simply put the constitution isn't the problem our leaders are.
unohu69
Well-Known Member
A) the constitution is not rules for us to live by. they are rules for our government to live by. People forget this, and the gov, deff has forgotten this.
Theres an interview with BO on youtube, where he talks about the constitution being a list of things the government cant do to you, but nowhere in it does it say what the gov has to do for you.
Thats what the Dems/Repubs are doing with all the bullshit entitlement programs and whatever. they are claiming the gov has to provide these things to promote the "general welfare" of the citizens.
And yes, it is written in plain english, the problem is our people are not taught "plain" english anymore. If schools would actually explain why the rules for the english language are there, you people might understand its how you are enslaved through contracts, that you dont read. Even if you do read them, you dont understand whats being stated as the terms, because you have no idea the actual meanings of the words.
Theres an interview with BO on youtube, where he talks about the constitution being a list of things the government cant do to you, but nowhere in it does it say what the gov has to do for you.
Thats what the Dems/Repubs are doing with all the bullshit entitlement programs and whatever. they are claiming the gov has to provide these things to promote the "general welfare" of the citizens.
And yes, it is written in plain english, the problem is our people are not taught "plain" english anymore. If schools would actually explain why the rules for the english language are there, you people might understand its how you are enslaved through contracts, that you dont read. Even if you do read them, you dont understand whats being stated as the terms, because you have no idea the actual meanings of the words.
Last night me and a bunch of my friends wrote a constitution. We are allowed to tax 50% of all the money you earn. We ALLOW you to have rights as long as you give us this money. We wrote it on special paper with a magic pen. Don't worry tho, we are going to give you half a sandwich for your taxes.
Doer
Well-Known Member
All you thinkers....you have to be a lawyer...I'm not. But, I know there are 4 ways the Constitution is interpreted. Those swap around as new Presidents appoint new Justices. (a good job if you can get it)
Textualist: An originalist who gives primary weight to the text and structure of the Constitution. Textualists often are skeptical of the ability of judges to determine collective "intent."
Intentionalist: An originalist who gives primary weight to the intentions of framers, members of proposing bodies, and ratifiers.
Pragmatist: A non-originalist who gives substantial weight to judicial precedent or the consequences of alternative interpretations, so as to sometimes favor a decision "wrong" on originalist terms because it promotes stability or in some other way promotes the public good.
Natural Law Theorist: A person who believes that higher moral law ought to trump inconsistent positive law.
Textualist: An originalist who gives primary weight to the text and structure of the Constitution. Textualists often are skeptical of the ability of judges to determine collective "intent."
Intentionalist: An originalist who gives primary weight to the intentions of framers, members of proposing bodies, and ratifiers.
Pragmatist: A non-originalist who gives substantial weight to judicial precedent or the consequences of alternative interpretations, so as to sometimes favor a decision "wrong" on originalist terms because it promotes stability or in some other way promotes the public good.
Natural Law Theorist: A person who believes that higher moral law ought to trump inconsistent positive law.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Oh, I don't know. You have the right to remain silent. That was not always so.
The Police have always had the right of more paperwork.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
i must disagree bro. there's two kinds of people in the constitutional debate:
Those Who Can Read
and
Those With Irrelevant Opinions
any power not SPECIFICALLY granted the congress is reserved to the states, and the people. thus any power not specifically granted the congress is denied them until the people or the state grant it to them via an ammendment.
this means that for the past 100 years or so, we have been Ruled BY Lawyers rather than laws. creative re-interpretation of the constitution and even established laws to grant new extraordinary powers to the congress (and their bureaucratic functionaries) is by definition unconstitutional and invalid.
BadDog40
Well-Known Member
Oh, I don't know. You have the right to remain silent. That was not always so.
The Police have always had the right of more paperwork.
For example, the police can legally lie to you, lie to them and its a crime.
j.GrEeN.<,{'^'},>
Active Member
Preambles of the constitutions of all 50 states ... [video=youtube;V3lw_U7UrM8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3lw_U7UrM8[/video]
st0wandgrow
Well-Known Member
Yep. Something like the Citizens United ruling *should* at least prompt Congress to take a look at a Constitutional amendment. I would like to see that.
