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?
what say you read it before you criticize it.Is it infallible?
Should we forever as a society abide by the words written by men centuries ago?
I have, and I didn't criticize it.what say you read it before you criticize it.
...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.Is it infallible?
Should we forever as a society abide by the words written by men centuries ago?
This isn't about "understanding" it. It's written in pretty plain English....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
'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.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?
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.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?
Oh, I don't know. You have the right to remain silent. That was not always so.Funny we have a constitution to protect us from govt, yet law enforcement has more rights than we do. How does that work?
i must disagree bro. there's two kinds of people in the constitutional debate: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 Justice. (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.
For example, the police can legally lie to you, lie to them and its a crime.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.
And the Bible? whould we be run by the words written by men 2000 years ago?
are there unisversal truths that withstand the ages?
The bible is optional. The constitution is not.
"are there unisversal truths that withstand the ages?"
That's kinda what I'm getting at.
Preambles of the constitutions of all 50 states ... [video=youtube;V3lw_U7UrM8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3lw_U7UrM8[/video]...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
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.The Constitution was created to be changed, thus we have amendments.
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.