"Does it Still Matter?" (Our Constitution)

[Wry Catcher]

In the 10th annual history issue of Time is an article well worth reading.

It opens with this comment:

"One Document, Under Siege. Here are a few things the framers did not know about: WW II. DNA. Sexting. Airplanes. The Atom. Television. Medicare. Collateralized debt obligations. The germ theory of disease. Miniskirts. The internal combustion machine. Computers. Antibiotics. Lady Gaga.

"People on the right and left constantly ask what the framers would say about some event that is happening today. What would the framers say about whether the ..."

If you have an opinon on raising the debt ceiling, the 14th Amendment, the War Powers Resolution or any of a number of current issues, this article will either reinforce or weaken your opinion.

 

[Big Black Dog]

The problem with America is that the Constitution isn't followed all that closely any more. If it was, there would be fewer troubles.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The problem with America is that the Constitution isn't followed all that closely any more. If it was, there would be fewer troubles.

Do you have an example? I wonder, do you have any interest in reading the article?

 

[tonystewart1]

The problem with America is that the Constitution isn't followed all that closely any more. If it was, there would be fewer troubles.

Do you have an example? I wonder, do you have any interest in reading the article?

There is no link and I dont subscribe to Time.

 

[tonystewart1]

To answer your original question. NO

The supreme court constantly over steps its stated power in the constitiution.

The legislative branch takes powers from the states and vests it into itself. Article 1 section 8. For example the EPA.

So no the constitiution does not matter anymore.

 

[Sallow]

The problem with America is that the Constitution isn't followed all that closely any more. If it was, there would be fewer troubles.

Do you have an example? I wonder, do you have any interest in reading the article?

We have a large standing army under federal control.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The problem with America is that the Constitution isn't followed all that closely any more. If it was, there would be fewer troubles.

Do you have an example? I wonder, do you have any interest in reading the article?

There is no link and I dont subscribe to Time.

Google, Time. I found the entire article, but I also subscribe to the magazine. I read the hard copy already. If you can't find the article on line, I suppose I can post the link. Before I do I need to know if in doing so I violate copywrite laws and/or rules of this message board.

 

[martybegan]

The problem with America is that the Constitution isn't followed all that closely any more. If it was, there would be fewer troubles.

Do you have an example? I wonder, do you have any interest in reading the article?

We have a large standing army under federal control.

From Article I

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

It says nothing about how long the army can exist, but you cannot fund it for more than two years without congress re-approving it.

 

[tonystewart1]

And before it gets stated the general welfare clause has been badly misinterpreted

Money cannot be applied to the General Welfare, otherwise than by an application of it to some particular measure conducive to the General Welfare. Whenever, therefore, money has been raised by the General Authority, and is to be applied to a particular measure, a question arises whether the particular measure be within the enumerated authorities vested in Congress. If it be, the money requisite for it may be applied to it; if it be not, no such application can be made. (James Madison)

Here is a blog that explains it more eloquently than I could.

General Welfare | Connor's Conundrums

 

[Wry Catcher]

Do you have an example? I wonder, do you have any interest in reading the article?

We have a large standing army under federal control.

From Article I

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

It says nothing about how long the army can exist, but you cannot fund it for more than two years without congress re-approving it.

And Article I continues, "To provide and maintain a Navy" (no time restriction, curious); and "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces (more curous indeed).

But all of this is framed by the article in Time, the July 4, 2011 edition.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"People on the right and left constantly ask what the framers would say about some event that is happening today. What would the framers say about whether the ..."

All the Framers need say or would say is obey the rule of law.

The problem with America is that the Constitution isn't followed all that closely any more.

It’s being ‘followed,’ exactly as intended. The problem you have is the rule of law – which is what the Constitution codifies – conflicts with conservative dogma. That you disagree doesn't make it wrong.

The supreme court constantly over steps its stated power in the constitiution.

Citation?

And before it gets stated the general welfare clause has been badly misinterpreted.

In your opinion.

Here is a blog that explains it more eloquently than I could.

Eloquent, perhaps, but wrong – at least until the Court says otherwise.

 

[Sallow]

Do you have an example? I wonder, do you have any interest in reading the article?

We have a large standing army under federal control.

From Article I

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

It says nothing about how long the army can exist, but you cannot fund it for more than two years without congress re-approving it.

You leave out several clauses.

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


First there is no such restriction on the navy.
Second, the army was meant to be drawn out of the state's militias.

Which means that the navy was meant to be permanent..the army was meant to be "as needed". And the fact that it was drawn out of state militias indicates that it was meant to be citizen based and de-centralized.

 

[Anachronism]

The US Constitution lost all reasonable value with the election of one Abraham Lincoln in 1960. Lincoln was the first significant individual to use the document as toilet paper, and it's just gotten worse in the last 150 years. The biggest problem with it isn't that times or people have changed but that the English Language has changed; meaning that most Americans can't actually read it themselves and understand what most of it means because they have no real knowledge of our own History or the more "antiquated" style of language the document was written in.

Honestly, I think the document needs a complete and total re-writing, clarification, and updating.

 

[tonystewart1]

I read your article.

Its just another piece of leftist porpoganda intent on making the constitution a rubber band to wrap up a bunch of federal laws to control society with a huge big brother federal govt.

The constitituion is not flexible unless you amend it.

 

[Sallow]

The US Constitution lost all reasonable value with the election of one Abraham Lincoln in 1960. Lincoln was the first significant individual to use the document as toilet paper, and it's just gotten worse in the last 150 years. The biggest problem with it isn't that times or people have changed but that the English Language has changed; meaning that most Americans can't actually read it themselves and understand what most of it means because they have no real knowledge of our own History or the more "antiquated" style of language the document was written in.

Honestly, I think the document needs a complete and total re-writing, clarification, and updating.

 

[tonystewart1]

"People on the right and left constantly ask what the framers would say about some event that is happening today. What would the framers say about whether the ..."

All the Framers need say or would say is obey the rule of law.

The problem with America is that the Constitution isn't followed all that closely any more.

It’s being ‘followed,’ exactly as intended. The problem you have is the rule of law – which is what the Constitution codifies – conflicts with conservative dogma. That you disagree doesn't make it wrong.



Citation?

And before it gets stated the general welfare clause has been badly misinterpreted.

In your opinion.

Here is a blog that explains it more eloquently than I could.

Eloquent, perhaps, but wrong – at least until the Court says otherwise.

Letting the court decide is like letting the fox guard the hen house.

Show me where in the consitution that federal courts had any jurisdicton in Brown vs the Board of Eduction. A lawsuit brought by people in Kansas against a Kansas BOE. Yet the court did rule because they want to make law.

 

[Uncensored2008]

We have a large standing army under federal control.

Yeah, but we haven't had "times of peace" since Reagan.

 

[martybegan]

We have a large standing army under federal control.

From Article I

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

It says nothing about how long the army can exist, but you cannot fund it for more than two years without congress re-approving it.

You leave out several clauses.

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


First there is no such restriction on the navy.
Second, the army was meant to be drawn out of the state's militias.

Which means that the navy was meant to be permanent..the army was meant to be "as needed". And the fact that it was drawn out of state militias indicates that it was meant to be citizen based and de-centralized.

What part of those clauses forbids the keeping of a permanent federal army? The only restriction is it has to be funded every two years instead of a blanket "fund it forvever" provision.

At best the two clauses regarding miltias allows for the federal goverment to take control of them, just as the national guard can be federalized.

 

[AquaAthena]

The problem with America is that the Constitution isn't followed all that closely any more. If it was, there would be fewer troubles.

Whether it will matter in the future, will depend on the elections of 2012. I think many Senate seats will be taken by conservatives, and hopefully the presidency who will mean it when he or she puts their hand over their heart and swears to abide by the principles of the Constitution.

 

[Si modo]

Do you have an example? I wonder, do you have any interest in reading the article?

There is no link and I dont subscribe to Time.

Google, Time. I found the entire article, but I also subscribe to the magazine. I read the hard copy already. If you can't find the article on line, I suppose I can post the link. Before I do I need to know if in doing so I violate copywrite laws and/or rules of this message board.

You are a lazy asswipe.

U.S. Constitution Under Siege over Libya, Taxes, Health Care - TIME