least objectionable change to the constitution poll

[dcraelin]

A poll for all those dedicated to the "crazy machine" as Patrick Henry called the Constitution.

the full choices can be viewed at this link Outline of a new Constitution US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

;icture gallery

http://www.usmessageboard.com/data/photos/l/3/3253-1410290376-fa654ec9680947d3ac5ea494f9fe9768.jpg

 

[OKTexas]

None of the above.

 

[dcraelin]

None of the above.

thats nots an option

 

[rightwinger]

Repeal the 3rd amendment

 

[ScienceRocks]

Probably make the welfare cause clearer to keep up with the times and end all argument. This would give the congress the power without question to fund science institutions, infrastructure and help the states in case of emergency. All things we already do and every one else already does.

 

[ScienceRocks]

None of the above.

thats nots an option

That guy would probably repeal the constitution and go back to the articles.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Constitution is in no need of 'change,' however 'least objectionable.'

The Constitution is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition dating back to the Magna Carta and the Assizes of Henry II, it didn't just 'happen' in 1791.

The 'changes' proposed are reckless and unwarranted, the stuff of partisan curmudgeons, reactionaries, and capricious nitwits ignorant of the fact that the Constitution is first and foremost a document of the law – the supreme law of the land – and the cornerstone of the rule of law, not a mere 'blueprint of government.'

 

[dcraelin]

The Constitution is in no need of 'change,' however 'least objectionable.'

The Constitution is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition dating back to the Magna Carta and the Assizes of Henry II, it didn't just 'happen' in 1791.

The 'changes' proposed are reckless and unwarranted, the stuff of partisan curmudgeons, reactionaries, and capricious nitwits ignorant of the fact that the Constitution is first and foremost a document of the law – the supreme law of the land – and the cornerstone of the rule of law, not a mere 'blueprint of government.'

bulllllshit ....

you know, dunces like you never have real criticisms....you just worship the past ...........and think that is some sort of argument.

Reckless and unwarranted?.....then tell me why.....we still would have had rule of law with the articles....we still would have rule of law with my proposed changes....you have no argument.

 

[dcraelin]

None of the above.

thats nots an option

That guy would probably repeal the constitution and go back to the articles.

what guy...who you talking about

 

[Kosh]

The Constitution is in no need of 'change,' however 'least objectionable.'

The Constitution is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition dating back to the Magna Carta and the Assizes of Henry II, it didn't just 'happen' in 1791.

The 'changes' proposed are reckless and unwarranted, the stuff of partisan curmudgeons, reactionaries, and capricious nitwits ignorant of the fact that the Constitution is first and foremost a document of the law – the supreme law of the land – and the cornerstone of the rule of law, not a mere 'blueprint of government.'

To the far left there is no such thing as a constitution..

 

[ScienceRocks]

None of the above.

thats nots an option

That guy would probably repeal the constitution and go back to the articles.

what guy...who you talking about

The one you replied too. he doesn't believe the federal government should be able to tax.

 

[dcraelin]

None of the above.

thats nots an option

That guy would probably repeal the constitution and go back to the articles.

what guy...who you talking about

The one you replied too. he doesn't believe the federal government should be able to tax.

oh , ok, well even some opponents of the Constitution thought it needed a better way to raise revenue.

 

[boedicca]

None of the above.

QFT

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Constitution is in no need of 'change,' however 'least objectionable.'

The Constitution is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition dating back to the Magna Carta and the Assizes of Henry II, it didn't just 'happen' in 1791.

The 'changes' proposed are reckless and unwarranted, the stuff of partisan curmudgeons, reactionaries, and capricious nitwits ignorant of the fact that the Constitution is first and foremost a document of the law – the supreme law of the land – and the cornerstone of the rule of law, not a mere 'blueprint of government.'

bulllllshit ....

you know, dunces like you never have real criticisms....you just worship the past ...........and think that is some sort of argument.

Reckless and unwarranted?.....then tell me why.....we still would have had rule of law with the articles....we still would have rule of law with my proposed changes....you have no argument.

Nonsense.

The idiotic notion of 'national referenda' is alone completely contrary to the rule of law.

And who decides what the criteria are to determine a 'qualified' Supreme Court justice – your proposed 'changes' are inane, sophomoric, and ridiculous; nothing more than a rightwing temper-tantrum because you disapprove of Constitutional jurisprudence you incorrectly perceive to be 'wrong.'

 

[dcraelin]

The Constitution is in no need of 'change,' however 'least objectionable.'

The Constitution is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition dating back to the Magna Carta and the Assizes of Henry II, it didn't just 'happen' in 1791.

The 'changes' proposed are reckless and unwarranted, the stuff of partisan curmudgeons, reactionaries, and capricious nitwits ignorant of the fact that the Constitution is first and foremost a document of the law – the supreme law of the land – and the cornerstone of the rule of law, not a mere 'blueprint of government.'

bulllllshit ....

you know, dunces like you never have real criticisms....you just worship the past ...........and think that is some sort of argument.

Reckless and unwarranted?.....then tell me why.....we still would have had rule of law with the articles....we still would have rule of law with my proposed changes....you have no argument.

Nonsense.

The idiotic notion of 'national referenda' is alone completely contrary to the rule of law.

And who decides what the criteria are to determine a 'qualified' Supreme Court justice – your proposed 'changes' are inane, sophomoric, and ridiculous; nothing more than a rightwing temper-tantrum because you disapprove of Constitutional jurisprudence you incorrectly perceive to be 'wrong.'

1) I am not rightwing
2)who determines now who is a qualified Supreme Court justice?...wouldn't have to be different
3)"contrary to rule of law"?why..it would be outlined in the law..like it is in numerous states.
4) there are numerous errors in Constitutional "jurisprudence" but nothing in my proposal addresses them

 

[BlackSand]

Pineapple

 

[OKTexas]

None of the above.

thats nots an option

It's always an option.

 

[OKTexas]

None of the above.

thats nots an option

That guy would probably repeal the constitution and go back to the articles.

Wrong, I would enforce the Constitution as written, not as interpreted by politicians and their appointees.

 

[Centinel]

Upping the citizen to representative ratio would be the best of the options presented.

 

[OKTexas]

None of the above.

thats nots an option

That guy would probably repeal the constitution and go back to the articles.

what guy...who you talking about

The one you replied too. he doesn't believe the federal government should be able to tax.

You're a fucking liar, I believe the things taxes can finance are limited by Article 1, Section 8 as the founders intended.