least objectionable change to the constitution poll

[OKTexas]

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.

unrealistic....someone has to interpret what it means...my proposal makes sure the politicians have less say

No they don't need anything but a dictionary from the time it was written to understand exactly what it says, no interpretation needed.

not realistic, there will always be differences of opinion as to what certain things mean

I guess that's as good an excuse as any, don't want to abide by a contract, say it's not realistic and open to opinion.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

unrealistic....someone has to interpret what it means...my proposal makes sure the politicians have less say

No they don't need anything but a dictionary from the time it was written to understand exactly what it says, no interpretation needed.

not realistic, there will always be differences of opinion as to what certain things mean

I guess that's as good an excuse as any, don't want to abide by a contract, say it's not realistic and open to opinion.

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.

unrealistic....someone has to interpret what it means...my proposal makes sure the politicians have less say

No they don't need anything but a dictionary from the time it was written to understand exactly what it says, no interpretation needed.

not realistic, there will always be differences of opinion as to what certain things mean

I guess that's as good an excuse as any, don't want to abide by a contract, say it's not realistic and open to opinion.

well most of it is pretty clear but there are areas.

and dictionaries are as subject to error as anything else.

Ill give an example of an area of contention .....the Constitution says the states are guaranteed a Republican form of government....I imagine you and I disagree on what that means....in the least I would say tho that it means you have to have fair representation so gerrymandering districts should be unconstitutional...yet the Supreme Court believe has said thats a political question, and wont enforce fairness in district layout.

 

[OKTexas]

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

unrealistic....someone has to interpret what it means...my proposal makes sure the politicians have less say

No they don't need anything but a dictionary from the time it was written to understand exactly what it says, no interpretation needed.

not realistic, there will always be differences of opinion as to what certain things mean

I guess that's as good an excuse as any, don't want to abide by a contract, say it's not realistic and open to opinion.

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

unrealistic....someone has to interpret what it means...my proposal makes sure the politicians have less say

No they don't need anything but a dictionary from the time it was written to understand exactly what it says, no interpretation needed.

not realistic, there will always be differences of opinion as to what certain things mean

I guess that's as good an excuse as any, don't want to abide by a contract, say it's not realistic and open to opinion.

well most of it is pretty clear but there are areas.

and dictionaries are as subject to error as anything else.

Ill give an example of an area of contention .....the Constitution says the states are guaranteed a Republican form of government....I imagine you and I disagree on what that means....in the least I would say tho that it means you have to have fair representation so gerrymandering districts should be unconstitutional...yet the Supreme Court believe has said thats a political question, and wont enforce fairness in district layout.

So you would say court ordered district boundaries that pretty much insure minorities being elected are unconstitutional? If your answer is yes, I agree, but your party would fight from here to hell to keep them. Personally I think districts should be as square as particle and who ever falls in them, falls in them.

Also a period dictionary is the best way to determine original intent, didn't say is was perfect, just the best.

 

[dcraelin]

unrealistic....someone has to interpret what it means...my proposal makes sure the politicians have less say

No they don't need anything but a dictionary from the time it was written to understand exactly what it says, no interpretation needed.

not realistic, there will always be differences of opinion as to what certain things mean

I guess that's as good an excuse as any, don't want to abide by a contract, say it's not realistic and open to opinion.

unrealistic....someone has to interpret what it means...my proposal makes sure the politicians have less say

No they don't need anything but a dictionary from the time it was written to understand exactly what it says, no interpretation needed.

not realistic, there will always be differences of opinion as to what certain things mean

I guess that's as good an excuse as any, don't want to abide by a contract, say it's not realistic and open to opinion.

well most of it is pretty clear but there are areas.

and dictionaries are as subject to error as anything else.

Ill give an example of an area of contention .....the Constitution says the states are guaranteed a Republican form of government....I imagine you and I disagree on what that means....in the least I would say tho that it means you have to have fair representation so gerrymandering districts should be unconstitutional...yet the Supreme Court believe has said thats a political question, and wont enforce fairness in district layout.

So you would say court ordered district boundaries that pretty much insure minorities being elected are unconstitutional? If your answer is yes, I agree, but your party would fight from here to hell to keep them. Personally I think districts should be as square as particle and who ever falls in them, falls in them.

Also a period dictionary is the best way to determine original intent, didn't say is was perfect, just the best.

I think even most leftists think that gerrymandered districts for minority representation are no longer necessary...tho I do think at one time they were.

well, Im not even sure its the best...I guess I'd have to look at one... many immigrants at founding...probably a large chunk weren't even English speaking...it would inform debate for sure.

 

[OKTexas]

No they don't need anything but a dictionary from the time it was written to understand exactly what it says, no interpretation needed.

not realistic, there will always be differences of opinion as to what certain things mean

I guess that's as good an excuse as any, don't want to abide by a contract, say it's not realistic and open to opinion.

No they don't need anything but a dictionary from the time it was written to understand exactly what it says, no interpretation needed.

not realistic, there will always be differences of opinion as to what certain things mean

I guess that's as good an excuse as any, don't want to abide by a contract, say it's not realistic and open to opinion.

well most of it is pretty clear but there are areas.

and dictionaries are as subject to error as anything else.

Ill give an example of an area of contention .....the Constitution says the states are guaranteed a Republican form of government....I imagine you and I disagree on what that means....in the least I would say tho that it means you have to have fair representation so gerrymandering districts should be unconstitutional...yet the Supreme Court believe has said thats a political question, and wont enforce fairness in district layout.

So you would say court ordered district boundaries that pretty much insure minorities being elected are unconstitutional? If your answer is yes, I agree, but your party would fight from here to hell to keep them. Personally I think districts should be as square as particle and who ever falls in them, falls in them.

Also a period dictionary is the best way to determine original intent, didn't say is was perfect, just the best.

I think even most leftists think that gerrymandered districts for minority representation are no longer necessary...tho I do think at one time they were.

well, Im not even sure its the best...I guess I'd have to look at one... many immigrants at founding...probably a large chunk weren't even English speaking...it would inform debate for sure.

Maybe you should check with Jackson Lee, Cummings, and a few others in the CBC before you say "most leftist", I really don't think anyone of them would agree with that.

 

[dcraelin]

not realistic, there will always be differences of opinion as to what certain things mean

I guess that's as good an excuse as any, don't want to abide by a contract, say it's not realistic and open to opinion.

not realistic, there will always be differences of opinion as to what certain things mean

I guess that's as good an excuse as any, don't want to abide by a contract, say it's not realistic and open to opinion.

well most of it is pretty clear but there are areas.

and dictionaries are as subject to error as anything else.

Ill give an example of an area of contention .....the Constitution says the states are guaranteed a Republican form of government....I imagine you and I disagree on what that means....in the least I would say tho that it means you have to have fair representation so gerrymandering districts should be unconstitutional...yet the Supreme Court believe has said thats a political question, and wont enforce fairness in district layout.

So you would say court ordered district boundaries that pretty much insure minorities being elected are unconstitutional? If your answer is yes, I agree, but your party would fight from here to hell to keep them. Personally I think districts should be as square as particle and who ever falls in them, falls in them.

Also a period dictionary is the best way to determine original intent, didn't say is was perfect, just the best.

I think even most leftists think that gerrymandered districts for minority representation are no longer necessary...tho I do think at one time they were.

well, Im not even sure its the best...I guess I'd have to look at one... many immigrants at founding...probably a large chunk weren't even English speaking...it would inform debate for sure.

Maybe you should check with Jackson Lee, Cummings, and a few others in the CBC before you say "most leftist", I really don't think anyone of them would agree with that.

.I may be wrong

 

[Little-Acorn]

least objectionable change to the constitution poll


The least objectionable change to the Constitution is, of course, no change all.

It's just fine the way it is. The only thing wrong is, the liberals keep ignoring it and violating it.

If you insist on changing something, put in sections that mandate fines and/or jail time for legislators, executives, and judicial members who take actions that are later found unconstitutional. Perhaps with an additional provision for them to be banned from public office. That won't eliminate all their violations, but it will reduce them. And as an extra bennie, it will get the liberal scofflaws (in both parties) out of the government so they can do no more harm.

 

[dcraelin]

least objectionable change to the constitution poll


The least objectionable change to the Constitution is, of course, no change all.

It's just fine the way it is. The only thing wrong is, the liberals keep ignoring it and violating it.

If you insist on changing something, put in sections that mandate fines and/or jail time for legislators, executives, and judicial members who take actions that are later found unconstitutional. Perhaps with an additional provision for them to be banned from public office. That won't eliminate all their violations, but it will reduce them. And as an extra bennie, it will get the violators out of the government so they can do no more harm.

Patrick Henry didnt even think is was just fine.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Patrick Henry didnt even think is was just fine.

Correct. He thought it gave the government (and the big-govt leftists it had even then) too much power.

Thanks for pointing this out. The results we are seeing nowadays, lend weight to Henry's argument.

 

[OKTexas]

I guess that's as good an excuse as any, don't want to abide by a contract, say it's not realistic and open to opinion.

I guess that's as good an excuse as any, don't want to abide by a contract, say it's not realistic and open to opinion.

well most of it is pretty clear but there are areas.

and dictionaries are as subject to error as anything else.

Ill give an example of an area of contention .....the Constitution says the states are guaranteed a Republican form of government....I imagine you and I disagree on what that means....in the least I would say tho that it means you have to have fair representation so gerrymandering districts should be unconstitutional...yet the Supreme Court believe has said thats a political question, and wont enforce fairness in district layout.

So you would say court ordered district boundaries that pretty much insure minorities being elected are unconstitutional? If your answer is yes, I agree, but your party would fight from here to hell to keep them. Personally I think districts should be as square as particle and who ever falls in them, falls in them.

Also a period dictionary is the best way to determine original intent, didn't say is was perfect, just the best.

I think even most leftists think that gerrymandered districts for minority representation are no longer necessary...tho I do think at one time they were.

well, Im not even sure its the best...I guess I'd have to look at one... many immigrants at founding...probably a large chunk weren't even English speaking...it would inform debate for sure.

Maybe you should check with Jackson Lee, Cummings, and a few others in the CBC before you say "most leftist", I really don't think anyone of them would agree with that.

.I may be wrong

Yep, it's the only way those folks can keep getting reelected, Jackson Lee is one of the biggest running jokes in the Houston area, if her district wasn't so closely controlled, she'd be gone.

 

[dcraelin]

Patrick Henry didnt even think is was just fine.

Correct. He thought it gave the government (and the big-govt leftists it had even then) too much power.

Thanks for pointing this out. The results we are seeing nowadays, lend weight to Henry's argument.

well leave out the "big-gov leftists" and I can agree....big government rightists maybe

 

[dcraelin]

well most of it is pretty clear but there are areas.

and dictionaries are as subject to error as anything else.

Ill give an example of an area of contention .....the Constitution says the states are guaranteed a Republican form of government....I imagine you and I disagree on what that means....in the least I would say tho that it means you have to have fair representation so gerrymandering districts should be unconstitutional...yet the Supreme Court believe has said thats a political question, and wont enforce fairness in district layout.

So you would say court ordered district boundaries that pretty much insure minorities being elected are unconstitutional? If your answer is yes, I agree, but your party would fight from here to hell to keep them. Personally I think districts should be as square as particle and who ever falls in them, falls in them.

Also a period dictionary is the best way to determine original intent, didn't say is was perfect, just the best.

I think even most leftists think that gerrymandered districts for minority representation are no longer necessary...tho I do think at one time they were.

well, Im not even sure its the best...I guess I'd have to look at one... many immigrants at founding...probably a large chunk weren't even English speaking...it would inform debate for sure.

Maybe you should check with Jackson Lee, Cummings, and a few others in the CBC before you say "most leftist", I really don't think anyone of them would agree with that.

.I may be wrong

Yep, it's the only way those folks can keep getting reelected, Jackson Lee is one of the biggest running jokes in the Houston area, if her district wasn't so closely controlled, she'd be gone.

perhaps, but if her district were redrawn, perhaps some surrounding rt-wingers would have to moderate

 

[Centinel]

Since the second amendment is no longer relevant to its intended purpose we should drop it and leave gun rights up to the states to decide

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


Militias are not necessary to the security of our state. We have the strongest Army in the world. Time to drop the second amendment

Good luck with an amendment repealing the 2nd.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[OKTexas]

So you would say court ordered district boundaries that pretty much insure minorities being elected are unconstitutional? If your answer is yes, I agree, but your party would fight from here to hell to keep them. Personally I think districts should be as square as particle and who ever falls in them, falls in them.

Also a period dictionary is the best way to determine original intent, didn't say is was perfect, just the best.

I think even most leftists think that gerrymandered districts for minority representation are no longer necessary...tho I do think at one time they were.

well, Im not even sure its the best...I guess I'd have to look at one... many immigrants at founding...probably a large chunk weren't even English speaking...it would inform debate for sure.

Maybe you should check with Jackson Lee, Cummings, and a few others in the CBC before you say "most leftist", I really don't think anyone of them would agree with that.

.I may be wrong

Yep, it's the only way those folks can keep getting reelected, Jackson Lee is one of the biggest running jokes in the Houston area, if her district wasn't so closely controlled, she'd be gone.

perhaps, but if her district were redrawn, perhaps some surrounding rt-wingers would have to moderate

No, if her district were redrawn to any significant degree she would be gone, she has a virtually all black district in one on the poorest areas of town, it's gang infested and I doubt that even 20% of her district votes. I don't think she could carry even a moderate constituency.

 

[rightwinger]

Since the second amendment is no longer relevant to its intended purpose we should drop it and leave gun rights up to the states to decide

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


Militias are not necessary to the security of our state. We have the strongest Army in the world. Time to drop the second amendment

Good luck with an amendment repealing the 2nd.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Why would anyone object to leaving gun laws up to the states

It is none of the federal governments business

 

[Little-Acorn]

BTW, liberals (in both parties) have been violating and generally ignoring the Constitution whenever they like, for years.

If you changed it, what makes you think they would start obeying it then? They'd just ignore whatever you changed, and still keep violating it.

 

[dcraelin]

I think even most leftists think that gerrymandered districts for minority representation are no longer necessary...tho I do think at one time they were.

well, Im not even sure its the best...I guess I'd have to look at one... many immigrants at founding...probably a large chunk weren't even English speaking...it would inform debate for sure.

Maybe you should check with Jackson Lee, Cummings, and a few others in the CBC before you say "most leftist", I really don't think anyone of them would agree with that.

.I may be wrong

Yep, it's the only way those folks can keep getting reelected, Jackson Lee is one of the biggest running jokes in the Houston area, if her district wasn't so closely controlled, she'd be gone.

perhaps, but if her district were redrawn, perhaps some surrounding rt-wingers would have to moderate

No, if her district were redrawn to any significant degree she would be gone, she has a virtually all black district in one on the poorest areas of town, it's gang infested and I doubt that even 20% of her district votes. I don't think she could carry even a moderate constituency.

yes, I agree she would probably be gone

 

[dcraelin]

BTW, liberals (in both parties) have been violating and generally ignoring the Constitution whenever they like, for years.

If you changed it, what makes you think they would start obeying it then? They'd just ignore whatever you changed, and still keep violating it.

name one way liberals have violated the constitution

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

BTW, liberals (in both parties) have been violating and generally ignoring the Constitution whenever they like, for years.

If you changed it, what makes you think they would start obeying it then? They'd just ignore whatever you changed, and still keep violating it.

Yes, please explain how 'liberals' have 'violated' the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

BTW, liberals (in both parties) have been violating and generally ignoring the Constitution whenever they like, for years.

If you changed it, what makes you think they would start obeying it then? They'd just ignore whatever you changed, and still keep violating it.

Yes, please explain how 'liberals' have 'violated' the Constitution.

Public accommodation laws, for one.