CDZ Time to Update and Clarify the Constitution?

[Derideo_Te]

We need to get out of these so called treaties like tpp, gatt, nafta etc, that override the constitution. Then there's the big money deciding the political process. Even the supreme court members are wined and dined by billionaires. Otherwise, all these lengthy discussions about what the founders intended, don't mean that much.

Technically the treaties are constitutional. They were just written with the sole purpose of enriching the 1% while screwing over hardworking Americans. They need to be redrafted or scrapped and tariffs implemented to redress the imbalance.

As far as eliminating the big money contributions that should be unconstitutional IMO. Citizens United ranks right up there with Dredd Scott when it comes to vying for the worst all time SCOTUS decisions IMO. And no, we don't need to rewrite the constitution to eliminate big money. We just need to pass laws that require that all campaign funds can only be provided by American citizens with actual SSN's with a cap of $3k per election per candidate.

Oh, and let's eliminate contributions to political parties and PAC's entirely. Candidates must have sole control of all funds for their campaigns and must be held personally accountable for every cent.

 

[Wyatt earp]

This is not a partisan question. It seems to me that the original document (and amendments) require constant reinterpretation by an increasingly politicized judiciary. Isn't it time to clean it up to modern standards and clarify such issues as gun control and citizenship? What is wrong with letting the people decide?

The Law of the Land is constantly updating the Constitution.

The process is imperfect but the trend is positive.

And yes, We the People are doing the deciding, more or less.

If the people were deciding prop 8 would be the law in California and gay marriage illegal.

It was the wacky doodle 5th circuit court who did the deciding for a nation.

Prop 8 applied only to CA. The 5th Circuit Court covers multiple states and has the authority to determine that prop 8 was unconstitutional. The SCOTUS subsequently agreed that discrimination against gays violates the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Due process was followed and We the People were able to form a more perfect union based upon equality for all under the Law of the Land.

No state has the power to deprive anyone of their individual rights and no tyranny of a majority can do so either.

The Constitution and the BoR are there to protect individual rights and that is exactly what happened when Prop 8 attempted to deny individual rights.

Do you have a link that the crazy 5th circuit court applies to other states?

Because I think you are lying

 

[Derideo_Te]

This is not a partisan question. It seems to me that the original document (and amendments) require constant reinterpretation by an increasingly politicized judiciary. Isn't it time to clean it up to modern standards and clarify such issues as gun control and citizenship? What is wrong with letting the people decide?

The Law of the Land is constantly updating the Constitution.

The process is imperfect but the trend is positive.

And yes, We the People are doing the deciding, more or less.

If the people were deciding prop 8 would be the law in California and gay marriage illegal.

It was the wacky doodle 5th circuit court who did the deciding for a nation.

Prop 8 applied only to CA. The 5th Circuit Court covers multiple states and has the authority to determine that prop 8 was unconstitutional. The SCOTUS subsequently agreed that discrimination against gays violates the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Due process was followed and We the People were able to form a more perfect union based upon equality for all under the Law of the Land.

No state has the power to deprive anyone of their individual rights and no tyranny of a majority can do so either.

The Constitution and the BoR are there to protect individual rights and that is exactly what happened when Prop 8 attempted to deny individual rights.

Do you have a link that the crazy 5th circuit court applies to other states?

Because I think you are lying

Accusations of lying are a violation of CDZ rules and next time you will be reported.

For those who are ignorant as to how the federal circuit court system works here is a diagram.

CA falls under the 9th, not the 5th. As you can see the USA is divided into circuits and yes, each circuit court covers multiple states.

For your further education you can read this link.

Court Role and Structure

 

[jwoodie]

Do you have a link that the crazy 5th circuit court applies to other states?

Because I think you are lying

Actually, it's the 9th Circuit Court, which covers the nine western states. By jumping in with its radical decisions, this court creates non-binding precedent for other courts. If they disagree, the matter is automatically elevated to the Supreme Court.

Does that make you a liar?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Do you have a link that the crazy 5th circuit court applies to other states?

Because I think you are lying

Actually, it's the 9th Circuit Court, which covers the nine western states. By jumping in with its radical decisions, this court creates non-binding precedent for other courts. If they disagree, the matter is automatically elevated to the Supreme Court.

Does that make you a liar?

No, it does the exact opposite!

But thank you for tacitly admitting to your ignorance of the Law of the Land and how it functions. And thank you for disqualifying yourself from this topic.

Have a nice day.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Civil rights should not be put up to popular vote.

Yeah the judicial system should be the only ones too decide whether pesky things like the 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act can be violated...

Like they did when they granted marriage rights to only their select group of mature willing companions.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[9thIDdoc]

This is not a partisan question. It seems to me that the original document (and amendments) require constant reinterpretation by an increasingly politicized judiciary. Isn't it time to clean it up to modern standards and clarify such issues as gun control and citizenship? What is wrong with letting the people decide?

Something wrong with the amendment process? That is how the Constitution must be changed. That is the only legal way to change it.

 

[pauls]

First you should understand that the constitution is a document, by the people (who retain all powers of just government) that assigns certain powers to each of the three branches of the federal government. Then it declares the rights, attained at birth, for all mankind and states in each of those rights that they are beyond any power (even a unanimous vote of the people) to restrict unless they violate the right of another in their actualization. You can't yell "Fire!" in a movie theater because it endangers those present with getting trampled to death or being injured trying to exit the theater. You can't compel someone to practice your faith against their will because it violates their right to freedom. With each right is an "understood" responsibility that you must others enjoy the same rights if you want to keep yours.
If you want the constitution to be better understood you should try studying it. Not just read the words but really study it and use the references of the day to help yourself understand the reasons for each part. The only thing I can see wrong with the constitution is that governments ignore and abuse it. Maybe we should elect a third party to govern - one that actually believes in the limits of the constitution. The only party that I know of that fits those criteria in the Libertarian party.
Everyone else wants to remove freedoms or push their religious values on everyone else.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The only party that I know of that fits those criteria in the Libertarian party.

Libertarians don't uphold the Constitution when it comes to the Commerce and Welfare clauses. In fact they are opposed to both of them which would have dire consequences for this nation.

 

[jasonnfree]

We need to get out of these so called treaties like tpp, gatt, nafta etc, that override the constitution. Then there's the big money deciding the political process. Even the supreme court members are wined and dined by billionaires. Otherwise, all these lengthy discussions about what the founders intended, don't mean that much.

Technically the treaties are constitutional. They were just written with the sole purpose of enriching the 1% while screwing over hardworking Americans. They need to be redrafted or scrapped and tariffs implemented to redress the imbalance.

As far as eliminating the big money contributions that should be unconstitutional IMO. Citizens United ranks right up there with Dredd Scott when it comes to vying for the worst all time SCOTUS decisions IMO. And no, we don't need to rewrite the constitution to eliminate big money. We just need to pass laws that require that all campaign funds can only be provided by American citizens with actual SSN's with a cap of $3k per election per candidate.

Oh, and let's eliminate contributions to political parties and PAC's entirely. Candidates must have sole control of all funds for their campaigns and must be held personally accountable for every cent.

I'm for eliminating the contributions. Republicans, who are totally controlled by big money, would fight that to the death.

 

[JimBowie1958]

This is not a partisan question. It seems to me that the original document (and amendments) require constant reinterpretation by an increasingly politicized judiciary. Isn't it time to clean it up to modern standards and clarify such issues as gun control and citizenship? What is wrong with letting the people decide?

There are a dozen issues that the SCOTUS has totally messed up in existing case law.

We will eventually get an Article V states amendments convention and do just what you are talking about..