Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Somewhere in all this, I'd have collective state oversight of whatever congress is doing that might impact states.
There would be no dept of education.
Somewhere in all this, I'd have collective state oversight of whatever congress is doing that might impact states.
There would be no dept of education.
There, we would disagree.
What would you change ?
What would you correct ?
What would you clear up ?
Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.
LAWRENCE V. TEXAS
What would you change ?
What would you correct ?
What would you clear up ?
Nothing, frankly.
Theres nothing that needs to be changed, corrected, or cleared up:
Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.
LAWRENCE V. TEXAS
The genius of the Framers was their correct understanding and intent that the Founding Document be neither living nor literal.
The Constitution is the codification of eternal principles designed to afford each person the means by which to safeguard his civil liberties in the context of Congress powers both enumerated and implied, placing the greater burden upon government when it seeks to encroach upon those civil liberties, and making legitimate and binding those laws which respect those eternal principles.
Through the process of judicial review the Federal courts in good faith weigh the evidence brought before them concerning the conflicts and controversies of the day, and render decisions predicated on Constitutional jurisprudence in accordance with the rule of law.
The Constitution is not the beginning or start of anything; rather, it is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition, and it derives its legitimacy from that tradition, from the tenets of English common law, from the authority of judicial review as acknowledged by the Constitution and the Founding Generation, and from the primacy of the rule of law vital to the Republic.
Given these facts, it become clear why the Constitution is in no need of being changed, corrected, or cleared up.
What would you change ?
What would you correct ?
What would you clear up ?
Nothing, frankly.
Theres nothing that needs to be changed, corrected, or cleared up:
Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.
LAWRENCE V. TEXAS
The genius of the Framers was their correct understanding and intent that the Founding Document be neither living nor literal.
The Constitution is the codification of eternal principles designed to afford each person the means by which to safeguard his civil liberties in the context of Congress powers both enumerated and implied, placing the greater burden upon government when it seeks to encroach upon those civil liberties, and making legitimate and binding those laws which respect those eternal principles.
Through the process of judicial review the Federal courts in good faith weigh the evidence brought before them concerning the conflicts and controversies of the day, and render decisions predicated on Constitutional jurisprudence in accordance with the rule of law.
The Constitution is not the beginning or start of anything; rather, it is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition, and it derives its legitimacy from that tradition, from the tenets of English common law, from the authority of judicial review as acknowledged by the Constitution and the Founding Generation, and from the primacy of the rule of law vital to the Republic.
Given these facts, it become clear why the Constitution is in no need of being changed, corrected, or cleared up.
Oh I wish it were so.
Our current Affirmative Action Moron is testing your hypothesis to the brim.
I'd have to rethink the sanctity in which we hold the concept of private property.
We NEED the right to own private property, but there has to be some limits on it.
And YES I totally understand how difficult it would be to have that cake and eat it, too.
I'd have to rethink the sanctity in which we hold the concept of private property.
We NEED the right to own private property, but there has to be some limits on it.
And YES I totally understand how difficult it would be to have that cake and eat it, too.
yes, it is a conundrum. But a solveable one, imo.
What would you change ?
What would you correct ?
What would you clear up ?
Nothing, frankly.
Theres nothing that needs to be changed, corrected, or cleared up:
Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.
LAWRENCE V. TEXAS
The genius of the Framers was their correct understanding and intent that the Founding Document be neither living nor literal.
The Constitution is the codification of eternal principles designed to afford each person the means by which to safeguard his civil liberties in the context of Congress powers both enumerated and implied, placing the greater burden upon government when it seeks to encroach upon those civil liberties, and making legitimate and binding those laws which respect those eternal principles.
Through the process of judicial review the Federal courts in good faith weigh the evidence brought before them concerning the conflicts and controversies of the day, and render decisions predicated on Constitutional jurisprudence in accordance with the rule of law.
The Constitution is not the beginning or start of anything; rather, it is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition, and it derives its legitimacy from that tradition, from the tenets of English common law, from the authority of judicial review as acknowledged by the Constitution and the Founding Generation, and from the primacy of the rule of law vital to the Republic.
Given these facts, it become clear why the Constitution is in no need of being changed, corrected, or cleared up.
What would you change ?
What would you correct ?
What would you clear up ?
Nothing, frankly.
Theres nothing that needs to be changed, corrected, or cleared up:
Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.
LAWRENCE V. TEXAS
The genius of the Framers was their correct understanding and intent that the Founding Document be neither living nor literal.
The Constitution is the codification of eternal principles designed to afford each person the means by which to safeguard his civil liberties in the context of Congress powers both enumerated and implied, placing the greater burden upon government when it seeks to encroach upon those civil liberties, and making legitimate and binding those laws which respect those eternal principles.
Through the process of judicial review the Federal courts in good faith weigh the evidence brought before them concerning the conflicts and controversies of the day, and render decisions predicated on Constitutional jurisprudence in accordance with the rule of law.
The Constitution is not the beginning or start of anything; rather, it is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition, and it derives its legitimacy from that tradition, from the tenets of English common law, from the authority of judicial review as acknowledged by the Constitution and the Founding Generation, and from the primacy of the rule of law vital to the Republic.
Given these facts, it become clear why the Constitution is in no need of being changed, corrected, or cleared up.
What would you change ?
What would you correct ?
What would you clear up ?
What would you change ?
What would you correct ?
What would you clear up ?
Two quick comments. First, the have a body of law that interprets and defines concepts in the Constitution. Would a new constitution be a tabula rasa or would it incorporate all of that body of law?
Second, there is one part of the Constitution which is unamendable, the provision that no state can be denied by amendment of its equal representation in the Senate. I believe that a replacement constitution could abolish this limit. But how could a replacement doing so get approval of 75% of the states? We have "rotten borough" situation equal to that addressed by the British in 1832.