Is the constitution outdated?

[MacTheKnife]

Government by comittee would be a disaster. Congress itself is bad enough. In fact our form of government is increasingly dysfunctional. Mainly due to diversity/multiculturalism. We have so many different groups now with their own agendas and all pulling and pushing for their particular agenda....creates paralysis at the highest levels. Time to change our form of government. Democracy/republic requires a certain level of homogenity which we no longer have.

Well, the problem is the US govt is a disaster right now. It needs to change and couldn't be that much worse.

So you don't want democracy. Then what?

It is not a question of not wanting democracy. It is a problem of our system of government democracy/republic becoming increasingly dysfunctional.

Yes, but the fact remains that if you make the system functional, then it'll be a better system.

Now, how do you make democracy more functional?

I do not think it can be made more functional, as I said it is becoming increasingly dysfunctional and it will do so till it gets so bad we will be forced to deal with it in a manner a great many people will not like. The bottom line we are in a huge, huge mess. A mess that will not go away of its own accord. As pointed out prviously our demographics are working against us. There has never been a society or nation in the history of the world that has been successful when composed of so many disparate factions.

This nation in a most foolish manner let itself go down a path of diversity and multiculturalism that will lead to our being relegated to the dustbin of history unless we manage to somehow get off that path and to do so now will require a revolutionary change in the way we govern ourselves..

Well, perhaps the best thing to say is, what can the very best be? If Democracy is always going to bad, and a dictatorship is always going to be bad, then what is the least bad system available?

Personally I think it's when you have fair democracy, one person, one vote.

I think it's where everyone gets to have the representatives they want to have.

Well, of course to begin with what we have is a republic but I get what you say.

One man one vote would be good if we had an homogenous population...people with similar values, goals, aspirations, etc. In a few short years the people that founded and built this nation will be a minority in our own country if the current demographic trends continue.

Thus all these different groups and nationalities of people we now have here as citizens have different agendas, goals, aspirations etc. and each pulling in a different direction hence the paralyslis in Washington and not even to mention the majority pop. as of now....being caucasians are also split between liberals and conservatives...net result a huge mess tht is not going to get any better unless we make some radical or extremist type changes.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Living documents evolve. They never get outdated. These so called "originalists", they are outdated.

WTF is a living document?

An illusion that idealists are hung up on. Not admitting that the constitution is just a piece of paper of which(depending on the time of day) is sometimes abided by and sometimes not. Just depends on whether there are more liberals or more conservatives on the supreme court.

Not to mention Presidents have routinely violated it.

One of the most egregious cases of a violation of the constitution was the election of Obama who by the constitutional requirements for the presidency was unquallified...but no one stepped in to support the constitution. Not even the supreme ct. A matter crying out for a decision by the Supreme Court...but they were too cowardly to address it....so they washed their hands of it and declared it is a political matter.

Looka, no Obama fan, but how was he unqualified?

He was not a natural born citizen...even if he was born in Hawaii.

'Obama is not qualified to be president after all for the following reason:

Barack Obama is not legally a U.S. natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between “December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986.” Presidential office requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. citizen parents, which of course is what exempts John McCain though he was born in the Panama Canal. US Law very clearly stipulates: “If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.” Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means though she had been a U.S. citizen for 10 years, (or citizen perhaps because of Hawaii being a territory) the mother fails the test for being so for at least 5 years **prior to** Barack Obama’s birth, but *after* age 16. It doesn’t matter *after* . In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. citizenship. At most, there were only 2 years elapsed since his mother turned 16 at the time of Barack Obama’s birth when she was 18 in Hawaii. His mother would have needed to have been 16+5= 21 years old, at the time of Barack Obama’s birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen. As aforementioned, she was a young college student at the time and was not. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at that time his mother would have needed to have waited to have him as the only U.S. Citizen parent. Obama instead should have been naturalized, but even then, that would still disqualify him from holding the office.'

*** Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/native-son/

The Snopes article you quoted says this claim is false.

That is one view and there are others and that is why the Supreme Ct. should have stepped in and clarified what a natural born citizen is . But they were too cowardly to do so --as in they were unwilling to take the heat or blowback that would have occurred if they had declared Obama not to be a natural born citizen and thus unqualified. There would likely have been riots in black communities all across America. So they passed the buck. Refused to deal with it....claiming it was not their responsibilty...that it was a political matter. Unfriggin believable...the supreme ct. saying that interpeting what the constitution means by natural born citizen does not fall under their authority???

 

[Crepitus]

I am beginning to think the constitution is highly overated. I have talked to people who say the constitution protects me an my family.

How so?

Not even to mention all the Presidents who have violated it. So what gives?

Living documents evolve. They never get outdated. These so called "originalists", they are outdated.

The only way it is a "living document" is if you do an amendment. English doesnt change because some bedwetter has a black cloak

How many times have portions of the Constitution been reinterpreted to mean different things? Just start with the second amendment. Until fairly recently it wasn't considered to apply to individuals. Now it is.

Because of bedwetting political activists in black cloaks. The words do not change. 9/10s of the Constitution is quite clear.
Use to, people knew the Constitution didnt give the federal govt the power to give aid to other states or localities.
In the 19th century, there was a huge fire in savannah georgia. Burnt most of the city. They wanted help. The feds said "No, we do not have that power"
And now we give aid to individuals, localities, states, foreign govts, corporations etc.
Did the Constitution change or the people in the govt?
The second has ALWAYS meant the right of the individual to have arms and ammo, shall not be fucked with. Did it always get "interpreted" to mean that? No. Does that change what it says? No.
The people that actually wrote the damn thing would probably decide to nuke DC...

Nobody said the words change. The interpretation does.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, the problem is the US govt is a disaster right now. It needs to change and couldn't be that much worse.

So you don't want democracy. Then what?

It is not a question of not wanting democracy. It is a problem of our system of government democracy/republic becoming increasingly dysfunctional.

Yes, but the fact remains that if you make the system functional, then it'll be a better system.

Now, how do you make democracy more functional?

I do not think it can be made more functional, as I said it is becoming increasingly dysfunctional and it will do so till it gets so bad we will be forced to deal with it in a manner a great many people will not like. The bottom line we are in a huge, huge mess. A mess that will not go away of its own accord. As pointed out prviously our demographics are working against us. There has never been a society or nation in the history of the world that has been successful when composed of so many disparate factions.

This nation in a most foolish manner let itself go down a path of diversity and multiculturalism that will lead to our being relegated to the dustbin of history unless we manage to somehow get off that path and to do so now will require a revolutionary change in the way we govern ourselves..

Well, perhaps the best thing to say is, what can the very best be? If Democracy is always going to bad, and a dictatorship is always going to be bad, then what is the least bad system available?

Personally I think it's when you have fair democracy, one person, one vote.

I think it's where everyone gets to have the representatives they want to have.

Well, of course to begin with what we have is a republic but I get what you say.

One man one vote would be good if we had an homogenous population...people with similar values, goals, aspirations, etc. In a few short years the people that founded and built this nation will be a minority in our own country if the current demographic trends continue.

Thus all these different groups and nationalities of people we now have here as citizens have different agendas, goals, aspirations etc. and each pulling in a different direction hence the paralyslis in Washington and not even to mention the majority pop. as of now....being caucasians are also split between liberals and conservatives...net result a huge mess tht is not going to get any better unless we make some radical or extremist type changes.

Well, the US could have a homogeneous population, but the problem with democracy is that people find it easier to stand on a platform of division and hate than on actually doing the best for the country.

But when people are forced to cooperate, then it is better.

The Swiss have a nice system. Not sure how it'd translate up to a large population like the US.

The executive is made up of people who have gained bi-partisan support, there are 7 members and one holds the status of head of state for like a year and it rotates.

So, you have to have gone through the legislature and proven yourself to both sides in order to get to be a part of the executive. This stops people like Trump who come from nowhere.

Obama wouldn't have had anywhere near enough experience. Dubya neither. It'd lead to cooperation, as it does in Switzerland.

Also they have referenda and some other stuff which I never figured out the difference between the two (or three).

But there are things that can be done.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I am beginning to think the constitution is highly overated. I have talked to people who say the constitution protects me an my family.

How so?

Not even to mention all the Presidents who have violated it. So what gives?

Living documents evolve. They never get outdated. These so called "originalists", they are outdated.

The only way it is a "living document" is if you do an amendment. English doesnt change because some bedwetter has a black cloak

How many times have portions of the Constitution been reinterpreted to mean different things? Just start with the second amendment. Until fairly recently it wasn't considered to apply to individuals. Now it is.

Because of bedwetting political activists in black cloaks. The words do not change. 9/10s of the Constitution is quite clear.
Use to, people knew the Constitution didnt give the federal govt the power to give aid to other states or localities.
In the 19th century, there was a huge fire in savannah georgia. Burnt most of the city. They wanted help. The feds said "No, we do not have that power"
And now we give aid to individuals, localities, states, foreign govts, corporations etc.
Did the Constitution change or the people in the govt?
The second has ALWAYS meant the right of the individual to have arms and ammo, shall not be fucked with. Did it always get "interpreted" to mean that? No. Does that change what it says? No.
The people that actually wrote the damn thing would probably decide to nuke DC...

Nobody said the words change. The interpretation does.

Especially when the things around the words change.

Before the internet and after the internet, the first amendment interpretation is going to change, because everything is different.

 

[TNHarley]

I am beginning to think the constitution is highly overated. I have talked to people who say the constitution protects me an my family.

How so?

Not even to mention all the Presidents who have violated it. So what gives?

Living documents evolve. They never get outdated. These so called "originalists", they are outdated.

The only way it is a "living document" is if you do an amendment. English doesnt change because some bedwetter has a black cloak

How many times have portions of the Constitution been reinterpreted to mean different things? Just start with the second amendment. Until fairly recently it wasn't considered to apply to individuals. Now it is.

Because of bedwetting political activists in black cloaks. The words do not change. 9/10s of the Constitution is quite clear.
Use to, people knew the Constitution didnt give the federal govt the power to give aid to other states or localities.
In the 19th century, there was a huge fire in savannah georgia. Burnt most of the city. They wanted help. The feds said "No, we do not have that power"
And now we give aid to individuals, localities, states, foreign govts, corporations etc.
Did the Constitution change or the people in the govt?
The second has ALWAYS meant the right of the individual to have arms and ammo, shall not be fucked with. Did it always get "interpreted" to mean that? No. Does that change what it says? No.
The people that actually wrote the damn thing would probably decide to nuke DC...

Nobody said the words change. The interpretation does.

That doesnt make it a "living document" that means new people come in with their own agenda.
If the Constitution was the agenda, it would never change.
Thats why people like me always call them political activists.

 

[TNHarley]

Living documents evolve. They never get outdated. These so called "originalists", they are outdated.

The only way it is a "living document" is if you do an amendment. English doesnt change because some bedwetter has a black cloak

How many times have portions of the Constitution been reinterpreted to mean different things? Just start with the second amendment. Until fairly recently it wasn't considered to apply to individuals. Now it is.

Because of bedwetting political activists in black cloaks. The words do not change. 9/10s of the Constitution is quite clear.
Use to, people knew the Constitution didnt give the federal govt the power to give aid to other states or localities.
In the 19th century, there was a huge fire in savannah georgia. Burnt most of the city. They wanted help. The feds said "No, we do not have that power"
And now we give aid to individuals, localities, states, foreign govts, corporations etc.
Did the Constitution change or the people in the govt?
The second has ALWAYS meant the right of the individual to have arms and ammo, shall not be fucked with. Did it always get "interpreted" to mean that? No. Does that change what it says? No.
The people that actually wrote the damn thing would probably decide to nuke DC...

Nobody said the words change. The interpretation does.

Especially when the things around the words change.

Before the internet and after the internet, the first amendment interpretation is going to change, because everything is different.

How? Wouldnt it just be trying to decide if the internet is "speech" or not?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I am beginning to think the constitution is highly overated. I have talked to people who say the constitution protects me an my family.

How so?

Not even to mention all the Presidents who have violated it. So what gives?

Living documents evolve. They never get outdated. These so called "originalists", they are outdated.

The only way it is a "living document" is if you do an amendment. English doesnt change because some bedwetter has a black cloak

How many times have portions of the Constitution been reinterpreted to mean different things? Just start with the second amendment. Until fairly recently it wasn't considered to apply to individuals. Now it is.

Wrong as usual, it was never ruled on, there is NO body of law that EVER said the 2nd was a collective right controlled by the Government.

 

[MacTheKnife]

It is not a question of not wanting democracy. It is a problem of our system of government democracy/republic becoming increasingly dysfunctional.

Yes, but the fact remains that if you make the system functional, then it'll be a better system.

Now, how do you make democracy more functional?

I do not think it can be made more functional, as I said it is becoming increasingly dysfunctional and it will do so till it gets so bad we will be forced to deal with it in a manner a great many people will not like. The bottom line we are in a huge, huge mess. A mess that will not go away of its own accord. As pointed out prviously our demographics are working against us. There has never been a society or nation in the history of the world that has been successful when composed of so many disparate factions.

This nation in a most foolish manner let itself go down a path of diversity and multiculturalism that will lead to our being relegated to the dustbin of history unless we manage to somehow get off that path and to do so now will require a revolutionary change in the way we govern ourselves..

Well, perhaps the best thing to say is, what can the very best be? If Democracy is always going to bad, and a dictatorship is always going to be bad, then what is the least bad system available?

Personally I think it's when you have fair democracy, one person, one vote.

I think it's where everyone gets to have the representatives they want to have.

Well, of course to begin with what we have is a republic but I get what you say.

One man one vote would be good if we had an homogenous population...people with similar values, goals, aspirations, etc. In a few short years the people that founded and built this nation will be a minority in our own country if the current demographic trends continue.

Thus all these different groups and nationalities of people we now have here as citizens have different agendas, goals, aspirations etc. and each pulling in a different direction hence the paralyslis in Washington and not even to mention the majority pop. as of now....being caucasians are also split between liberals and conservatives...net result a huge mess tht is not going to get any better unless we make some radical or extremist type changes.

Well, the US could have a homogeneous population, but the problem with democracy is that people find it easier to stand on a platform of division and hate than on actually doing the best for the country.

But when people are forced to cooperate, then it is better.

The Swiss have a nice system. Not sure how it'd translate up to a large population like the US.

The executive is made up of people who have gained bi-partisan support, there are 7 members and one holds the status of head of state for like a year and it rotates.

So, you have to have gone through the legislature and proven yourself to both sides in order to get to be a part of the executive. This stops people like Trump who come from nowhere.

Obama wouldn't have had anywhere near enough experience. Dubya neither. It'd lead to cooperation, as it does in Switzerland.

Also they have referenda and some other stuff which I never figured out the difference between the two (or three).

But there are things that can be done.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, but the fact remains that if you make the system functional, then it'll be a better system.

Now, how do you make democracy more functional?

I do not think it can be made more functional, as I said it is becoming increasingly dysfunctional and it will do so till it gets so bad we will be forced to deal with it in a manner a great many people will not like. The bottom line we are in a huge, huge mess. A mess that will not go away of its own accord. As pointed out prviously our demographics are working against us. There has never been a society or nation in the history of the world that has been successful when composed of so many disparate factions.

This nation in a most foolish manner let itself go down a path of diversity and multiculturalism that will lead to our being relegated to the dustbin of history unless we manage to somehow get off that path and to do so now will require a revolutionary change in the way we govern ourselves..

Well, perhaps the best thing to say is, what can the very best be? If Democracy is always going to bad, and a dictatorship is always going to be bad, then what is the least bad system available?

Personally I think it's when you have fair democracy, one person, one vote.

I think it's where everyone gets to have the representatives they want to have.

Well, of course to begin with what we have is a republic but I get what you say.

One man one vote would be good if we had an homogenous population...people with similar values, goals, aspirations, etc. In a few short years the people that founded and built this nation will be a minority in our own country if the current demographic trends continue.

Thus all these different groups and nationalities of people we now have here as citizens have different agendas, goals, aspirations etc. and each pulling in a different direction hence the paralyslis in Washington and not even to mention the majority pop. as of now....being caucasians are also split between liberals and conservatives...net result a huge mess tht is not going to get any better unless we make some radical or extremist type changes.

Well, the US could have a homogeneous population, but the problem with democracy is that people find it easier to stand on a platform of division and hate than on actually doing the best for the country.

But when people are forced to cooperate, then it is better.

The Swiss have a nice system. Not sure how it'd translate up to a large population like the US.

The executive is made up of people who have gained bi-partisan support, there are 7 members and one holds the status of head of state for like a year and it rotates.

So, you have to have gone through the legislature and proven yourself to both sides in order to get to be a part of the executive. This stops people like Trump who come from nowhere.

Obama wouldn't have had anywhere near enough experience. Dubya neither. It'd lead to cooperation, as it does in Switzerland.

Also they have referenda and some other stuff which I never figured out the difference between the two (or three).

But there are things that can be done.

Right....

 

[Crixus]

I am beginning to think the constitution is highly overated. I have talked to people who say the constitution protects me an my family.

How so?

Not even to mention all the Presidents who have violated it. So what gives?

Okay it’s like this, in some countries one could drag you off and shoot you in the face. Here, it’s a constitutional right that you can ask such a stupid question and just get called stupid for asking it. I mean, if you wonder, just move to Mexico.