Political question for Leftists. What do you not like about the Constitution?

[progressive hunter]

,, the rest state or imply all persons,,

To imply means it has to be interpreted.

imply - strongly suggest the truth or existence of (something not expressly stated).

Not expressly stated means your claim the constitution is simple english is another failure on your part.

you just lied in your own comment,,,

 

[meaner gene]

Show me the section of the constitution that takes away rights from other parts of the constitution.

the constitution doesnt have rights,,

Then the "bill of rights" is not not simple enlgish.

 

[progressive hunter]

Show me the section of the constitution that takes away rights from other parts of the constitution.

the constitution doesnt have rights,,

Then the "bill of rights" is not not simple enlgish.

only for idiots that need to be told what to think,,,

 

[meaner gene]

Only the 14th refers to "all persons"

As I said, only the 14th says "all persons"

thats not what you said,,,

why are you avoiding my comment?? are you saying those others dont apply to all persons??

The Constitution only applies to "all persons" in the 14th amendment. As it applies to anyone on earth. The rest of the constitution is limited to those under it's jurisdiction.

 

[meaner gene]

why are you avoiding my comment?? are you saying those others dont apply to all persons??

All persons would refer to everybody on earth.

 

[progressive hunter]

why are you avoiding my comment?? are you saying those others dont apply to all persons??

All persons would refer to everybody on earth.

in the context of the statement where its stated or implied,,,

 

[meaner gene]

All persons would refer to everybody on earth.

in the context of the statement where its stated or implied,,,

Only the 14th applies to "all persons" as it says in simple english.

 

[meaner gene]

BTW: The 14th would also apply to extraterrestrial humanoids.

 

[progressive hunter]

All persons would refer to everybody on earth.

in the context of the statement where its stated or implied,,,

Only the 14th applies to "all persons" as it says in simple english.

so we can execute foreigners without trial in this country???

I would like to take this time to thank you for this long drawn out example of showing why interpretation isnt how the constitution works,, and hopes that others read it and learn from your mistakes,,,

 

[meaner gene]

so we can execute foreigners without trial in this country???

If they a physically present in this country, they are covered under "person" as in "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,"

 

[progressive hunter]

so we can execute foreigners without trial in this country???

If they a physically present in this country, they are covered under "person" as in "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,"

and now you see you were wrong in your previous statement,,,

we call this progress,,

 

[meaner gene]

and now you see you were wrong in your previous statement,,,

we call this progress,,

How am I wrong. The 5th refers to "person" which is anyone physically present within the US.

"All persons" refers to anyone on earth.

But "the people" has different meanings under the different parts of the constitution. So you can't use simple english, since you can't give the same words, different meanings under simple enlgish.

 

[progressive hunter]

and now you see you were wrong in your previous statement,,,

we call this progress,,

How am I wrong. The 5th refers to "person" which is anyone physically present within the US.

"All persons" refers to anyone on earth.

But "the people" has different meanings under the different parts of the constitution. So you can't use simple english, since you can't give the same words, different meanings under simple enlgish.

youre interpreting again,, and doing a poor job of it,,

remember when I said context and intent is important??

 

[meaner gene]

remember when I said context and intent is important??

Actually you said the constitution was written in simple english. Meaning easily understood, which is the opposite of requiring interpreting "intent".

Remember "intent" is exterior to the actual words, thus the constitution can't be "simple" english.

 

[progressive hunter]

remember when I said context and intent is important??

Actually you said the constitution was written in simple english. Meaning easily understood, which is the opposite of requiring interpreting "intent".

Remember "intent" is exterior to the actual words, thus the constitution can't be "simple" english.

only if youre an idiot or a person with intent to subvert it by making shit up like youre doing,,

 

[meaner gene]

remember when I said context and intent is important??

Oh.... we have another paradox. You said you have to have knowledge outside of the words of the constitution in order to understand it.

That's not simple english.

 

[progressive hunter]

remember when I said context and intent is important??

Oh.... we have another paradox. You said you have to have knowledge outside of the words of the constitution in order to understand it.

That's not simple english.

DUDE!!!

you tried to make it apply to people outside the country,,,

 

[meaner gene]

you tried to make it apply to people outside the country,,,

Actually the 14th amendment applies to people flying over the USA, or off it's coastline. It doesn't even require physical presence within the US.

 

[Rigby5]

Show me the section of the constitution that takes away rights from other parts of the constitution.

the constitution doesnt have rights,,

Then the "bill of rights" is not not simple enlgish.

The Bill of Rights is simple English.
But states already existed, and these existing states can't be expected to become subordinated to some new federal government, right after the colonists had been forced to fight a rebellion against the last corrupt central government.
So the meaning and intent of the Bill of Right was ONLY to limit federal jurisdiction.
Nothing else.
It was only after the Civil War, and the 14th amendment, when the SCOTUS started trying to define what rights all individuals should have.
That was not the intent in 1789.

 

[Resnic]

I know they like their right to free speech so they can tell others to not have free speech.