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

[bripat9643]

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,,,

It does apply to people outside the country.
The rights endowed to individuals by US law are supposed to apply anywhere US has authority.
That is not just inside US states and territories, but embassies, countries under US military occupation, bases like Guantanamo, etc.
Which is why holding POWs at Guantanamo without giving them rights, violates US law as well international law.

I never said it did and it also doesn't answer my question to you,,,

I did not say you did.
And I don't know what question you had for me?

you said the bill of rights only applied to the feds,, and I asked can the states change the 5th A and jail or execute people without trial??

The court ruled that the BOR applies to all governments. It's called "the incorporation doctrine."

 

[BlackSand]

The problem as I have pointed out to progressive hunter, is that the Constitution isn't written in simple english. As progressive hunter said, it requires knowing the "intent" of those writing it. So your "legislating from the bench" is no more than applying intent to interpret the text.

.

No ... The problem is when someone wants it to say or mean something it doesn't.

In fact ... The Founding Fathers fought tooth and nail over some of the words.
They were very meticulous about the Liberties they chose to restrict, and even more meticulous about who they gave the power to do so, and how.

Anyone that would try and suggest otherwise, is trying to let their desired intent overrule the actual words.

.​

 

[bripat9643]

There is no restriction, it was meant to refer to all people through out the world.

That would be extraconstitutional. As it's restricted to people under it's jurisdiction.

No, it is not restricted. During the war on terror, the US Forces had to abide by the Bill of Rights for all the people they encountered.

The BOR does not apply to the enemy. Otherwise, how could we kill them?

 

[Weatherman2020]

I’m cool with it as written

After all, Liberals did write the Constituition

And Leftists fled to England.

 

[bripat9643]

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

All persons would refer to everybody on earth.

"All persons" does refer to everybody on earth.
But those who are not under our jurisdiction, are not our responsibility.
We have to defend the rights of everyone, but only against our infringement of their rights.
We don't have to defend Russians against infringement against the infringement of their rights by Russia.
But where the US is exerting authority, like in a US territory, embassy, military base, or area we invaded, then we have to prevent infringement of the same rights we protect in the US.

The US government only has jurisdiction over people in the country, so the "all persons" applies only to people residing in America.

 

[candycorn]

It seems most on the left want the Constitution radically changed.

What changes do you want to make to it that will result in the USA being a better place to live?

Zero sourcing for that silly claim.

Here is what I want to have changed in the constitution:

Regularly scheduled Constitutional Conventions to further perfect the document. For example, I can't find anything in the document that says a bill must get 50% yea votes to pass. Meaning that the House or Senate or both could pass a rule on their own saying that bills must pass by unanimous votes...or they could pass with a single "yea" vote. If I'm wrong, please tell me where in the constitution does it prohibit the political hacks from doing just that?

I also want penalties detailed myself. There doesn't seem to be any real skin in the game for the Executive to simply ignore Congressional oversight.

We need to codify how congressional districts are drawn since it has become completely political. The voters are supposed to select the representatives...currently the representatives are selecting the voters they want to represent. My idea is to have ZIP codes designated by population. Zip codes with 10,000+ will be "A", 5,000 to 9,999 are "B", etc... For ease of math, lets say that there are 100 zip codes in a state and you have five representatives. Each one would get 20 zip codes to represent . Each one would have 2 A's 2 B's, etc... They don't have to be contiguous...zip codes just drawn out of a hat. So when Representative Jane Doe of the Arizona 1st District gets her new district, she will have 2 urban zip codes, 2 suburban zip codes, 2 rural zip codes, etc... No more designating them by regions where one ideology is dominant.

Just some ideas.

 

[meaner gene]

when are you going to answer my question about the states being able to jail or execute people without trial??

I answered for him in order to save time, and stop you from nagging him.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I’m cool with it as written

After all, Liberals did write the Constituition

Yeah, Liberals DID write the Constitution, CLASSICAL LIBERALS which have absolutely no ideological relationship with the PROGRESSIVES of today, those liberals had far more in common with what you would call modern CONSERVATIVES (or more accurately modern LIBERTARIANS).

Modern Progressives have more in common with the Colonial Era Monarchists.

Stick that in your partisan pipe and smoke it.

A Liberal is not what we have today. Leftists are what we have.
God fearing people who had no desire to control people are responsible for the constitution.

 

[meaner gene]

No, it is not restricted. During the war on terror, the US Forces had to abide by the Bill of Rights for all the people they encountered.

Have you heard of GITMO. And how the people there have never been indicted. Or tried.

 

[meaner gene]

you said the bill of rights only applied to the feds,, and I asked can the states change the 5th A and jail or execute people without trial??

The court ruled that the BOR applies to all governments. It's called "the incorporation doctrine."

That was only after 1868 and the 14th amendment.

 

[Rigby5]

are you saying that states can change the 5th and jail or execute people without trial???

and thats just one of the flaws in your comment,,,

No, he's saying in 1789 they could, [ignore the 5th amendment] and they could continue [to do so] until 1868

not seeing your point,,, or what it has to do with my question to him,,

Didn't you ask if the states could ignore the 5th, or as you said "change the 5th"

he can answer on his own,,,

Yes, I do believe the states could and did violate the 5th amendment, execute people without trial, etc.
Since there almost no police and not necessarily even jails available, lynching was common.

But I could be wrong, because some of the proposed articled for the Bill of Rights did mention application over states as well.

{...
Fourteenth Article:
No State shall infringe the right of trial by Jury in criminal cases, nor the rights of conscience, nor the freedom of speech, or of the press.
...}

But this one neve made it to the final Bill of Rights.

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[$ecular#eckler]

No, it is not restricted. During the war on terror, the US Forces had to abide by the Bill of Rights for all the people they encountered.

Have you heard of GITMO. And how the people there have never been indicted. Or tried.

Yeah, it's in violation.

 

[bripat9643]

No, it is not restricted. During the war on terror, the US Forces had to abide by the Bill of Rights for all the people they encountered.

Have you heard of GITMO. And how the people there have never been indicted. Or tried.

They're terrorist caught on the battlefield without a uniform. They aren't protected by the Constitution or the Geneva Convention. We could push them all into a meat grinder if we wanted to.

 

[meaner gene]

In fact ... The Founding Fathers fought tooth and nail over some of the words.
They were very meticulous about the Liberties they chose to restrict, and even more meticulous about who they gave the power to do so, and how.

Anyone that would try and suggest otherwise, is trying to let their desired intent overrule the actual words.

.[/CENTER]

As I said, when the said "the people" in 1789 they didn't include those who were 3/5ths of a person..

 

[bripat9643]

you said the bill of rights only applied to the feds,, and I asked can the states change the 5th A and jail or execute people without trial??

The court ruled that the BOR applies to all governments. It's called "the incorporation doctrine."

That was only after 1868 and the 14th amendment.

So?

 

[Rigby5]

No, it is not restricted. During the war on terror, the US Forces had to abide by the Bill of Rights for all the people they encountered.

Have you heard of GITMO. And how the people there have never been indicted. Or tried.

Yes, and those responsible for holding people at GITMO clearly are guilty of violating US law as well as international law.

 

[Mustang]

It seems most on the left want the Constitution radically changed.

What changes do you want to make to it that will result in the USA being a better place to live?

Well, I'm not a leftist, but one thing I don't like about the US Constitution is the fact that a lot of the 'f' letters look like 's' letters.

Does that count?

 

[BlackSand]

As I said, when the said "the people" in 1789 they didn't include those who were 3/5ths of a person..

.

You cannot exclude something by including it, and 3/5th's is not an absence of quantity (however deficient it may be).
If you care to make a distinction about equality, they provided a means by which to verify or fix inequality.
The process was conducted as required, an Amendment was added to the Constitution, and ratified by the States.

You're getting distracted in the discussion.
I'll give you a question that may help you understand.

What is the age restriction in current Federal Statue regarding the right to own or possess a semi-automatic AR-15 and ammunition ... And why?
It's easy ... Don't try to over-think it.

.​

 

[meaner gene]

Here is what I want to have changed in the constitution:

Regularly scheduled Constitutional Conventions to further perfect the document. For example, I can't find anything in the document that says a bill must get 50% yea votes to pass. Meaning that the House or Senate or both could pass a rule on their own saying that bills must pass by unanimous votes...or they could pass with a single "yea" vote. If I'm wrong, please tell me where in the constitution does it prohibit the political hacks from doing just that?

We need to codify how congressional districts are drawn since it has become completely political. The voters are supposed to select the representatives...currently the representatives are selecting the voters they want to represent.

Right now the constitution gives each house complete control over it's own rules. So what you say can happen, but only if they can change to the new rule, while voting under the old rule. Which is why the senate required the "nuclear option" to get past the filibuster, because they don't have enough votes (66 required) to change the filibuster rule.

As for congressional districts, they should hand that over to a computer program, that would use natural boundaries to draw the lines. Ideally representatives should represent people of like needs, as each one should vote to represent their district, and not in general.

 

[bripat9643]

No, it is not restricted. During the war on terror, the US Forces had to abide by the Bill of Rights for all the people they encountered.

Have you heard of GITMO. And how the people there have never been indicted. Or tried.

Yes, and those responsible for holding people at GITMO clearly are guilty of violating US law as well as international law.

What law?