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

[meaner gene]

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.

Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the decision that allowed people to be indefinitely detained in GITMO, Her flawed thinking was based on WWI, WW2, Korea and the Gulf war, as being the norm. That wars only lasted 5 years, so they could be held until the end of the war.

Not realizing the war on terror would become the longest in history, with no actual peace treaty signed.

 

[meaner gene]

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.

That actually cuts both ways. By constitutional amendment we could do things like change the presidential term to a lifetime appointment. Or rescind the bill of rights.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the decision that allowed people to be indefinitely detained in GITMO, Her flawed thinking was based on WWI, WW2, Korea and the Gulf war, as being the norm. That wars only lasted 5 years, so they could be held until the end of the war.

Not realizing the war on terror would become the longest in history, with no actual peace treaty signed.

You numskulls have been telling us that the Constitution is whatever the court says it is. Now you're disputing that theory.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

The intent in 1789 was that "the people" didn't include those who were only 3/5's of a person.

Slaves were not 3/5 of a person, they were property

The 3/5 applied to the number of Congressmen. Congressmen who voted to ensure you remained a slave

 

[meaner gene]

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

In 2004's Hamdi v. Rumsfeld decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the AUMF authorized such detentions with an understanding that this authorization ended at the conclusion of the war. But even in 2004, the majority was cognizant of the possibility that this amorphous "war on terror" was likely to change over time. In the ruling, written by then-Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, it notes: "If the practical circumstances of a given conflict are entirely unlike those of the conflicts that informed the development of the law of war, that understanding may unravel. But that is not the situation we face as of this date."

Justice Stephen Breyer, who ruled with the majority in Hamdi, released a statement that he would have granted certification to review the case. He thinks it's time, more than a decade later, to confront the questions Hamdi left unanswered:

The Government represents that such hostilities are ongoing, but does not state that any end is in sight….As a consequence, al-Alwi faces the real prospect that he will spend the rest of his life in detention based on his status as an enemy combatant a generation ago,

 

[BlackSand]

That actually cuts both ways. By constitutional amendment we could do things like change the presidential term to a lifetime appointment. Or rescind the bill of rights.

.

Well, duh ... We could do that.
I am not against people doing what the Constitution allows.

I am against the idea people like you want to pretend it isn't necessary to make whatever changes you may desire ...
by attempting to suggest you don't have to follow the required process, because you think they might of meant something they didn't say.

If you want it to mean something it doesn't say ... Do what is necessary to change it.

.​

 

[meaner gene]

Slaves were not 3/5 of a person, they were property

The 3/5 applied to the number of Congressmen. Congressmen who voted to ensure you remained a slave

True, but I was trying to put it in simple terms. Everybody knows slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person for representation, but weren't considered to be a "person" or one of "the people" under the constitution.

In fact, when Dredd Scott sued for his freedom, the supreme court effectively said, he wasn't a "person", and not entitled to use the courts of the United States. Labeling him a "plaintiff in error."

And even after the 14th amendment made most slaves citizens, it did nothing for "indians not taxed" who remained outside us jurisdiction until a later act of congress.

 

[meaner gene]

I am against the idea people like you want to pretend it isn't necessary to make whatever changes you may desire ...
by attempting to suggest you don't have to follow the required process, because you think they might of meant something they didn't say.

There are so many flaws that having to amend the constitution in order to fix them would create bigger nightmares than they solved.

An example, after passage of the 18th amendment, (prohibition) and with it the constitutional enactment of the Volsted act. But then several years later, the 21st amendment repealed prohibition, but left the status of those convicted under the volstead act in a strange limbo.

Normally when a law is repealed, a federal statute defines what happens to those suffering from the law. The normal default is when a law is repealed, it becomes as if it never existed, and those in jail, are released. Those facing trial are dismissed, and all pending legal actions stopped.

But because it was a constitutional amendment, the federal law didn't apply, and the volstead act repealed upon the time and date of ratification. With people convicted and sentenced before it was repealed having to serve their sentence.

 

[progressive hunter]

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

that wasnt the question,, and based on your deflection from it you know what you said is wrong,,

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

and all you did was end up wasting all out time,,

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

you couldnt be more wrong,,

 

[BlackSand]

There are so many flaws that having to amend the constitution in order to fix them would create bigger nightmares than they solved.

An example, after passage of the 18th amendment, (prohibition) and with it the constitutional enactment of the Volsted act. But then several years later, the 21st amendment repealed prohibition, but left the status of those convicted under the volstead act in a strange limbo.

Normally when a law is repealed, a federal statute defines what happens to those suffering from the law. The normal default is when a law is repealed, it becomes as if it never existed, and those in jail, are released. Those facing trial are dismissed, and all pending legal actions stopped.

But because it was a constitutional amendment, the federal law didn't apply, and the volstead act repealed upon the time and date of ratification. With people convicted and sentenced before it was repealed having to serve their sentence.

.

I can understand and see exactly what you are saying ... But that goes to even a larger point one could make.
We have completely fucked-up the rules, passed a lot of garbage, and ignored the general purpose of the Constitution and the Government it created in the first place.

It was never intended to be easy to pass legislation ...

The assclowns on Capitol Hill over the decades have done their best to destroy that concept.
A damn fool will stand in front of the camera and talk about "Doing the job of the People"...
then turn around and vote on a 1700 page Bill he doesn't have clue what half the stuff in it is for.

Irresponsible, self-serving bullshit is what we have allowed to replace a better approach to governance.

.​

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The “All MEN are created equal” part. That could use some updating.

Well, except for the fact that is NOT in the Constitution, Seabitch the dumbass!

 

[Seawytch]

The “All MEN are created equal” part. That could use some updating.

Well, except for the fact that is NOT in the Constitution, Seabitch the dumbass!

Got that, thanks, Seaman Rockhead. The ERA is a real thing and is WAY past due to be passed.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

how do you violate US law if youre not in the US??

 

[emilynghiem]

When people don"t believe in enforcing restrictions barring govt from imposing biases in beliefs on taxpayers involving social programs and policies, you can end up with govt where other people elect the terms which you are forced to pay for.

If we don't agree to write better laws to avoid imposing one group's political belief on another, we end up with govt policies NOBODY wants.

The constitution grants rights meant to protect the minority. A democracy suffers from having to govern by the will of the people, which means the majority can prescribe things abhorrent to the minority.

But as they say, winner take all.

Winner by judicial or majority rule
Still does not justify abusing govt to
Establish religion or faith based bias in belief in public policy where it violates beliefs of others and discriminates by creed.

We just haven't yet agreed how to manage political beliefs and creeds.

Until we do, there is competition to bully and force political beliefs through govt.

Technically this is not Constitutional, we just don't agree yet how to change or correct the system to prevent imposition.

We all want to stop abuses and corruption.

But don't agree how, where half the nation wants to reduce dependence on federal govt and half want federal govt to make the corrections as central authority.

 

[BlackSand]

Winner by judicial or majority rule
Still does not justify abusing govt to
Establish religion or faith based bias in belief in public policy where it violates beliefs of others and discriminates by creed.

We just haven't yet agreed how to manage political beliefs and creeds.

Until we do, there is competition to bully and force political beliefs through govt.

Technically this is not Constitutional, we just don't agree yet how to change or correct the system to prevent imposition.

We all want to stop abuses and corruption.

But don't agree how, where half the nation wants to reduce dependence on federal govt and half want federal govt to make the corrections as central authority.

.

They can make whatever corrections they want at the state level.
If they cannot manage to get what they want without leveraging the opinions of those in major metro areas outside their state,
then they need to come up with better legislation that addresses the concerns of more people within their state.

If they have to cut their wish list down to the bare necessities, so be it.
It can be done, and it can be done with fiscal responsibility.

Nothing is stopping them except their greedy desire to rule it all.
.​

 

[emilynghiem]

Winner by judicial or majority rule
Still does not justify abusing govt to
Establish religion or faith based bias in belief in public policy where it violates beliefs of others and discriminates by creed.

We just haven't yet agreed how to manage political beliefs and creeds.

Until we do, there is competition to bully and force political beliefs through govt.

Technically this is not Constitutional, we just don't agree yet how to change or correct the system to prevent imposition.

We all want to stop abuses and corruption.

But don't agree how, where half the nation wants to reduce dependence on federal govt and half want federal govt to make the corrections as central authority.

.

They can make whatever corrections they want at the state level.
If they cannot manage to get what they want without leveraging the opinions of those in major metro areas outside their state,
then they need to come up with better legislation that addresses the concerns of more people within their state.

If they have to cut their wish list down to the bare necessities, so be it.
It can be done, and it can be done with fiscal responsibility.

Nothing is stopping them except their greedy desire to rule it all.
.​

True, we could see better laws written and enacted at state levels.

However, since more States are organized 50/50 half Liberal and half Conservatives, that is why I recommend delegating some social policies to be decided and managed by party precinct or district level, democratically, so people can get the solutions that represent them WITHOUT compromising or imposing one party over another.

With issues like prochoice/prolife, and now vaccines, neither side of these conflicts agrees to majority rule deciding or dictating for the other half opposed.

The state or federal levels would need to reform laws better written and crafted to accommodate people equally, majority or minority, regardless of beliefs.

 

[Magnus]

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.

So you agree that the Liberals did write the Constitution? Good. Unlike the other trumptards, there is hope for you yet. Keep learning and one day you too will be able to join us on the smart side. Good luck.

 

[Magnus]

I am definitely not one but can I answer for the Leftest?

1. They do not like freedom of speech if it is critical of their agenda to make the US a Socialist shithole.

2. They feel that religion is a threat to their Government God and therefore do not like freedom of religion.

3. They hate the right to keep and bear arms because they don't want anybody that disagrees with their Socialist agenda to have the ability to resist them.

4. They hate the Amendment prohibiting slavery because they want everybody to be a slave of the state

1. You wing-nuts talk about freedom of speech and yet, when one of your own party - a die-hard Conservative no less - speaks out against der fuhrer of your party, you promptly throw her out.

2. You talk about freedom of religion and yet have a problem with all other religions except Christianity.

3. The right to keep and bear arms comes with responsibility. You wing-nuts have no problem giving any lunatic a gun with no oversight and yet have a problem letting people vote.

4. As for your inane statement about Dems & slavery? Which party worships the Confederate flag? The flag of slave-owners? Which party does not want the Confederate statutes to come down? Which party would rather deny the vote for all African-Americans because their party hates people whose skin is not white? The answer to all those questions is the Republican party.

Next time, do some thinking before posting. Will help you look less of a fool. Good luck.