The Week: America's Constitution is terrible. Let's throw it out and start over

[Carl in Michigan]

Too old some of it, still stuck in the 18th century. And we laugh at the Taliban.

Limits on government is old?

 

[Skylar]

As I expected, you are unable to answer any of the things I pointed out, and unable to cite any part of the Constitution that said most of the BOR only applies to the Fed govt and not the states.

Anybody else?

I addressed them immediately. I've cited USSC cases in which the courts found (unanimously) that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the States way back in the 1800s.

Barron v. Baltimore (1833).

We have an authoritative USSC case that definitely answers this question: No, the Bill of Rights does not apply to the States. And your reply is 'uh-uh'.

You're gonna need a little more than 'uh-uh' to overturn a unanimous ruling by the United States Supreme Court. This point made all the more emphatic by the fact that the express purpose of the 14th amendment by the men that introduced it to Congress.....was to apply the BIll of Rights to the States.

You don't seem very well versed in the history of this issue at all.

 

[imawhosure]

Uh no lets not.

The Left hates anything and everything that is a part of REAL American heritage...they won't be happy until the constitution is rewritten to suit Mexico, the American flag is redesigned and white people are the minority. I'm not making this shit up...read through a few threads here.

In short, they hate the Constitution because it limits government--not makes it more a part of our lives.

America's Constitution is terrible. Let's throw it out and start over.

do you agree?

I disagree.

Yeah, yeah, we got here on accident Leftists. Our dumb, old, forefathers didn't have a clue, lol!

HEEEEELLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOO! Why do you think there is an age limitation on POTUS? Because it takes more than your young inferior minds, to run a country-)

Wow. I get all that vitriol off of two words. You're not much for civil conversation, are you?

And how old did you glean I was from 'I disagree'.

About 23-) With the mind of a 13 year old, no matter how old you actually are!

Not even close. Again, where are all these insults coming from? All I said was 'I disagree'.

Is this really all there is to you?

You know what, lets not argue, instead, lets discuss and get on the same page.

Is America flawed? Of course it is, nothing is perfect, I think we can agree on that.

But show us all what we should strive for. Show us a better land. Show us a better deal.

Name a country that you think we should emulate!

If you can NOT pick a better choice, than all you are saying is------------>we are the best, and my (your) ideas are theoretical-)

 

[Skylar]

Uh no lets not.

In short, they hate the Constitution because it limits government--not makes it more a part of our lives.

I disagree.

Yeah, yeah, we got here on accident Leftists. Our dumb, old, forefathers didn't have a clue, lol!

HEEEEELLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOO! Why do you think there is an age limitation on POTUS? Because it takes more than your young inferior minds, to run a country-)

Wow. I get all that vitriol off of two words. You're not much for civil conversation, are you?

And how old did you glean I was from 'I disagree'.

About 23-) With the mind of a 13 year old, no matter how old you actually are!

Not even close. Again, where are all these insults coming from? All I said was 'I disagree'.

Is this really all there is to you?

Lady, you can disagree all you want, this is America. If you want to be with the losing Left, God bless ya!

What are you talking about? I disagreed with the idea of scraping the Constitution.

 

[Skylar]

Uh no lets not.

In short, they hate the Constitution because it limits government--not makes it more a part of our lives.

I disagree.

Yeah, yeah, we got here on accident Leftists. Our dumb, old, forefathers didn't have a clue, lol!

HEEEEELLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOO! Why do you think there is an age limitation on POTUS? Because it takes more than your young inferior minds, to run a country-)

Wow. I get all that vitriol off of two words. You're not much for civil conversation, are you?

And how old did you glean I was from 'I disagree'.

About 23-) With the mind of a 13 year old, no matter how old you actually are!

Not even close. Again, where are all these insults coming from? All I said was 'I disagree'.

Is this really all there is to you?

You know what, lets not argue, instead, lets discuss and get on the same page.

Is America flawed? Of course it is, nothing is perfect, I think we can agree on that.

But show us all what we should strive for. Show us a better land. Show us a better deal.

Name a country that you think we should emulate!

If you can NOT pick a better choice, than all you are saying is------------>we are the best, and my (your) ideas are theoretical-)

What? What 'ideas' are you referring to? I said 'I disagree'.

You seem to be having a conversation with someone else.

 

[imawhosure]

Yeah, yeah, we got here on accident Leftists. Our dumb, old, forefathers didn't have a clue, lol!

HEEEEELLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOO! Why do you think there is an age limitation on POTUS? Because it takes more than your young inferior minds, to run a country-)

Wow. I get all that vitriol off of two words. You're not much for civil conversation, are you?

And how old did you glean I was from 'I disagree'.

About 23-) With the mind of a 13 year old, no matter how old you actually are!

Not even close. Again, where are all these insults coming from? All I said was 'I disagree'.

Is this really all there is to you?

You know what, lets not argue, instead, lets discuss and get on the same page.

Is America flawed? Of course it is, nothing is perfect, I think we can agree on that.

But show us all what we should strive for. Show us a better land. Show us a better deal.

Name a country that you think we should emulate!

If you can NOT pick a better choice, than all you are saying is------------>we are the best, and my (your) ideas are theoretical-)

What? What 'ideas' are you referring to? I said 'I disagree'.

You seem to be having a conversation with someone else.

Well then, I guess you think all is well with the constitution. In that case, have a nice evening, and I apologize for calling you out on something I misread.

You see that folks, we can agree!

Skylar and I both decided the constitution is more than exceptional!

Have a nice evening-)

 

[Little-Acorn]

As I expected, you are unable to answer any of the things I pointed out, and unable to cite any part of the Constitution that said most of the BOR only applies to the Fed govt and not the states.

Anybody else?

I addressed them immediately.

Not even close. You changed the subject and referred only to opinions made by courts and lawyers.

And the Constitution supersedes all such opinions when they conflict with it, does it not?

You are unable to cite a single part of the Constitution that says the BOR does NOT apply to the states (except the one I already point out, which applied only to one amendment).

In fact, most of the BOR applies to all govts in the US, Fed, state, and local.

Here are some examples, which you either didn't read or carefully ignored.:

* Did you believe that only the Fed was forbidden to beat a confession out of a suspect, but the states and local governments can???

* Or that the Fed had to get a warrant for a search, but the states didn't have to pay attention to that nonsense and could break down your door at any time for any reason it wanted too, with no accountability?

* Or that the Fed had to tell you what you were charged with and give you a speedy trial, but for a state crime your state govt could clap you in irons and throw you in a dungeon for a couple of years, without telling you why, while they "worked on the paperwork"?

Etc. etc.

 

[Skylar]

As I expected, you are unable to answer any of the things I pointed out, and unable to cite any part of the Constitution that said most of the BOR only applies to the Fed govt and not the states.

Anybody else?

I addressed them immediately.

Not even close. You changed the subject and referred only to opinions made by courts and lawyers.

And the Constitution supersedes all such opinions when they conflict with it, does it not?

You are unable to cite a single part of the Constitution that says the BOR does NOT apply to the states (except the one I already point out, which applied only to one amendment).

In fact, most of the BOR applies to all govts in the US, Fed, state, and local.

Here are some example, which you either didn't read or carefully ignored.:

The Supreme Court explicitly contradicted you.

"These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.

We are of opinion that the provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States."

Barron V. Baltimore (1833)

That's about as clear as it gets, Acorn. You saying 'not even close' doesn't make a Supreme Court decision disappear.

The Court found that the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. There's no express language in the Constitution that would apply the Bill of Rights to the States. Nor any expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments.

And your reply is 'uh-uh'.

Um.....is that it?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In normal countries......as in......we are not a normal country?

No, we are not a normal country. We are a country with a charter that strictly limits government and allows people to mostly do what they want, take the consequences of doing so, and learn to do it better on our own - the first one in the world ever to do that.

As a result, we went from a bunch of colonies barely hanging onto survival, to the greatest and most prosperous superpower in the world, in less than 300 years as other nations attacked each other, killed their populations with dictatorships, fascism, and socialism. And we produced more prosperity than all the rest combined during that time.

The author cited by the OP wants to change us into one of the "normal" countries, with the same catastrophic results.

I understand, I just disagree with the wording. The author didn't say unique, he said normal countries with the insinuation we are abnormal.

 

[Skylar]

Wow. I get all that vitriol off of two words. You're not much for civil conversation, are you?

And how old did you glean I was from 'I disagree'.

About 23-) With the mind of a 13 year old, no matter how old you actually are!

Not even close. Again, where are all these insults coming from? All I said was 'I disagree'.

Is this really all there is to you?

You know what, lets not argue, instead, lets discuss and get on the same page.

Is America flawed? Of course it is, nothing is perfect, I think we can agree on that.

But show us all what we should strive for. Show us a better land. Show us a better deal.

Name a country that you think we should emulate!

If you can NOT pick a better choice, than all you are saying is------------>we are the best, and my (your) ideas are theoretical-)

What? What 'ideas' are you referring to? I said 'I disagree'.

You seem to be having a conversation with someone else.

Well then, I guess you think all is well with the constitution. In that case, have a nice evening, and I apologize for calling you out on something I misread.

You see that folks, we can agree!

Skylar and I both decided the constitution is more than exceptional!

Have a nice evening-)

I didn't say 'all was well'. I said the constitution was deeply flawed. And we fixed the big flaws. Like....owning people. Or the lack of universal suffrage. Or the bill of rights not applying to the States.

And I disagreed with the idea that the Constitution should be scrapped. I could think of a few more tweeks. But its the longest surviving constitution in use in the world. Clearly, we're doing something right.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The Supreme Court explicitly contradicted you.

(yawn) another reference to a group whose opinions are superseded by the Constitution whenever they conflict with it. Which the one you cited, does.

Or do you believe that the Constitution is NOT the supreme law of the land? That it can be changed or ignored by a court?

 

[dudmuck]

Trump vs. the constitution:

 

[Skylar]

The Supreme Court explicitly contradicted you.

(yawn) another reference to a group whose opinions are superseded by the Constitution whenever they conflict with it. Which the one you cited, does.

Or do you believe that the Constitution is NOT the supreme law of the land?

In comparison to what? Your interpretations? As you're not citing the constitution. You're citing yourself.

Show me anywhere in the Constitution that the States are expressly limited by the Bill of Rights.

You can't. Your entire argument is to ignore the Supreme Court and the Constitution and pretend that YOU are the authoritative arbiter of the Constitution.

You're nobody. What else have you got?

 

[imawhosure]

The Supreme Court explicitly contradicted you.

(yawn) another reference to a group whose opinions are superseded by the Constitution whenever they conflict with it. Which the one you cited, does.

Or do you believe that the Constitution is NOT the supreme law of the land?

What? I mean seriously, (are you also Serious?) what are you spewing?

Do you support the constitution or not? Easy question.

Here, I will answer it 1st--------->yes I do!

Do you?

 

[Coyote]

I think it's just fine and if people want to change it we have a process for that.

And that is part of it's value.

It's endured over 200 years, where as other countries seem to rewrite theirs with every new government.

It's perfect because it's broad enough and general enough to stand the test of time and still be meaningful.

It's perfect becuase it's HARD to change...but still possible. That means it can't be lightly done on political whim.

 

[imawhosure]

I think it's just fine and if people want to change it we have a process for that.

And that is part of it's value.

It's endured over 200 years, where as other countries seem to rewrite theirs with every new government.

It's perfect because it's broad enough and general enough to stand the test of time and still be meaningful.

It's perfect becuase it's HARD to change...but still possible. That means it can't be lightly done on political whim.

See, left and right can agree on something!

For the 1st time, carry on Coyote, as you surely have the correct path!

 

[Skylar]

You are unable to cite a single part of the Constitution that says the BOR does NOT apply to the states (except the one I already point out, which applied only to one amendment).

Your confusion is profound. You don't even seem to understand what the Constitution is. Its an exhaustive list of the powers ceded by the States to the Federal government and a description of process of how those powers are to be used. As the 10th amendment makes ludicrously clear, any power not delegated to the Federal government is retained by the States.

Yet in defiance of all reason, you're insisting that the States lose powers unless the constitution says they DON'T. Nope. You've got it backwards. That's not how the constitution works. The States only lose powers only when the Constitution says it does.

Either you show us where in the Constitution where the Bill of Rights is *expressly* applied to the States, or you lose the argument.

And there is no such language as it was written by the Founders.

You're out of your depth, Acorn.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The States only lose powers only when the Constitution says it does.

So you DO believe that only the Fed was forbidden to beat a confession out of a suspect, but the framers wanted states and local governments to be able to do it all they wanted.

And that while the Fed had to get a warrant for a search, states that didn't have to pay attention to that nonsense and could break down your door at any time for any reason it wanted too with no accountability, was exactly what James Madison had in mind and approved.

And that while the Fed had to tell you what you were charged with and give you a speedy trial, James Wilson was perfectly OK with state govts clapping you in irons and throwing you into a dungeon for a couple of years, without telling you why, while they "worked on the paperwork"?

And if the Framers believed anywhere near what you are trying to fool people into thinking they believed, they never would have written "CONGRESS shall make no law...." about the things covered by the 1st amendment. Because, as you try to pretend, they intended that same thing for all the other amendments... amendments where they as carefully left that phrase out. Your zany wet-dream "constitution" is so full of gaping holes that it could have been written by, well, modern liberals.

Listen to yourself. Do you even start to realize the insane conclusions your neat theories must lead to in the real world the Framers really intended for this Constitution and BOR to govern? You are accusing them of being completely out of their minds. Out of their depth, as it were.

Someone's certainly out of his depth here. But it isn't me. And it certainly wasn't the Framers.

In fact, the BOR was a list of restrictions on government, written to be enforced upon ALL the states and local governments, in addition to the Fed, except where it specifically said otherwise. Any other interpretation leads directly to insanity, dictatorship, and all the horrors of government they wrote the Constitution to prevent.

And which you seem quite willing to impose upon all of us with your ludicrous "interpretations".

 

[there4eyeM]

As language is a human thing, it is living. As the Constitution is made of words, it shares this attribute.

 

[Norman]

It should be replaced by the communist manifesto, I bet that that's what is going to be advocated.