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

[miketx]

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

What constitution does the Taliban have commie?

 

[Claudette]

Our constitution is fine and the men who wrote it were pretty smart.

Anyone who doesn't like our constitution can always live somewhere else.

 

[Skylar]

It was a States' right until 1808.

The issue should have been resolved by eminent domain, not our Civil War.

Indeed. Codified in the constitution with the full consent of the founders. That wasn't something 'done' to the constitution by posterity. That's how it was designed by the founders themselves. The constitution couldn't have been created without codifying slavery due to the circumstances of the age.

But it was a huge flaw in the document. As was the Bill of Rights not applying to the States. As was the lack of universal suffrage. We've corrected all three of those oversights.

 

[Skylar]

Our constitution is fine and the men who wrote it were pretty smart.

Anyone who doesn't like our constitution can always live somewhere else.

Or work to change the constitution.

 

[gipper]

The thing about our constitution is it was written by men that were willing lose everything and die to form this country. You would have a hard time finding a group willing to give up everything nowadays.

Nope, you wouldn't . They are the men and women of our US armed forces.

Agreed!

The sad thing is the US armed forces are dying to protect the interests of the Empire and the Oligarchy. They are not dying to protect the 'freedoms' of the American people.

More war means less liberty at home...always has and always will.

War is a racket and is always about the health of the State.

I agree, but it doesn't make those troops any less brave.

True. The troops are very brave and deserve our admiration. The ruling class is very corrupt and deserving of our scorn.

 

[danielpalos]

It was a States' right until 1808.

The issue should have been resolved by eminent domain, not our Civil War.

Indeed. Codified in the constitution with the full consent of the founders. That wasn't something 'done' to the constitution by posterity. That's how it was designed by the founders themselves. The constitution couldn't have been created without codifying slavery due to the circumstances of the age.

But it was a huge flaw in the document. As was the Bill of Rights not applying to the States. As was the lack of universal suffrage. We've corrected all three of those oversights.

It is almost a miracle they were able to compromise

 

[Skylar]

With universal suffrage, the Bill of Rights applied to the States and the end of slavery....yeah, its a hell of a lot better than it used to be.

Did you know that our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land was Intelligently Designed to be both gender and race neutral, from Inception?

Just, "right wing bigotry" and lousy reading comprehension.

Posterity simply slacked.

It wasn't in practice. And referring to slaves as '3/5ths of all other persons' doesn't make it race neutral. And with only white land owners allowed to vote at the time of its passage, it wasn't 'posterity' that rendered it far from gender and race neutral. It was the Founders themselves.

The founders were forward thinkers to be sure. But they weren't race or gender neutral. Nor was the age they lived in.

Slavery was actual practice in some of the several and sovereign States of our Union. The federal government could do nothing until 1808.

Slavery was codified into the Constitution with the 3/5ths compromise. It wasn't 'posterity' that did that either.

But the founders themselves.

No it wasn't. First, it was a compromise they HAD to make to get it approved.
SECOND, let me ask you a question.....WHAT was/is Congressional representation based on?

First, you're not following the conversation. We've already discussed how this was the best they could do in the era they were in. You're jumping in mid conversation arguing points that have already been discussed.

Second, if you have a point to make, make it. Tell us, what congressional representation has to do with whatever point you're looking to make. I'm not interested in playing the 'do you know' game. Yes, I do. Now just make your point.

 

[Skylar]

It was a States' right until 1808.

The issue should have been resolved by eminent domain, not our Civil War.

Indeed. Codified in the constitution with the full consent of the founders. That wasn't something 'done' to the constitution by posterity. That's how it was designed by the founders themselves. The constitution couldn't have been created without codifying slavery due to the circumstances of the age.

But it was a huge flaw in the document. As was the Bill of Rights not applying to the States. As was the lack of universal suffrage. We've corrected all three of those oversights.

It is almost a miracle they were able to compromise

It was certainly impressive. But it was largely an existential choice. The articles of confederation were adopted during the Revolutionary war. They proved awkward and cumbersome during the war and utterly ineffective after. And while Britian under the Whigs was not actively hostile with the US, they could have easily (and eventually did a generation later) reinitated those hostilties with the US.

The Constitution was an existential crisis and necessary. That necessity drove a lot the urgency in the convention. And with Washington on board, it had a solid chance of success. It was still impressive, though.

 

[danielpalos]

Our elder, Posterity, slacked.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No Democrat is brave enough to push for a Con Con, so this is NEVER going to happen.

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Constitution and a Commerce Clause.

There is no drug war clause.

 

[Skylar]

We have a Constitution and a Commerce Clause.

There is no drug war clause.

The USSC's wiggle on the interstate commerce was too broad in my estimation. As it effectively argued that interstate commerce was essentially the same as intrastate commerce. Which begs the question why the founders would have differentiated the two if the former means the latter.

The answer, IMHO, is that they aren't the same thing.

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Constitution and a Commerce Clause.

There is no drug war clause.

The USSC's wiggle on the interstate commerce was too broad in my estimation. As it effectively argued that interstate commerce was essentially the same as intrastate commerce. Which begs the question why the founders would have differentiated the two if the former means the latter.

The answer, IMHO, is that they aren't the same thing.

It is a States' rights issue.

Free States of our Union make their own, State laws regarding their internal affairs.

 

[Doc1]

Did you know that our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land was Intelligently Designed to be both gender and race neutral, from Inception?

Just, "right wing bigotry" and lousy reading comprehension.

Posterity simply slacked.

It wasn't in practice. And referring to slaves as '3/5ths of all other persons' doesn't make it race neutral. And with only white land owners allowed to vote at the time of its passage, it wasn't 'posterity' that rendered it far from gender and race neutral. It was the Founders themselves.

The founders were forward thinkers to be sure. But they weren't race or gender neutral. Nor was the age they lived in.

Slavery was actual practice in some of the several and sovereign States of our Union. The federal government could do nothing until 1808.

Slavery was codified into the Constitution with the 3/5ths compromise. It wasn't 'posterity' that did that either.

But the founders themselves.

No it wasn't. First, it was a compromise they HAD to make to get it approved.
SECOND, let me ask you a question.....WHAT was/is Congressional representation based on?

First, you're not following the conversation. We've already discussed how this was the best they could do in the era they were in. You're jumping in mid conversation arguing points that have already been discussed.

Second, if you have a point to make, make it. Tell us, what congressional representation has to do with whatever point you're looking to make. I'm not interested in playing the 'do you know' game. Yes, I do. Now just make your point.

Deflection coward. If you knew it would have been EASIER to just answer the question that type all of those huffy words and act insulted.

 

[Skylar]

It wasn't in practice. And referring to slaves as '3/5ths of all other persons' doesn't make it race neutral. And with only white land owners allowed to vote at the time of its passage, it wasn't 'posterity' that rendered it far from gender and race neutral. It was the Founders themselves.

The founders were forward thinkers to be sure. But they weren't race or gender neutral. Nor was the age they lived in.

Slavery was actual practice in some of the several and sovereign States of our Union. The federal government could do nothing until 1808.

Slavery was codified into the Constitution with the 3/5ths compromise. It wasn't 'posterity' that did that either.

But the founders themselves.

No it wasn't. First, it was a compromise they HAD to make to get it approved.
SECOND, let me ask you a question.....WHAT was/is Congressional representation based on?

First, you're not following the conversation. We've already discussed how this was the best they could do in the era they were in. You're jumping in mid conversation arguing points that have already been discussed.

Second, if you have a point to make, make it. Tell us, what congressional representation has to do with whatever point you're looking to make. I'm not interested in playing the 'do you know' game. Yes, I do. Now just make your point.

Deflection coward. If you knew it would have been EASIER to just answer the question that type all of those huffy words and act insulted.

Laughing...if you don't know what the 3/5th Compromise even was, why did you bother to jump into the middle of the conversation?

Run along, son. You're out of your depth.