We need a new Constitution, yes or no?

[Harry Dresden]

Wrong! and if you are going to quote me at least don't lie when you do it.

Now prove I am a " Far Right Wing Drone".

Lets see you do it, I asked once to do it before and you provided zero proof so I can imagine that the same result will happen this time.

you asked me and i proved it....how many times do i have to prove it?.....90% of the shit you post is calling someone a far left Obama drone.....Even if the poster is not a far lefty....it doesnt matter to you....if someone has the gall and audacity to not agree with you he automatically is labeled a far left drone....a moderate righty would not do that....because they know not everyone on the left is far left....you already made your bed Kosh.....to late to change the sheets....

Wrong! Once again!

If someone posts far left propaganda it gets called out.

I will call someone a "far left Obama drone" if they deserve it, or to mock someone like you that can not tell the difference.

So once again you posted lies and no proof.

oh bullshit Kosh.....you called hjmick a far left drone because he disagreed with your shit....and he sure as hell aint no far lefty...thats what prompted me to say this about you back when you did that......mock yourself because you dont know the difference yourself.....to you...if someone,ANYONE, doesnt buy your shit.....they are a far left Obama Drone......

 

[Harry Dresden]

you asked me and i proved it....how many times do i have to prove it?.....90% of the shit you post is calling someone a far left Obama drone.....Even if the poster is not a far lefty....it doesnt matter to you....if someone has the gall and audacity to not agree with you he automatically is labeled a far left drone....a moderate righty would not do that....because they know not everyone on the left is far left....you already made your bed Kosh.....to late to change the sheets....

Wrong! Once again! If someone posts far left propaganda it gets called out. I will call someone a "far left Obama drone" if they deserve it, or to mock someone like you that can not tell the difference. So once again you posted lies and no proof.

You goof ball, that is how you are treated - a far right propagandist who is treated the way he treats others. You will get no respect until you start posting worthy commentary and material while laying off the trolling.

Tis what it is.

he doesnt seem to realize that he has 5,000 posts for everyone to check out....

 

[dblack]

The approach that CCJ is advocating is the current system that you and I just agreed on. He is just explaining it from a legal perspective as opposed to my layman's approach.

Which causes me to doubt whether we actually agreed. This:

The Constitution is not a 'contract,' and the interpretive authority of the courts as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, and as codified by the Constitution in Articles III and VI, clearly establishes that to interpret the Constitution is not to 'change' the Constitution, where the amendment process is utterly inappropriate to bring resolution to the conflicts and controversies of the day; existing Constitutional jurisprudence is more than adequate to address that need.

... particularly the bolded portion, is dubious. It's short hop from "utterly inappropriate to bring resolution to the conflicts and controversies of the day", to "inconvenient to the agenda of the current regime". And history has clearly shown this approach to be a vehicle to re-interpreting the Constitution to change its meaning, and not simply to refine it to a particular context.

Consider the popular movement to prohibit alcohol. Would it have been better to simply establish State regulations that controlled when and where it could be sold and to whom or was the overreach of the Constitutional Amendment the appropriate means to "bring resolution to the conflicts and controversies" of that era?

Sure, but how does that relate to judicial interpretation? The overreach was in the attempt to apply federal power in the first place. Attempting to do so without an amendment would have been even worse.

Contrast that to the DOMA legislation that was, in essence, just another form of "prohibition" by much the same kind of people. They certainly wanted an Amendment rather than DOMA.

Exactly, the Court should have required an amendment (which wouldn't have succeeded). The Constitution gives the federal government no legitimate authority to regulate marriage.

Amendments that have stood up over time have been those that expand the Constitution to embrace new realities rather than seek to impose restrictions. The "agenda" of the "current regime" varies constantly depending on whether or not they have the necessary support of Congress and the special interests. The prior administration had 4 years of complete control over both the Executive and Legislative branches. Would you have been happy to have removed the Judicial Review process on their "agenda"?

Why would I want that? I'm advocating more stringent Judicial Review, not less.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Do you realize that the fifty states govern education, and in those fifty states are over 13000 school districts, and in those 13000 districts are 24,000 high schools and in those 24,000 high schools are one or more classes teaching the Constitution. Yet they all manage to teach the Constitution is obsolete. Sounds like another communist conspiracy in the making.

Yet another baseless allegation with ZERO credible substantiation!

he is right Regent....they dont all teach that.....there are still good teachers out there who still teach what this Country was all about,and they teach that the Constitution means something....i believe as Te will attest....that there are teachers who because they don't like our Govt very much, will not put much effort into the Constitution and try to get through it as fast as possible because maybe they think it does not mean anything,but they are a minority....

 

[Kosh]

Do you realize that the fifty states govern education, and in those fifty states are over 13000 school districts, and in those 13000 districts are 24,000 high schools and in those 24,000 high schools are one or more classes teaching the Constitution. Yet they all manage to teach the Constitution is obsolete. Sounds like another communist conspiracy in the making.

Yet another baseless allegation with ZERO credible substantiation!

he is right Regent....they dont all teach that.....there are still good teachers out there who still teach what this Country was all about,and they teach that the Constitution means something....i believe as Te will attest....that there are teachers who because they don't like our Govt very much, will not put much effort into the Constitution and try to get through it as fast as possible because maybe they think it does not mean anything,but they are a minority....

Let us make this really simple for even the far left to understand out there.

Obama claims to be an Constitutional Scholar yet proves he does not understand the Constitution, so is that because he got a free ride and did not pay attention in school or was he taught what he believes?

 

[Kondor3]

Nope.

The US Constitution is not the problem.

Judicial Activism is a part of the problem.

Executive Orders are a part of the problem.

Laws that circumvent the intentions of the Constitution are a part of the problem.

Entrenched bureaucracy is a part of the problem.

Lack of Term Limits is a part of the problem.

Etc... etc... etc...

 

[Slyhunter]

To be an American citizen you need to be born to at least one American citizen, no anchor babies allowed.
To have rights you need to have passed 12 levels of education proving that you're smart enough to have the rights to citizenship.
If you are too poor to support yourself then you are too poor to have children, mandatory abortions.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Oh my the irony of those comments from a racist, bigoted far left Obama drone.

Still have no proof other than I am not far left. Then again to the far left anyone not far left is far right.

You going to denounce Obama for his illegal acts in Iraq?

it works the other way around too dumbass....you are proof of that....

Proof that has not been provided.

Do you have actual proof?

do you pay attention to some of the righties around here?....i dont think you do....ever read a post by Edgetho?....how about KatzNdogs?.....that guy with the ******* bird on his shoulder?....ShootSpeeders?....those people are fairly far right....everyone on the left who dont agree with them are....FAR Left.....you can tell by their posts....every lefty is a "Libturd" or a Nazi or a Slimeball or some other colorful metaphor....but maybe you dont see that because you are to far right yourself.....

 

[Kosh]

it works the other way around too dumbass....you are proof of that....

Proof that has not been provided.

Do you have actual proof?

do you pay attention to some of the righties around here?....i dont think you do....ever read a post by Edgetho?....how about KatzNdogs?.....that guy with the ******* bird on his shoulder?....ShootSpeeders?....those people are fairly far right....everyone on the left who dont agree with them are....FAR Left.....you can tell by their posts....every lefty is a "Libturd" or a Nazi or a Slimeball or some other colorful metaphor....but maybe you dont see that because you are to far right yourself.....

When the far Right Controls 2/3 of the government get back with me.

And name calling goes both ways, are trying to claim that you do not name call?

Yet you still have no proof of me being far right!

 

[Kosh]

what do you consider yourself Kosh?.....moderate righty.....RINO....cons lefty....what?....

Anti-far left!

nice dance....was that a new Polka?....whats the matter Kosh?.....dont want to have to admit you are maybe way over on the right somewhere?.....are you ashamed of what you are?....

Admit to what? I don't care for either party, but you can focus on those in control of 1/3 of the government I will focus on those in control of 2/3 of the government.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's long overdue for a serious update. The Founders would have thought so as well. It was written on paper not carved in stone.

Liberals have their own Constitution, except it's never written down, it's all up to the whim of the Executive

 

[Derideo_Te]

people who put people on ignore....Kosh just won Te....

BZZZZT Wrong!

Kosh was found guilty on the charges of wasting time and bandwidth and not contributing anything of value to the thread which is why he was sentenced to Cyberia!

if you say so Te.....70% of the posters here are guilty of that....

I am the master of my time and I don't waste it on those who are unworthy in my opinion. If I encounter someone of Kosh's ilk I give them the opportunity to contribute and if they cannot they are given the same treatment. It improves the USMB experience to ignore the noise makers and only deal with substance.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It's long overdue for a serious update. The Founders would have thought so as well. It was written on paper not carved in stone.

Liberals have their own Constitution, except it's never written down, it's all up to the whim of the Executive

That's absolutely incorrect, but no matter, carry on...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's long overdue for a serious update. The Founders would have thought so as well. It was written on paper not carved in stone.

Liberals have their own Constitution, except it's never written down, it's all up to the whim of the Executive

That's absolutely incorrect, but no matter, carry on...

LOL

Stalin, Hitler and Mao all had Constitutions...LOL

 

[flacaltenn]

Moderation MEssage:

The topic is the US Constitution.
The thread is in Zone2 Politics.
That means EVERY POST has to address the OP topic.
26 posts deleted.

Good topic -- get back on it..

FlaCalTenn

 

[LiberalMedia]

Nope.

The US Constitution is not the problem.

Judicial Activism is a part of the problem.

Executive Orders are a part of the problem.

Laws that circumvent the intentions of the Constitution are a part of the problem.

Entrenched bureaucracy is a part of the problem.

Lack of Term Limits is a part of the problem.

Etc... etc... etc...

Are judicial activism and executive orders explicitly barred by the Constitution?

What positions need term limits?

How do you suggest we deal with an "entrench bureaucracy," and what evidence did you go off of to reach the conclusion that such a thing even exists?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Interesting to note the OP Poll results so far;

Do we need a new Constitution?

Yes 11
No 55

That means that only 1 in 6 USMB posters support the idea of a new constitution. Amongst the population at large it is probably even less.

Please note that 2ndA sent out a clarion call in post #101 to about 50 RW'er to gain their support and even then the OP can only garner a measly 11 votes.

So by the looks of it this a lost cause.

 

[LiberalMedia]

Interesting to note the OP Poll results so far;

Do we need a new Constitution?

Yes 11
No 55

That means that only 1 in 6 USMB posters support the idea of a new constitution. Amongst the population at large it is probably even less.

Please note that 2ndA sent out a clarion call in post #101 to about 50 RW'er to gain their support and even then the OP can only garner a measly 11 votes.

So by the looks of it this a lost cause.

Agree. Despite their rhetoric about "respecting the rule of law," conservatards can't wait to abolish the highest law in the land, the U.S. Constitution, for the purpose of re-writing it to exclude African-Americans. Their racism and hatred of President Obama has driven them to seek to destroy the very thing they claim to love.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OP fail on the need of a new Constitution and a deflection fail on trying to shift the blame somehow to BHO.

 

[dblack]

OP fail on the need of a new Constitution and a deflection fail on trying to shift the blame somehow to BHO.

Troll fail. A yes/no poll asking a question. How can that "fail"?