We need a new Constitution, yes or no?

[JakeStarkey]

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"?

How cannot it not, dtroll, when the arguments for a new constitution have failed.

An assertion is unimportant; only the facts and conclusion make it of any worth.

In this case, assertion was worthless.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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"?

If the intent was to garner support for a new constitution then it has failed by a huge 83% against to less than 17% for.

 

[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"?

If the intent was to garner support for a new constitution then it has failed by a huge 83% against to less than 17% for.

If the intent was to ask a question, and poll the response, it was an astounding success. Fakey is as fakey does.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

If the intent was to garner support for a new constitution then it has failed by a huge 83% against to less than 17% for.

If the intent was to ask a question, and poll the response it was an astounding success. Fakey is as fakey does.

66 responses is hardly an "astounding success" by any measure. It was widely advertised to RW'ers only and even they spurned the concept.

 

[JakeStarkey]

dblack, the implied intent was to show that we needed a new Constitution.

So OP fail and dblack fail with it. dblack is as dblack fails.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We need a new Constitution, yes or no?

Of course not.

The notion is ignorant idiocy.

That current Constitutional jurisprudence conflicts with your errant conservative dogma of hate and ignorance is no reason for a 'new constitution.'

I feel you, why would you want a new one when you've already contorted the one we have into what you wanted it to say? Why start over?

If we started over we'd just formally codify all of the progressive advances that have been labeled by conservatives as 'judicial activism'.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Of course not.

The notion is ignorant idiocy.

That current Constitutional jurisprudence conflicts with your errant conservative dogma of hate and ignorance is no reason for a 'new constitution.'

I feel you, why would you want a new one when you've already contorted the one we have into what you wanted it to say? Why start over?

If we started over we'd just formally codify all of the progressive advances that have been labeled by conservatives as 'judicial activism'.

I believe that it was Justice Ginsberg who made that observation if my memory serves correctly. She pointed to the South African Constitution as being an updated model that could be used as a template.

 

[OnePercenter]

That seems contradictory.

Why?

Another far left talking point proving they do not understand what the Constitution is much less what is in it.

The constitution is the business plan for America. All business plans need to be updated.

 

[dblack]

Of course not.

The notion is ignorant idiocy.

That current Constitutional jurisprudence conflicts with your errant conservative dogma of hate and ignorance is no reason for a 'new constitution.'

I feel you, why would you want a new one when you've already contorted the one we have into what you wanted it to say? Why start over?

If we started over we'd just formally codify all of the progressive advances that have been labeled by conservatives as 'judicial activism'.

Perhaps. But at least then we'd have genuine consent of the governed, rather than a bait and switch.

 

[dblack]

dblack, the implied intent was to show that we needed a new Constitution.

So OP fail and dblack fail with it. dblack is as dblack fails.

If the intent was to garner support for a new constitution then it has failed by a huge 83% against to less than 17% for.

If the intent was to ask a question, and poll the response it was an astounding success. Fakey is as fakey does.

66 responses is hardly an "astounding success" by any measure. It was widely advertised to RW'ers only and even they spurned the concept.

It was a poll. I assume the intent was to poll. Starkey's intent, as always, was to troll.

 

[JakeStarkey]

dblack, the implied intent was to show that we needed a new Constitution.

So OP fail and dblack fail with it. dblack is as dblack fails.

If the intent was to ask a question, and poll the response it was an astounding success. Fakey is as fakey does.

66 responses is hardly an "astounding success" by any measure. It was widely advertised to RW'ers only and even they spurned the concept.

It was a poll. I assume the intent was to poll. Stanley's intent, as always, was to troll.

Dtroll continues to troll. The intent of the poll was to suggest we need a new Constitution.

That failed. Dtroll's defense failed.

 

[hazlnut]

Those who say "we need to follow the one we got" should realize a Constitution that isn't enforced perhaps means it needs better enforcement provisions.

We do follow it.

When people don't there is a process to remedy that.

That process works.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

Tell Allan West that.

2. You can't believe that shit you just spouted. Republicans don't hate blacks for being black. It isn't logical and Republicans believe in logic.

 

[Slyhunter]

Those who say "we need to follow the one we got" should realize a Constitution that isn't enforced perhaps means it needs better enforcement provisions.

We do follow it.

When people don't there is a process to remedy that.

That process works.

But we do need a new constitution. At minimum we need to stop the anchor baby loophole. And to do that the constitution needs to be changed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

well, amend it,......... but in some areas I would heavily amend it......
But I think most of my amendments would conform to ideas proposed/advocated by the founding generation.
For example one of original proposed amendments was to have representation of around 1 per 50,000. We havent increased the amount of representatives in decades, tho we were doing so periodically for some time. I would increase the amount of representatives.

At 1 representative per 50,000 citizens, we would need over 6,200 members of the House of Representatives alone.
Currently, the base rate of pay for a US Representative is $174,000. For 6,200 Representatives, that would be $1,078,800,000, plus reimbursements for expenses such as travel, plus their pensions. This, of course, does not take into account their staffers. Each US Representative has between 14 and 18 full-time staffers, and 4 part-time staffers, with varying rates of pay. The typical yearly cost for the pay alone--not counting payroll taxes, office expenses, etc.--is upwards of $700,000 per US Representative, or $4,340,000,000.
So, using the most ridiculously low-ball numbers possible, your plan would amount to over $5.4 billion on the yearly budget in personnel costs for one chamber of Congress alone. I'm assuming that you would also amend the Constitution to deal with this problem, wouldn't you? If so, how? If not, why not?
Assuming you don't plan to have a 1:50,000 ratio, what would be your preferred numbers?

A guy from California has made a proposal to increase that state's representatives which I think allows some to stay 'at home' with a part-time salary. I would propose something similar. The 50,000 was for white males alone....I suppose an equivalent today would be 100,000. Some of the staffers can be cut......when you consider the increased representation, constituent services would be spread out and dealt with more directly by the representatives. Also the base rate of pay can be cut....Im not sure it is justified now...let alone if there were more representatives.

You know what I don't see in all your spiffy, new, "I'm so much smarter than the Framers" proposals? Any reason WHY we should do this, or WHY it would be an improvement.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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.

??

I voted no. And all of my posts have been on the side of NOT replacing the Constitution. Almost all of the RW's also agree that there is no need to change the Constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sigh.

We do need the states to regulate gun laws, not the federal government.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Those who say "we need to follow the one we got" should realize a Constitution that isn't enforced perhaps means it needs better enforcement provisions.

What are the First words of our Constitution?
WE THE PEOPLE

It is we the people who fire our elected representatives by not voting for them again when they do not follow the Constitution.

But they dont fire them, they maintain them in office. The two-party system keeps people hyped up on partisan rhetoric and they fear something worse than the crap they keep voting for.

Well, if people choose to be stupid, then they get the government they deserve. If your goal was to try to design a government that would make the world a perfect place for people without them putting any effort into it, it's not going to happen.

 

[Cecilie1200]

An absolute yes from me.

Here's a draft of the new Constitution I came up with. What do you all think?

Article I

Section I

Barack Obama is hereby declared President of the United States.

Section II

All powers not expressly addressed in this Constitution are reserved for President Obama.

This one will be a lot easier to learn than the old clunker taught in history classes today.

Really, I have to wonder who actually wakes up in the morning and says, "Hmm, I must go on the Internet today to make pointless posts so that people will think I'm an ignorant ****."

 

[Cecilie1200]

The framers of the Constitution encouraged future generations to amend it. They were explicit about it. So no, we don't need a new Constitution. We simply need to update the one we have, particularly the 2nd Amendment, which was only meant at the time for people serving in state militias, not just any private citizen.

Well, that's certainly your opinion. Next time you want to share it, you might wait until someone cares.