We need a new Constitution, yes or no?

[Cecilie1200]

What we need is less ignorance of, and contempt for, the Constitution and its case law by the partisan right.

What we need is less ignorance of the difference between the actual Constitution and "its case law". Any time someone says, "Never mind the words. This is what the Supreme Court said about it", I know they have nothing to say and nothing but contempt for the Constitution.

And we both know how many times I've heard you say that very thing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Our first Constitution was pretty liberal for its time and a new Constitution would be even more liberal. The nation's history is of slow liberalism, too fast for some and too slow for others, but always in the liberal direction.

The history of the universe is the progression of entropy and chaos, as well, but that doesn't make it desirable.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Our first Constitution was pretty liberal for its time and a new Constitution would be even more liberal. The nation's history is of slow liberalism, too fast for some and too slow for others, but always in the liberal direction.

I don't agree. I believe there is a right way to do things and a wrong way. In fact, there are lots of wrong ways.

When a baker creates the perfect cake there is no need to "liberally" change the recipe over time. The perfect cake will ALWAYS be the perfect cake.

In 4016 B.C. a person had the right to defend himself and his family from a violent criminal. The same will be true of a person living in 2036 A.D.

In 2036 B.C. a person had the right to express his beliefs verbally. The same will be true of a person living in 2021 A.D.

There's an old saying that's simple but true: "if it works ... don't fix it." Who here truly believes that they can improve upon the basic tenets of the Constitution of the USA?

Oh, TONS of people here believe that. They think anything that allows people the freedom to live their lives without recourse to or interference from the government for days on end is WRONG. It scares them, because they know that they are too lazy and stupid to manage it themselves.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

No, we don't follow it. How can you even suggest that? There are dozens of people right now, who openly advocate replacing the constitution, specifically because we don't follow it. Not talking about people on this forum.

Louis Michael Seidman is the Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html?_r=0

In his Constitution Day speech in 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt professed devotion to the document, but as a statement of aspirations rather than obligations. This reading no doubt contributed to his willingness to extend federal power beyond anything the framers imagined, and to threaten the Supreme Court when it stood in the way of his New Deal legislation. In 1954, when the court decided Brown v. Board of Education, Justice Robert H. Jackson said he was voting for it as a moral and political necessity although he thought it had no basis in the Constitution. The list goes on and on.

The new deal, and dozens of it's provisions which exist to this day, are absolutely 100%, illegal under the constitution.

Today, there are HUNDREDS of aspects of the Federal government, and Federal law, that are completely unconstitutional.

We are not following the constitution, and the more we deviate from it, the worse our country becomes.

The solution is not "we are not following the constitution and things are starting to suck, so we just need to replace the constitution, so things can suck even more, but no longer be unconstitutional".

The solution is to go back to following the constitution.

No, you are wrong. We are not following the constitution. We need to. If we were following the constitution, we wouldn't be in such bad shape today.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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!

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

what the **** does that have to do with what you and me were talking about?...

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

no shit....and yea i have named called....what does this have to do with what we were talking about?.....

Yet you still have no proof of me being far right!
....why did you not comment on what i said?.....i know why didnt....do you need me to tell you why?......or can you figure it out yourself?....

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

if you dont care for either party how come we dont see you calling some of the right here.....Far Right Drones?....a REAL Independent has things to say about both parties.......you are pretty one sided....

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

not according to Liberal Media.....just about every righty in the land wants to abolish it...

 

[BobPlumb]

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.

not according to Liberal Media.....just about every righty in the land wants to abolish it...

You take Liberal Media seriously? I think Liberal Media is a right wing plant.

 

[Listening]

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.

Hence the reason they gave us a process to amend it, but these days it's just easier for politicians to pass what ever laws they want, Constitutional or not, and make sure the president appoints judges who will go along with it and change the law by judicial fiat.

The last time I checked we still had a way to decide whether something was or wasn't constitutional eh?

What's so funny is that it can be constitutional on Monday.

Then be unconstitutional on Tuesday.

 

[regent]

Hence the reason they gave us a process to amend it, but these days it's just easier for politicians to pass what ever laws they want, Constitutional or not, and make sure the president appoints judges who will go along with it and change the law by judicial fiat.

The last time I checked we still had a way to decide whether something was or wasn't constitutional eh?

What's so funny is that it can be constitutional on Monday.

Then be unconstitutional on Tuesday.

So is a law or act of the president, Constitutional until declared un-Constitutional by the Court"?

 

[Listening]

The last time I checked we still had a way to decide whether something was or wasn't constitutional eh?

What's so funny is that it can be constitutional on Monday.

Then be unconstitutional on Tuesday.

So is a law or act of the president, Constitutional until declared un-Constitutional by the Court"?

Even if it declared unconstitutional one day....that can, and has been, reversed.

PMH needs to clarrify if he talking about Monday or Tuesday.

 

[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.

Tell Allan West that.

I tried to, but he merely called for security to remove me from his rally. His sexist manpig security guards groped and fondled me on my wrists and forearms as they hauled me out of the area, leaving me traumatized by the level of almost-rape and violation of my personal bubble I'd endured.

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.

That's the most ridiculous claim I've ever heard. Wrongpublicans don't believe in logic, they're racist! Irredeemably so. All of them. Every single one. Prove me wrong.

 

[LiberalMedia]

Hence the reason they gave us a process to amend it, but these days it's just easier for politicians to pass what ever laws they want, Constitutional or not, and make sure the president appoints judges who will go along with it and change the law by judicial fiat.

The last time I checked we still had a way to decide whether something was or wasn't constitutional eh?

What's so funny is that it can be constitutional on Monday.

Then be unconstitutional on Tuesday.

Find me one example of this happening in the entirety of U.S. history.

I won't even hold you to those exact days of the week. Find me just one instance of the Supreme Court ruling an action or law constitutional on any one day, and unconstitutional the next.

Alternatively, once you admit that you can't, I'd like to know what garden supply store you shop at to buy such quality shovels. They must've already gone through thousands of tons of the horseshit that cascades out of your mouth, yet you just keep piling it up on us without fail.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What's so funny is that it can be constitutional on Monday.

Then be unconstitutional on Tuesday.

So is a law or act of the president, Constitutional until declared un-Constitutional by the Court"?

Even if it declared unconstitutional one day....that can, and has been, reversed.

PMH needs to clarrify if he talking about Monday or Tuesday.

PMH wasn't the one talking.

But his point is valid since the court can rule what was once in is now out...

 

[Listening]

The last time I checked we still had a way to decide whether something was or wasn't constitutional eh?

What's so funny is that it can be constitutional on Monday.

Then be unconstitutional on Tuesday.

Find me one example of this happening in the entirety of U.S. history.

I won't even hold you to those exact days of the week. Find me just one instance of the Supreme Court ruling an action or law constitutional on any one day, and unconstitutional the next.

Alternatively, once you admit that you can't, I'd like to know what garden supply store you shop at to buy such quality shovels. They must've already gone through thousands of tons of the horseshit that cascades out of your mouth, yet you just keep piling it up on us without fail.

Only people hiding under a rock would argue that Roe has not been modified over the years based on various court rulings. And, of course, that annual march on the SCOTUS by pro-abortion activists (which happens on the anniversary of Roe) isn't because they are worried that Roe will be overturned totally...... :cookoo:. And, of course, there is the loud mouthed asswipe lectures of both Roberts and Alito by So-Glad-He's-Dead Ted Kennedy lecturing them on the need to "preserve" the gains of the last 50 years.

You can look at this list:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/html/GPO-CONAN-1992-13.htm

The Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education was supposedly a reversal of an earlier decison.

As to shovels, I am sure you'd like a good quality one because the low quality ones probably leave splinters in the parts of your body you chose to insert them for fun.

 

[Youch]

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.

No, the one we have is just fine. It just needs to be adhered to, which it currently is not, and by increasing degrees..

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No for two reasons. Any constitution written today would be a complete travesty, and the government doesn't bother following the one we already have so why bother making a new one? If anything, we should just go back to the Articles of Confederation, which would be a huge improvement.

 

[LiberalMedia]

What's so funny is that it can be constitutional on Monday.

Then be unconstitutional on Tuesday.

Find me one example of this happening in the entirety of U.S. history.

I won't even hold you to those exact days of the week. Find me just one instance of the Supreme Court ruling an action or law constitutional on any one day, and unconstitutional the next.

Alternatively, once you admit that you can't, I'd like to know what garden supply store you shop at to buy such quality shovels. They must've already gone through thousands of tons of the horseshit that cascades out of your mouth, yet you just keep piling it up on us without fail.

Only people hiding under a rock would argue that Roe has not been modified over the years

Stopped reading there. Your original claim was that a change was taking place from one day to the next. Now, you assert that a decision is made, then YEARSANDYEARSANDDECADES going by, and then the decision is "modified"--and not completely 100% reversed--to some degree.

Since you can't back up your bullshit claim, provide me with your shovel dealer or I'll bring this case to the USMB Bureau of Thanks Subsidies and have your subsidy revoked.

 

[Listening]

Find me one example of this happening in the entirety of U.S. history.

I won't even hold you to those exact days of the week. Find me just one instance of the Supreme Court ruling an action or law constitutional on any one day, and unconstitutional the next.

Alternatively, once you admit that you can't, I'd like to know what garden supply store you shop at to buy such quality shovels. They must've already gone through thousands of tons of the horseshit that cascades out of your mouth, yet you just keep piling it up on us without fail.

Only people hiding under a rock would argue that Roe has not been modified over the years

Stopped reading there. Your original claim was that a change was taking place from one day to the next. Now, you assert that a decision is made, then YEARSANDYEARSANDDECADES going by, and then the decision is "modified"--and not completely 100% reversed--to some degree.

Since you can't back up your bullshit claim, provide me with your shovel dealer or I'll bring this case to the USMB Bureau of Thanks Subsidies and have your subsidy revoked.

I see......I think everyone understood what I meant.

Maybe you should join RDean in his campaign to recover the money from those who claim to have educated him.

Didn't read the list ?

Keep trying.

 

[dcraelin]

Yes. In my view, the Constitution is a living document and needs substantial updating.

The Constitution is neither 'living' nor 'static,' there is no 'initial' Constitution, and the notions of 'originalism,' 'strict constructionism,' and 'constitutional literalism' are false dogma.

The Constitution enshrines fundamental, immutable principles of freedom and individual liberty.

As Justice Kennedy explains in Lawrence:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

This was the essence of the genius of the Framers, their humility to not presume to know what comprehensively constitutes liberty, but to ensure that the principles safeguarding liberty are forever protected and afforded to citizens to ward off government encroachment upon their civil liberties.

It is ultimately the sole responsibility of each citizen to defend his civil liberties, not government, where the Constitution provides each citizen the means for that defense, and the courts act as a neutral venue where the citizen can mount his defense.

most of the framers didnt want a bill of rights, so "safeguarding liberty" wasnt really their concern. see my pic of Jefferson's thoughts