We need a new Constitution, yes or no?

[The2ndAmendment]

None of those links support the baseless allegation. They teach both interpretations. You don't get to decide that only side can be taught just because that fits your personal bias.

So now you've at least admitted that they teach Loose Constructionism as a viable alternative, +1.

Hint, it's not a viable alternative. Every clause in the Constitution means precisely what it says when it was written, unless it was changed or voided by amendment.

Also the books are written in a way that reflects negatively on strict constructionism, read any of them. The fact that the book even teaches "Loose Constructionism" as viable alternative is intellectually dishonest, and thus any book that teaches it is there for the purpose of ostracizing strict constructionism.

Please find which part of the Constitution says "The United States Government may exercise any power not prohibited to it." I know for sure that the Tenth Amendment reads OPPOSITE of that.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We need a new Constitution, yes or no?

Nope, there is no need for a new Constitution.

The useful idiots and tools on the far right have served the mainstream GOP as far as possible and are now being kicked to the curb.

 

[dblack]

We'd solve most of the issues I have with the current interpretation by deleting the commerce clause and clearly asserting that the general welfare clause is NOT an 'implied power to spend'.

 

[peach174]

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.

Tell that to the WWII veterans at the Battle of Athens, Tennessee, 1946.

I don't think that they could get away with that again in todays world of the internet.

 

[dblack]

We need a new Constitution, yes or no?

Nope, there is no need for a new Constitution.

The useful idiots and tools on the far right have served the mainstream GOP as far as possible and are now being kicked to the curb.

Ah, another useless "move along, nothing to see here" dismissal from Fakey. Getting nervous?

 

[OnePercenter]

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

 

[dblack]

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

That seems contradictory.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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.

Tell that to the WWII veterans at the Battle of Athens, Tennessee, 1946.

I don't think that they could get away with that again in todays world of the internet.

[MENTION=23262]peach174[/MENTION]
They'd get away with it for the same reason they got away with it last time, and the same reason the Government knew the Bundy Ranch militias were also going to get away with it:

No Jury of the their Peers would convict them.

Guns and Jury Trials go hand-in-hand. It's not a coincidence that they are both extolled upon in the Bill of Rights as being NECESSARY for the security of a FREE state, especially when the Preamble of the Bill of Rights clearly declares that those rights are intended to safeguard against a Tyrannical Federal Government. Notice they don't put that Preamble in the public school textbooks.

 

[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.

What you said is just crazy talk.
Since what we have isn't enforced.... we need a new constitution with enforcement provisions.
This is like criminals violate the law with guns, so we need laws saying criminals can't have guns.
You really don't see the insanity of this line of thinking?
If the criminal isn't going to follow existing laws..... why would you think they would follow new laws?
If the government is not going to follow the existing constitution, why would they follow the new 'enforcement provisions' of the constitution they are ignoring?
If the public allows the government to ignore the constitution now... then it really wouldn't matter what constitution you put in place.
My view is this.... if we are going to allow our government to ignore the constitution, then it doesn't matter what constitution we have, and thus we should just keep what we have.
If we are going to force them to follow the constitution, then the current one is which served us well for the 150 years we followed it, is good enough. Let's keep the good thing we have.

Please, its not crazy talk......Our original Constitution was the Articles of Confederation....the founders themselves weren't willing just to let things be...why should we?

I brought up the enforcement argument not because I necessarily agree with it, but because I anticipated a lot of folks saying "lets just enforce the one we've got".

You do have a point on if they dont follow it now why will they then....but thats not really an argument not to try for better. In general I think society would follow the rules better if they felt they were fairer.

We have an amendment process if you want to change something. Toss in your amendment, and if we all vote for it, great. Otherwise, no.

The problem with the articles of confederation, was that it was so limited, we couldn't defend the country.

The constitution, is likely one of the greatest documents in human history.... and it works.... if we follow it.

The problem today is that we're not following it. That doesn't mean we need a new document, it just means we need to follow what we have.

Out of all the civilizations in the world, we have become the most powerful and wealthy nation to ever exist, over hundreds of nations that have existed for hundreds, thousands of years.

What we have, does work. Let's just enforce what works.

Adopting something new, when we are not following what we already have, is like Venezuela. They changed everything, and their nation is ruined.

 

[Derideo_Te]

None of those links support the baseless allegation. They teach both interpretations. You don't get to decide that only side can be taught just because that fits your personal bias.

So now you've at least admitted that they teach Loose Constructionism as a viable alternative, +1.

Hint, it's not a viable alternative. Every clause in the Constitution means precisely what it says when it was written, unless it was changed or voided by amendment.

Also the books are written in a way that reflects negatively on strict constructionism, read any of them. The fact that the book even teaches "Loose Constructionism" as viable alternative is intellectually dishonest, and thus any book that teaches it is there for the purpose of ostracizing strict constructionism.

Please find which part of the Constitution says "The United States Government may exercise any power not prohibited to it." I know for sure that the Tenth Amendment reads OPPOSITE of that.

Your biased opinion doesn't alter the FACTS. You don't get to impose "strict constructionism" just as you don't get to impose "creation science" or any of your other absurd biases in public classrooms.

The Constitution was not handed down by the flying spaghetti monster or any other deity. It is a document written by men who lived in another century. Life today does not depend upon slaves and horses. The FF were smart enough to realize that things change and made adequate provision for those changes. If you don't like the changes then work to pass an Amendment with your "strict constructionism" enshrined in it and see how far you get.

We the People have the right under the Constitution to be free of oppressors like you.

Deal with it.

 

[LiberalMedia]

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.

 

[Andylusion]

None of those links support the baseless allegation. They teach both interpretations. You don't get to decide that only side can be taught just because that fits your personal bias.

So now you've at least admitted that they teach Loose Constructionism as a viable alternative, +1.

Hint, it's not a viable alternative. Every clause in the Constitution means precisely what it says when it was written, unless it was changed or voided by amendment.

Also the books are written in a way that reflects negatively on strict constructionism, read any of them. The fact that the book even teaches "Loose Constructionism" as viable alternative is intellectually dishonest, and thus any book that teaches it is there for the purpose of ostracizing strict constructionism.

Please find which part of the Constitution says "The United States Government may exercise any power not prohibited to it." I know for sure that the Tenth Amendment reads OPPOSITE of that.

Your biased opinion doesn't alter the FACTS. You don't get to impose "strict constructionism" just as you don't get to impose "creation science" or any of your other absurd biases in public classrooms.

The Constitution was not handed down by the flying spaghetti monster or any other deity. It is a document written by men who lived in another century. Life today does not depend upon slaves and horses. The FF were smart enough to realize that things change and made adequate provision for those changes. If you don't like the changes then work to pass an Amendment with your "strict constructionism" enshrined in it and see how far you get.

We the People have the right under the Constitution to be free of oppressors like you.

Deal with it.

You talk about "facts" and then base your argument on opinion. What 'oppression' are you under?

Our whole point is, there is an amendment process. Feel free to use it.

The only oppression here, is those who 'interpret' the constitution to mean whatever they want, and use that to take away the limitation on government tyranny that now affects most Americans.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Tell that to the WWII veterans at the Battle of Athens, Tennessee, 1946.

I don't think that they could get away with that again in todays world of the internet.

[MENTION=23262]peach174[/MENTION]
They'd get away with it for the same reason they got away with it last time, and the same reason the Government knew the Bundy Ranch militias were also going to get away with it:

No Jury of the their Peers would convict them.

Guns and Jury Trials go hand-in-hand. It's not a coincidence that they are both extolled upon in the Bill of Rights as being NECESSARY for the security of a FREE state, especially when the Preamble of the Bill of Rights clearly declares that those rights are intended to safeguard against a Tyrannical Federal Government. Notice they don't put that Preamble in the public school textbooks.

The Preamble of the Bill of Rights doesn't say anything of the sort!

Transcription of the 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress Proposing 12 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution

 

[Derideo_Te]

So now you've at least admitted that they teach Loose Constructionism as a viable alternative, +1.

Hint, it's not a viable alternative. Every clause in the Constitution means precisely what it says when it was written, unless it was changed or voided by amendment.

Also the books are written in a way that reflects negatively on strict constructionism, read any of them. The fact that the book even teaches "Loose Constructionism" as viable alternative is intellectually dishonest, and thus any book that teaches it is there for the purpose of ostracizing strict constructionism.

Please find which part of the Constitution says "The United States Government may exercise any power not prohibited to it." I know for sure that the Tenth Amendment reads OPPOSITE of that.

Your biased opinion doesn't alter the FACTS. You don't get to impose "strict constructionism" just as you don't get to impose "creation science" or any of your other absurd biases in public classrooms.

The Constitution was not handed down by the flying spaghetti monster or any other deity. It is a document written by men who lived in another century. Life today does not depend upon slaves and horses. The FF were smart enough to realize that things change and made adequate provision for those changes. If you don't like the changes then work to pass an Amendment with your "strict constructionism" enshrined in it and see how far you get.

We the People have the right under the Constitution to be free of oppressors like you.

Deal with it.

You talk about "facts" and then base your argument on opinion. What 'oppression' are you under?

Our whole point is, there is an amendment process. Feel free to use it.

The only oppression here, is those who 'interpret' the constitution to mean whatever they want, and use that to take away the limitation on government tyranny that now affects most Americans.

So according to you the Constitution was written by your God?

 

[dblack]

We the People have the right under the Constitution to be free of oppressors like you.

Deal with it.

"We the people" is not the callout to majoritarianism that you think it is. Instead, it's a recognition that government derives its power from the consent of all the people, not just the majority. And that's what I think the statists really don't get about the Constitution. If all we cared about was majority rule we wouldn't need a constitution. We just vote on everything and roll with it.

But that sort of government puts minorities at extreme risk, and more thoughtful people won't consent to such an arrangement. A constitution functions as a binding contract, whereby people can safely consent to abide by government (and, in a democracy, majority rule) with assurances that the power of government is clearly limited. In other words, it's not a blank check.

When the limitations are a abolished, or interpreted away, the consent that came with them is compromised. Whatever we do with the Constitution, we need to reassert it's power to clearly define the scope and reach of government. This idea that it can be whatever sounds good at the moment just doesn't fly.

 

[Interpol]

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.

 

[Derideo_Te]

We the People have the right under the Constitution to be free of oppressors like you.

Deal with it.

"We the people" is not the callout to majoritarianism that you think it is. Instead, it's a recognition that government derives its power from the consent of all the people, not just the majority. And that's what I think the statists really don't get about the Constitution. If all we cared about was majority rule we wouldn't need a constitution. We just vote on everything and roll with it.

But that sort of government puts minorities at extreme risk, and more thoughtful people won't consent to such an arrangement. A constitution functions as a binding contract, whereby people can safely consent to abide by government (and, in a democracy, majority rule) with assurances that the power of government is clearly limited. In other words, it's not a blank check.

When the limitations are a abolished, or interpreted away, the consent that came with them is compromised. Whatever we do with the Constitution, we need to reassert it's power to clearly define the scope and reach of government. This idea that it can be whatever sounds good at the moment just doesn't fly.

You are conflating and confusing two entirely separate things!

The form of government is by majority rule but the Constitution protects the rights of individuals from being abridged by the majority.

We the People are not attempting to abridge the rights of the individual because no individual has the right to impose their oppressive beliefs on We the People.

 

[dcraelin]

What you said is just crazy talk.
Since what we have isn't enforced.... we need a new constitution with enforcement provisions.
This is like criminals violate the law with guns, so we need laws saying criminals can't have guns.
You really don't see the insanity of this line of thinking?
If the criminal isn't going to follow existing laws..... why would you think they would follow new laws?
If the government is not going to follow the existing constitution, why would they follow the new 'enforcement provisions' of the constitution they are ignoring?
If the public allows the government to ignore the constitution now... then it really wouldn't matter what constitution you put in place.
My view is this.... if we are going to allow our government to ignore the constitution, then it doesn't matter what constitution we have, and thus we should just keep what we have.
If we are going to force them to follow the constitution, then the current one is which served us well for the 150 years we followed it, is good enough. Let's keep the good thing we have.

Please, its not crazy talk......Our original Constitution was the Articles of Confederation....the founders themselves weren't willing just to let things be...why should we?

I brought up the enforcement argument not because I necessarily agree with it, but because I anticipated a lot of folks saying "lets just enforce the one we've got".

You do have a point on if they dont follow it now why will they then....but thats not really an argument not to try for better. In general I think society would follow the rules better if they felt they were fairer.

We have an amendment process if you want to change something. Toss in your amendment, and if we all vote for it, great. Otherwise, no.
The problem with the articles of confederation, was that it was so limited, we couldn't defend the country.
The constitution, is likely one of the greatest documents in human history.... and it works.... if we follow it.
The problem today is that we're not following it. That doesn't mean we need a new document, it just means we need to follow what we have.
Out of all the civilizations in the world, we have become the most powerful and wealthy nation to ever exist, over hundreds of nations that have existed for hundreds, thousands of years.
What we have, does work. Let's just enforce what works.
Adopting something new, when we are not following what we already have, is like Venezuela. They changed everything, and their nation is ruined.

Thats essentially what I was proposing, amendment......or a series of them.

That the articles was limited our defense was disputed.....in fact we beat the british without even that limited form of government.

I dont think it works good enough....

 

[dblack]

We the People have the right under the Constitution to be free of oppressors like you.

Deal with it.

"We the people" is not the callout to majoritarianism that you think it is. Instead, it's a recognition that government derives its power from the consent of all the people, not just the majority. And that's what I think the statists really don't get about the Constitution. If all we cared about was majority rule we wouldn't need a constitution. We just vote on everything and roll with it.

But that sort of government puts minorities at extreme risk, and more thoughtful people won't consent to such an arrangement. A constitution functions as a binding contract, whereby people can safely consent to abide by government (and, in a democracy, majority rule) with assurances that the power of government is clearly limited. In other words, it's not a blank check.

When the limitations are a abolished, or interpreted away, the consent that came with them is compromised. Whatever we do with the Constitution, we need to reassert it's power to clearly define the scope and reach of government. This idea that it can be whatever sounds good at the moment just doesn't fly.

You are conflating and confusing two entirely separate things!

The form of government is by majority rule but the Constitution protects the rights of individuals from being abridged by the majority.

We the People are not attempting to abridge the rights of the individual because no individual has the right to impose their oppressive beliefs on We the People.

Well, I'm not clear what you mean by this. You're defending changing the terms of the consent contract (the Constitution) via means other than the amendment process, and then implying that those objecting to that agenda are "oppressing" you. This sounds mighty Orwellian to me. Can you clarify? How are people who don't want government reneging on its commitments oppressing anyone?