We need a new Constitution, yes or no?

[The2ndAmendment]

Y
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.

So freedom of speech, press, and religion are all bad/obsolete since they were written by white slave owners over 200 years ago?

That provision you speak of is called the Amendment process, and it was used to Amend the Constitution to force strict constructionism by the 10th Amendment.

Preamble Bill of Rights.

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.

Clearly the Founders considered Strict Construcionism to be vital to prevent oppression.

Deal with it.

USMB Roll Call, SALUTE!

[MENTION=19543]Geaux4it[/MENTION] [MENTION=40803]House[/MENTION] [MENTION=27958]LadyGunSlinger[/MENTION] [MENTION=22590]AquaAthena[/MENTION] [MENTION=27995]Uncensored2008[/MENTION] [MENTION=17441]Newby[/MENTION] [MENTION=20854]Zander[/MENTION] [MENTION=31640]koshergrl[/MENTION] [MENTION=46151]HelenaHandbag[/MENTION] [MENTION=11944]Mad Scientist[/MENTION] [MENTION=5035]GHook93[/MENTION] [MENTION=12394]PoliticalChic[/MENTION] [MENTION=20102]mudwhistle[/MENTION] [MENTION=43198]Pete7469[/MENTION] [MENTION=43198]Pete7469[/MENTION] [MENTION=34478]Clementine[/MENTION] [MENTION=41356]S.J.[/MENTION] [MENTION=46110]pvsi[/MENTION] [MENTION=39750]Intolerant[/MENTION] [MENTION=46796]shart_attack[/MENTION] [MENTION=25451]tinydancer[/MENTION] [MENTION=25451]tinydancer[/MENTION] [MENTION=21524]oldfart[/MENTION] [MENTION=24036]R.C. Christian[/MENTION] [MENTION=23239]westwall[/MENTION] [MENTION=42380]OriginalShroom[/MENTION] [MENTION=40845]Jeremiah[/MENTION] [MENTION=35716]SAYIT[/MENTION] [MENTION=20545]Mr. H.[/MENTION] [MENTION=47870]Vigilante[/MENTION] [MENTION=13580]CaféAuLait[/MENTION] [MENTION=25505]Jroc[/MENTION] [MENTION=31153]HenryBHough[/MENTION] [MENTION=42969]jon_berzerk[/MENTION] [MENTION=47390]DriftingSand[/MENTION] [MENTION=11635]Kat[/MENTION]zndog [MENTION=47390]DriftingSand[/MENTION] [MENTION=1528]Yurt[/MENTION] [MENTION=47812]CorvusRexus[/MENTION]ENTION=19543]Geaux4it[/MENTION] [MENTION=40803]House[/MENTION] [MENTION=27958]LadyGunSlinger[/MENTION] [MENTION=22590]AquaAthena[/MENTION] [MENTION=27995]Uncensored2008[/MENTION] [MENTION=17441]Newby[/MENTION] [MENTION=20854]Zander[/MENTION] [MENTION=31640]koshergrl[/MENTION] [MENTION=46151]HelenaHandbag[/MENTION] [MENTION=11944]Mad Scientist[/MENTION] [MENTION=5035]GHook93[/MENTION] [MENTION=12394]PoliticalChic[/MENTION] [MENTION=20102]mudwhistle[/MENTION] [MENTION=43198]Pete7469[/MENTION] [MENTION=43198]Pete7469[/MENTION] [MENTION=34478]Clementine[/MENTION] [MENTION=41356]S.J.[/MENTION] [MENTION=46110]pvsi[/MENTION] [MENTION=39750]Intolerant[/MENTION] [MENTION=46796]shart_attack[/MENTION] [MENTION=25451]tinydancer[/MENTION] [MENTION=25451]tinydancer[/MENTION] [MENTION=21524]oldfart[/MENTION] [MENTION=24036]R.C. Christian[/MENTION] [MENTION=23239]westwall[/MENTION] [MENTION=42380]OriginalShroom[/MENTION] [MENTION=40845]Jeremiah[/MENTION] [MENTION=35716]SAYIT[/MENTION] [MENTION=20545]Mr. H.[/MENTION] [MENTION=47870]Vigilante[/MENTION] [MENTION=13580]CaféAuLait[/MENTION] [MENTION=25505]Jroc[/MENTION] [MENTION=31153]HenryBHough[/MENTION] [MENTION=42969]jon_berzerk[/MENTION] [MENTION=47390]DriftingSand[/MENTION] [MENTION=11635]Kat[/MENTION]zndog [MENTION=47390]DriftingSand[/MENTION] [MENTION=1528]Yurt[/MENTION] [MENTION=47812]CorvusRexus[/MENTION]

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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

When did anyone state this? The Constitution is a document of historical experience, the Founders were smart enough to not only include lessons and safeguards against the tyranny that they suffered, but lessons and safeguards that other nations also suffered from ancient Greece to the 13 Colonies.

 

[shart_attack]

Okay, 2ndAmendment: I'm here.

And no offense, I don't see anything new. So I'm leavin'.

Thanks.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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

What does this mean to you?

prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers

 

[JakeStarkey]

"That provision you speak of is called the Amendment process, and it was used to Amend the Constitution to force strict constructionism by the 10th Amendment."

Hmmm. Read the Amendment process. Read Marbury. Read about the Civil War. Read about the 14th Amendment. Read Heller among other decisions. You can't have it one way and ignore the path.

Tis what tis.

 

[whitehall]

The Constitution is the law of the land. The Founding Fathers understood the concept better than most ignorant Gen X'ers and they gave us a way to fix it every two or four or six years in the voting booth.

 

[Zander]

We do not need a new Constitution. We just need to follow the one we have.

 

[percysunshine]

I do not agree with the lyrics, but it is good music.



"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
And I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again"


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHhrZgojY1Q]The Who - Won't Get Fooled Again - YouTube[/ame]

.

 

[Rikurzhen]

No, we don't need a new Constitution, what we need are two new countries, each with their own Constitutions.

One country for normal people and the other for liberals, and minorities, and illegal infiltrators galore, where they can have visions of everything for free dancing in their dreams. A liberal, multicultural, open-bordered utopia without the conservative poopyheads blocking them.

 

[percysunshine]

No, we don't need a new Constitution, what we need are two new countries, each with their own Constitutions.

One country for normal people and the other for liberals, and minorities, and illegal infiltrators galore, where they can have visions of everything for free dancing in their dreams. A liberal, multicultural, open-bordered utopia without the conservative poopyheads blocking them.

You want California to secede from the union?

.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

No, we don't need a new Constitution, what we need are two new countries, each with their own Constitutions.

One country for normal people and the other for liberals, and minorities, and illegal infiltrators galore, where they can have visions of everything for free dancing in their dreams. A liberal, multicultural, open-bordered utopia without the conservative poopyheads blocking them.

We already have 50 Eurotrash nations for liberals. After the civil war we'll be nice and send them to any one of those nation's of their choice.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Something is going to happen guys. It's a slow motion process we see unfolding before us. Many liberals are no longer my fellow countrymen - there are fewer and fewer things we see in common. Nothing binds me to them.

For instance, it is utterly incomprehensible to me how anyone could defend illegal immigration. Canada doesn't, Japan doesn't, Mexico doesn't. The whole point of setting up a country is to control the borders. Why have a nation if you don't have borders?

Liberals and Conservatives used to share far more common ground back in the 1900s-1960s. The 1960s lit the fuse and the divergence has been growing, slowly but steadily since them.

Granted, I'm probably a canary in the coal mine, one of the first to declare that I see very little common bond with liberals in America, but I'm pretty sure that I'm not going to be that lonely in the coal mine in the coming years and decades. Just look at how society is fracturing. The rise of gated communities, the rise of racially segregated neighborhoods, the rise of politically safe districts because birds of a feather flock together.

When a people become so separated by two philosophies of how government and society should be constructed, it becomes a very difficult task to govern the people under one constitution.

 

[Andylusion]

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?

So according to you the Constitution was written by your flying spaghetti monster?

(try making an intelligent post for once, and maybe I won't just mock you?)

 

[OnePercenter]

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

That seems contradictory.

Why?

 

[Kosh]

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

That seems contradictory.

Why?

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

 

[Andylusion]

Something is going to happen guys. It's a slow motion process we see unfolding before us. Many liberals are no longer my fellow countrymen - there are fewer and fewer things we see in common. Nothing binds me to them.

For instance, it is utterly incomprehensible to me how anyone could defend illegal immigration. Canada doesn't, Japan doesn't, Mexico doesn't. The whole point of setting up a country is to control the borders. Why have a nation if you don't have borders?

Liberals and Conservatives used to share far more common ground back in the 1900s-1960s. The 1960s lit the fuse and the divergence has been growing, slowly but steadily since them.

Granted, I'm probably a canary in the coal mine, one of the first to declare that I see very little common bond with liberals in America, but I'm pretty sure that I'm not going to be that lonely in the coal mine in the coming years and decades. Just look at how society is fracturing. The rise of gated communities, the rise of racially segregated neighborhoods, the rise of politically safe districts because birds of a feather flock together.

When a people become so separated by two philosophies of how government and society should be constructed, it becomes a very difficult task to govern the people under one constitution.

I agree completely. The liberals have become so blind to the logical conclusion of their own ideology, that they really believe that tearing down the entire country, is their way of building it up.

They have become the typical rich spoiled brat, that doesn't realize how good he has it, and wants to destroy the very thing that makes him wealthy, because he himself never had to work for any of it.

People who never ran a business, saying we need to get rid of business owners.

People who never lived without power, saying we need to shut down CO2 emitting power plants.

People who never lived without plenty of food, saying we shouldn't spray crops or dust fields.

People who have never worked on a farm, complaining that 40 hour weeks is too much, and one week vacation is too little.

People who never lived without freedom, saying we need to do away with our freedoms.

People who have never lived, or even visited anywhere else in the world, saying everywhere else in the world is better than it is here.

I can't think of any aspect of liberalism that I can identify with. It's simply an entire ideology of Spoiled Brat Syndrome.

Ironically I used to be a leftard myself. Thank G-d I grew a brain, and got away from those people.

 

[DriftingSand]

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.

I don't believe that the Constitution was written as a result of slavery or horse ownership. It was written as a result of some timeless truths and natural rights (I believe God-given). The founders of this nation had witnessed and experienced first hand what life under total tyranny was really like. They understood total oppression at the hands of a despotic monarch and they knew that what they (and their countrymen) were experiencing was wrong.

The founders were anything but oppressors. They were primarily Christians who opposed the Monarchy and "State Religion" of England. They saw a need for a break from England and they simply made their move. They fought, bled, and died so that they and their children and their grandchildren (and you and I) could worship God in their own way or not worship Him at all.

I believe that the right to assemble is timeless. I believe that the right to speak is timeless. I believe that the right to defend oneself against criminals and tyrants is timeless. I believe that a person's right to worship God in his own way is timeless. I believe that a person's right to privacy is timeless.

Don't you believe that your rights should be protected? An intact Constitution should be our first defense against someone who would attempt to strip us of those rights.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

 

[regent]

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.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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?

Which is why Don't Taz Me Bro went on to include the appointment of "judges" who supports the measure of changing the law from the bench. Great post Taz !