Is the Constitution really the greatest document we have?

[Hydro-Soil]

Agreed that the Declaration of Independence is the most important. The Constitution was abandoned in spirit in 1913 IMO. Today it's just a meaningless piece of paper that is supposed to give the proletariat class a false sense of comfort that they are governed by law rather than the whims of an entitled corporate dictator class.

Ditto.

The Supreme Court Justices just finished deliberating whether or not the ObummerKill program is "Constitutional" or not.

Any 15 year old with 3 brain cells (100 years ago or more) would have told you how unconstitutional it is. The idea would be laughable. Today, most don't have the vaguest clue of what you're talking about and adults actually debate it like it's even a question. *sigh*

This nation has become a wretched hive of villany and walking wounded. The walking wounded are those who have social/physical/mental/health issues... that are present because our govt has no truth and is mainly self-serving. The programs they promote are destroying this nation as a people.

When 50% of your "employed population" (on paper) is Fed, State or Local govt based jobs.... what kind of economy do you really expect to have?

Open your eyes, broaden your horizons... start using your ears to hear something other than what pleases you.

Stay Safe!

 

[trichrider]

i'll just back away slowly...

 

[bombadil.360]

"it's not implicitly expressed so you can't blah blah and yakity schmakity.

sophism is still the best tool to fool. and it makes you wonder: if the founding fathers were so scholarly and had such a great foresight and knew so much history; how come they did not forsee the inherent interpretation problems of every single document; whether it be political or otherwise?

honetly, it was pretty naive of them to think that by writting these great ideals down, that everything would be set to a fixed north, if you will.

obviously, it never has been the case with any other document.

there are still "interpretation wars" of 3000 years old documents still going on...

 

[SpasticGramps]

honetly, it was pretty naive of them to think that by writting these great ideals down, that everything would be set to a fixed north, if you will.

obviously, it never has been the case with any other document

A woman asked Benjamin Franklin whether the Constitution established a republic or monarchy. He said to her:

"A republic, madam, if you can keep it."

Obviously they understood that. Obviously you haven't the slightest idea about what you are talking about.

As to the original question. Maybe the Aniti-Federalist were right after all.

 

[bombadil.360]

A woman asked Benjamin Franklin whether the Constitution established a republic or monarchy. He said to her: Obviously they understood that. Obviously you haven't the slightest idea about what you are talking about.

so if they understood that; they set the constitution as some kind of unachievable goal, knowingly.

um... ok pal!

 

[SpasticGramps]

I started to write up a rebuttal, but decided not to waste my time. Instead I'll just watch you dance around with your clown shoes.

In before the bin.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Psychologists know people are prone to extrapolate different meaning from the same information. This isn't to suggest anybody's wrong, let alone who. They just acknowledge apparent reality.

Voters demand that lawmakers keep us safe. The Constitution mandates we adhere to it. Congress has two demands and has to exercise their individual and consensus interpretations of constitutionality [and] manage effective application.

We can see where the water begins to cloud but this doesn't necessarily mean we wipe our collective keister with the law. We have the ACLU who's mandate includes defending constitutionality in court. We have the SPLC to expressly advocate and defend constitutional aspects for minorities and the poor. Lawyers for the well-to-do in the hundreds of thousands. And then we have a judiciary who rules on these matters.

Somewhere along the line we forget about the system which is comprised of public and private entities. We recall are the lawmakers arguing amongst themselves and emulate their behavior.

One of the reasons why democracy serves the majority is because we have no countries, historically or contemporary who agree on the same thing. We'll always have the constitutional argument. We also have in-place the mechanism to oust the people we don't agree with.

I think America will be better at arguing constitutionality when it stops politicizing everything around it, just to get into and maintain office. It's a disservice to the Public.

 

[dagnabit]

it's quite funny...
people discussing the constitution as if it confers rights to people.
people debating it like it pertains to us.

THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT FOR YOU!!!!
THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT CONFER ANY RIGHTS TO YOU!

the constitution and it's subsequent amendments are a charter of negative governmental liberties.
they tell the government what it can not do.

the entire discussion is framed from an ignorant viewpoint.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Perfect demonstration. One reads it's the right of militia to keep and bear arms as an individual right with zero restrictions, yet the Constitution confers no individual rights. IMO, that's a contradiction.

Pretty soon, folks have to put down the paper and pick up the job. If the People don't like the results, they may elect new representatives.

In the end it's majority rule, not necessarily consensus.

 

[dagnabit]

.

 

[Hydro-Soil]

Unread 07-11-2012, 10:38 PM
Remove user from ignore list
DiscoBiscuit
This message is hidden because DiscoBiscuit is on your ignore list.


Pay no attention to the programmed tool. They're going to have a heart attack the day they truly realize that Politics is simply World Wrestling Federation for the Pseudo-Intellectuals.

Stay Safe!

 

[dagnabit]

Perfect demonstration. One reads it's the right of militia to keep and bear arms as an individual right with zero restrictions, yet the Constitution confers no individual rights. IMO, that's a contradiction.

have you ever read the preamble to the bill of rights?
it quite plainly states that it's purpose is to limit the government.

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 insure the beneficent ends of its institution

how is it a contradiction?
the 2nd amendment prohibits the government from disarming the people.
notice the last phrase "shall not be infringed"
whom shall not infringe upon the right of the people?

what about the first amendment?

"congress shall make no law"
who do you think that is addressing?

Pretty soon, folks have to put down the paper and pick up the job. If the People don't like the results, they may elect new representatives.

that is called voting.
the process is laid out in the constitution

In the end it's majority rule, not necessarily consensus.

close but not quite.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

... Pay no attention to the programmed tool. They're going to have a heart attack the day they truly realize that Politics is simply World Wrestling Federation for the Pseudo-Intellectuals.

Stay Safe!

Tribalizing fear and loathing gets us into morass. Get it? more ass.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

have you ever read the preamble to the bill of rights?
it quite plainly states that it's purpose is to limit the government.

how is it a contradiction?
the 2nd amendment prohibits the government from disarming the people.
notice the last phrase "shall not be infringed"
whom shall not infringe upon the right of the people?

what about the first amendment?

"congress shall make no law"
who do you think that is addressing?




that is called voting.
the process is laid out in the constitution

close but not quite.

Another great example. Comments about literal interpretation picked apart point-for-point... literally.

Judges and constitutional scholars interpret law unlike lawyers who mitigate or litigate their respective sides. Judges and constitutional scholars act like jurists who consider all information as opposed to choosing a side and defending it.

Some of the leaks coming out of the ACA ruling suggest Roberts' defected because Scalia among other justices were politicizing congressional law. Scalia isn't legally charged with choosing a side and then it's support. He's supposed to weigh all aspects and then rule accordingly. The very guy who complains about activists in the historic sense is actually their contemporary.

 

[DARC MIND]

Our actions never quite live up to our principles and ideals
difficult truths behind independance day

beind them documents are humans; flawed and conflicted as they were inspired

 

[dagnabit]

it goes back to an idea expressed in the Declaration.
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
the idea was radical at the time and was a simple shift in thinking.
that government(read monarchy)did not grant rights to people rather,people allow themselves to be governed.
because governments are transient in their beneficence,the people must restrict government to safeguard their human rights.
subtle shifts in thinking have profound impacts.

just the shift from "these states united" to "these united states" to "the united states" has been a complete game changer.

now whole generations believe the bill of rights is there to confer rights to us!!!
but if a government grants you your rights they can take them away.
the framers understood this when they wrote the documents plainly.

the rights are human rights and not granted us by the people we ALLOW to represent us.


the consent of the governed

 

[dagnabit]

Another great example. Comments about literal interpretation picked apart point-for-point... literally.

you brought up the micro...

im talking about something MUCH larger.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

They're subject to the voter and you're a perfect prosecutor or defense atty. I would probably approach more as a jurist than one side of an issue vs another.

 

[Mia]

It's only as good as the people whose job it is to uphold it, and those people suck.
It has a nice ring to it though.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

It's only as good as the people whose job it is to uphold it, and those people suck.
It has a nice ring to it though.

Like Pavlov's bell unless you can tell us what "those people" consists of.

Many folks see lawmakers in the news yet they pay considerably less attention to the courts. Courts rule on matters of constitutionality and this part of separated powers may overrule Congress. We can overrule our representatives with our vote. There's a whole sausage making machine churning out lots of actions and we're focused on the exciting drama. Constitutional law is like watching paint dry.