So, the US Constitution...

[busybody..]

I will not be drawn into your usual bullshit in this thread. Your question is valid, but has nothing to do with the thread topic.

Unless you're suggesting that the issue you raise is evidence of a problem with the document itself, in which case, please say that and suggest a fix.

My point is that it is NOT in the DOCUMENT

and despite that,

The US courts have had to deal with a slew of lawsuits

on MATTERS NOT CONTAINED THEREIN

and half the country and half the Senate and MOST Congresspeople assert OTHERWISE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is a VALID POINT

regardless of your..................http://www.parida.com/img1/head-in-sand.jpg

 

[busybody..]

I once heard something to this effect.

The US Constitution is a living, breathing document. Our forefathers intentionally left room for it to grow and evolve.

.

That statement has often been said over the decades

as has this statement

THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A SUICIDE DOCUMENT!

 

[Peregrinator]

My point is that it is NOT in the DOCUMENT

and despite that,

The US courts have had to deal with a slew of lawsuits

on MATTERS NOT CONTAINED THEREIN

and half the country and half the Senate and MOST Congresspeople assert OTHERWISE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you for the analysis. Do you see this as a good thing or a bad thing? Should everyone on earth be given rights granted by the constitution?

 

[Byron In Exile]

where in that august document is even ONE WORD

that can possibly suggest to anyone that the rights contained in it

apply to anyone OUTSIDE the US???????????????????????????????????/

Rights are not "contained" in the US Constitution.

The rights that it does make reference to, it does not grant, but only attempts to protect them from infringement by the government it establishes. And it does specifically state in the 9th Amendment that its making reference to rights the people have is not to be construed as a definition of what rights they have.

Those rights exist regardless of whether the Constitution exists, and are possessed by every person, regardless of whether one lives under a government that protects them or violates them.

 

[Peregrinator]

Byron, thanks for having the patience to school BB. What's your opinion on the doc? Is it perfect? What changes would you make?

 

[Wrong Element]

The biggest flaw in the Constitution is the existence of the electoral college. I understand the reasons why it exists, but the bottom line is that any system that permits the guy who came in second to "win" is a flawed system.

It might be time for a new constitution anyway. The framers would certainly be surprised to see the original one has lasted 220 years. That way, certain issues could be clarified, such as the president's authority to commit armed forces for years on end with no congressional oversight, as well as issues that the framers could not have foreseen such as the existence of electronic communication. And maybe they could have a stab at rewriting the Second Amendment in plain English while they're at it.

The best part about a new constitution would be that we wouldn't have to guess at what the framers might say about Issue X, which is what federal judges pretend to do now as cover for writing their own policy preferences into law. Because this way, the framers would be walking among us and what they thought would be on the record.

 

[Redneck_Cowboy]

That statement has often been said over the decades

as has this statement

THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A SUICIDE DOCUMENT!

I'm sure your statement means something.

I guess I lack the fundamental intelligence to grasp it.

 

[The Mutt]

That statement has often been said over the decades

as has this statement

THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A SUICIDE DOCUMENT!

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u51/The_Mutt_pics/Crying.jpg

 

[busybody..]

Rights are not "contained" in the US Constitution.

The rights that it does make reference to, it does not grant, but only attempts to protect them from infringement by the government it establishes. And it does specifically state in the 9th Amendment that its making reference to rights the people have is not to be construed as a definition of what rights they have.

Those rights exist regardless of whether the Constitution exists, and are possessed by every person, regardless of whether one lives under a government that protects them or violates them.

never did say ANYTHING about rights

did I?

I did mention LAWS

Didnt I?


Not that I agree with the above anyway

 

[Peregrinator]

never did say ANYTHING about rights

did I?

I did mention LAWS

Didnt I?


Not that I agree with the above anyway

You know, you chose to come here. If you hate the founding document so much, leave.

 

[cjh]

The Constitution is fine, it's all of the activist inventions and penumbras discovered by the judiciary that threaten it's existence.

absolutely.

john roberts and john alito are ringing the death knell of stare decisis.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Byron, thanks for having the patience to school BB. What's your opinion on the doc? Is it perfect? What changes would you make?

I tend to concur with Benjamin Franklin:

I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats.

As for changes, I note mainly the absence of any provision for free pizza for people who vote on election days. No free beer I can understand, since it might encourage reckless voting, but the lack of free pizza is probably responsible more than any other single factor for the low voter turnouts resulting in the election of the buffoons who are destroying this otherwise excellent country.

 

[Peregrinator]

absolutely.

john roberts and john alito are ringing the death knell of stare decisis.

Think it's okay as is? No suggested revisions, Jack?

 

[busybody..]

You know, you chose to come here. If you hate the founding document so much, leave.

hate it?

where do you get the notion I hate it?

what I dont want is something like THE CUNT BITCH "WOMAN" on the SCOTUS who looked at LAW from OTHER CUNTRIES to help in deciding OUR law!

 

[MechaBlade]

It just needs a couple fixes: a right to privacy, a person defined as a born human being, presidents elected through popular vote of the people, proportional representation in the Senate.

 

[busybody..]

absolutely.

john roberts and john alito are ringing the death knell of stare decisis.

cause if we ALWAYS followed THAT

teh BLACKS would still be in the back of the bus, RIGHT?


what YOU really mean

is that Scalia, Roberts et al, are NOT in line with your TERRORIST "thinking"

 

[Peregrinator]

I tend to concur with Benjamin Franklin:

I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats.

As for changes, I note mainly the absence of any provision for free pizza for people who vote on election days. No free beer I can understand, since it might encourage reckless voting, but the lack of free pizza is probably responsible more than any other single factor for the low voter turnouts resulting in the election of the buffoons who are destroying this otherwise excellent country.

I agree wrt free pizza...but I disagree about the beer. We could hand it out as they exit the polling booth. And reckless voting is something that a little encouragement will change not at all, since it's already incredibly rampant...

Speaking of which, if we have ATM machines that are hardly hackable, and provide a paper record, and are secure and accurate, why don't we have voting machines that can accomplish the same thing?

 

[Redneck_Cowboy]

I tend to concur with Benjamin Franklin:

I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats.

As for changes, I note mainly the absence of any provision for free pizza for people who vote on election days. No free beer I can understand, since it might encourage reckless voting, but the lack of free pizza is probably responsible more than any other single factor for the low voter turnouts resulting in the election of the buffoons who are destroying this otherwise excellent country.

For a serial killer old Ben was very sharp.

 

[busybody..]

presidents elected through popular vote of the people, proportional representation in the Senate.

DUMBASS

so the California and NY and Penn

the three BIGGEST States would dictate to 47 other states?


DUMMY!

 

[Peregrinator]

hate it?

where do you get the notion I hate it?

what I dont want is something like THE CUNT BITCH "WOMAN" on the SCOTUS who looked at LAW from OTHER CUNTRIES to help in deciding OUR law!

You tear it apart all the time. You hate the underlying philosophy.

 

[cjh]

Think it's okay as is? No suggested revisions, Jack?

i'd have done away with the electoral colleges, too.

it'd be nice to have some clarity on whether it is dynamic or static. (i have a hard time believing its static, but i recognize how the argument can be persuasively made in good faith.)

the second amendment could use some clarity, too.

all things considered, though, it has served us well. whether it continues to do so now that scotus is as political as the other branches remains to be seen.

 

[cjh]

cause if we ALWAYS followed THAT

teh BLACKS would still be in the back of the bus, RIGHT?


what YOU really mean

is that Scalia, Roberts et al, are NOT in line with your TERRORIST "thinking"

you're propping up a straw man.

but you know that.

 

[busybody..]

You tear it apart all the time. You hate the underlying philosophy.

you

YOU

have NO clue what the underlying philosophy really was!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I dont tear it apart, I want it saved from America HATERS!

 

[busybody..]

you're propping up a straw man.

but you know that.

maybe

BUT

STARE whateverthefuck cuts BOTH ways

BUT YOU KNOW THAT!

 

[cjh]

maybe

BUT

STARE whateverthefuck cuts BOTH ways

BUT YOU KNOW THAT!

yes i do.

vetteman, however, apparently doesn't.