The Constitution - No longer worth the paper to wipe your ass with

[JohnnySavage]

As a self-identified Constitutional scholar, these threads depress me. The only way this thread could get dumber is if eyre popped in with some non-sensical cut and paste.

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

As a self-identified Constitutional scholar, these threads depress me. The only way this thread could get dumber is if eyre popped in with some non-sensical cut and paste.

Scholarly pursuits are for pussies that could not make the football team.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Scholarly pursuits are for pussies that could not make the football team.

I thought that was who went into the marines

Maybe it's more of a regional thing though. In the mountians where I'm from the marine recruiter was always on the lookout for a muscle head with am iq of 80-90 and a demonstrated propensity to blindly follow and do as he was told. Like those flying monkeys on the wizard of oz.

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

I thought that was who went into the marines

Maybe it's more of a regional thing though. In the mountians where I'm from the marine recruiter was always on the lookout for a muscle head with am iq of 80-90 and a demonstrated propensity to blindly follow and do as he was told. Like those flying monkeys on the wizard of oz.

It is regional, just like bangin your sister.

 

[KRCummings]

I don't know any more about the Constitution than your average American and I know most of you are totally full shit. Everyone is a fucking expert.

 

[eyer]

As a self-identified Constitutional squalorer, with my nose firmly, consistently, and enjoyably lodged up high in eyer's azz...

...you're welcome.

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

I don't know any more about the Constitution than your average American and I know most of you are totally full shit. Everyone is a fucking expert.

I'm not an expert. I'm just forming an opinion. The fact that I maybe onto something here has caught me by total surprise.

 

[JohnnySavage]

...you're welcome.

I don't want to be mean to you. You do know a lot of words... you don't know what they mean, but you know them. So, there's that.

 

[CHNOPS]

I don't want to be mean to you. You do know a lot of words... you don't know what they mean, but you know them. So, there's that.

Also the...

...return key and...

...the period and also...

...how to bold and ital...

 

[unregistered]

 

[phrodeau]

Things would get interesting if the government decided to ban divorce for Catholics.

 

[TexasWife25]

I'm surprised you don't see it. The framers didn't contemplate a right of gay marriage. At the time the Constitution was written marriage was a function of the church and religion.

The framers also didnt contemplate machine guns, airplanes or global economy.
Saying we shouldnt do something because the founders hadnt thought of it yet, is a stupid argument. You know what they did think of though? That they werent omniscient, and so it would be good to be able to amend the basic structure as time passed, and things changed.

 

[coastal-boy]

Funny how a retired supervisior of a union work force, whom also served in the military, thinks they understand the Constitution better than the Federal judges whose job it is to interpret it.

 

[CHNOPS]

When it comes to my day-to-day happiness, I have to say the edge goes to a good roll of toilet paper over the Constitution.

 

[koalabear]

"Let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods. What these periods should be nature herself indicates. By the European tables of mortality, of the adults living at any one moment of time, a majority will be dead in about nineteen years. At the end of that period, then, a new majority is come into place; or, in other words, a new generation.... Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right." - T. Jefferson

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure." T. Jefferson

 

[unregistered]

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Another countries Constitution or laws are not relevant to this discussion.



The passage highlighted is interpreted as to prohibit the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. Essentially separation of church and state which means keep your religious dogma out of my government.

Marriage is not exclusive to Christianity so for Christians to define to the rest of the country or world what marriage is or who can marry is awfully pretentious. Nobody is declaring that a Church be forced to marry same sex couples as it violates their religious faith. Yet their faith is not everybody's faith and should not be used as a tire iron to force others to their will. Same sex marriage hurts no one in this country. For those who rant about family values I ask how many of you are divorced, how many of you have cheated, how many of you have lied? Christians in their bigotry worry about one "sin" that does not effect them personally and ignore the other "sins" they themselves are guilty of committing. See why you are called hypocrites ?

The fundamental issue isnt religion per se; if you wanna jump into the deep end of moral philosophy you gotta answer the question: DO I HAVE ANY NATURAL RIGHT TO AGGRESS AGAINST ANYONE WHO HASNT HARMED ME? Can I poke my nose into Hitler's business if he's leaving me alone? Shouldnt I look away when I see a man beat a woman, he isnt beating me!

That is, ARE YOU YOUR BROTHERS KEEPER?

 

[eyer]

I don't want to be mean to you.

That's alright, Johnny...

...you big bully, you.

 

[TexasWife25]

When things change there's an amendment process available. But you liberals hate the democratic process, and knowing your minority bullshit won't survive the majority of state legislatures to amend it, you'll plead your case to an activist judge who will dutifully find a convenient penumbra in the Constitution so it can be shoved down the majority's throat.

So you feel the majority should always rule?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The Framers left in the hands of the citizen weapons of sufficient force to defeat the most powerful army on Earth at the time. Yes, they weren't soothsayers so they didn't contemplate your bullshit.

What's stupid is your lack of reading comprehension. I was referring to what the Constitution authorizes, not what what you idiots might come up with in it's name. I did allude to it however. When things change there's an amendment process available. But you liberals hate the democratic process, and knowing your minority bullshit won't survive the majority of state legislatures to amend it, you'll plead your case to an activist judge who will dutifully find a convenient penumbra in the Constitution so it can be shoved down the majority's throat.

The real issue since Hamilton and Jefferson is: WHOM IS TO BE MASTER? The PEOPLE? Or the faction with the most force?

Some say The People were tossed aside during Teddy Roosevelt's reign, some say Honest Abe was the assassin. But America aint ruled by The People in a long time.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

So you feel the majority should always rule?

The issue is: SHOULD GOVERNMENT EXIST TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS, OR SHOULD GOVERNMENT EXIST TO ENSLAVE THE PEOPLE.

 

[unregistered]

 

[TexasWife25]

Do you think a minority should rule?

I feel the majority should rule, (case in point, majority vs super-majority in congress) however I also feel the majority doesn't have the right to trample other peoples personal freedoms, simply because there are more of them.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The Framers left in the hands of the citizen weapons of sufficient force to defeat the most powerful army on Earth at the time. Yes, they weren't soothsayers so they didn't contemplate your bullshit.

What's stupid is your lack of reading comprehension. I was referring to what the Constitution authorizes, not what what you idiots might come up with in it's name. I did allude to it however. When things change there's an amendment process available. But you liberals hate the democratic process, and knowing your minority bullshit won't survive the majority of state legislatures to amend it, you'll plead your case to an activist judge who will dutifully find a convenient penumbra in the Constitution so it can be shoved down the majority's throat.

I'm 150% certain that the Lindsey Lohan shall not own a nuke amendment would pass with fantastic colors as would many other amendments against the 2nd Amendment that we just common sensed into being. I'm fairly certain that had the 1980s instead of blacks with guns had been blacks with grenades and rocket launchers we would have happily voted for an amendment there as well.

 

[unregistered]