Isn't it about time the American Constitution was dropped altogether?

[p_p_man]

It's quoted; misquoted; argued about as to its meaning; debated as to whether it's relevent in a modern world; not adhered to and is amended without any national debate.

It probably should be dropped altogether or re-named "Very Flexible Rules Under Which America Conducts Itself And Protects Its Way Of Life"

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

Wow. That's rich even for you, PP.

 

[Tabby432]

*sigh* Couldn't help yourself, huh?

 

[Starfish]

You passed literotica 101 now....

Good for you boy!
Here is your gold star.


No, It isn't one that is 'pin on'.
It is a refridgerator magnet. Sorry.

 

[Mensa]

It's quoted; misquoted; argued about as to its meaning; debated as to whether it's relevent in a modern world; not adhered to and is amended without any national debate.

It probably should be dropped altogether or re-named "Very Flexible Rules Under Which America Conducts Itself And Protects Its Way Of Life"

What prompted that, Beefeaters or Glenfiddich?

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Re: Isn't it about time the American Constitution was dropped altogether?

What prompted that, Beefeaters or Glenfiddich?

Glenfiddich...taken with deep philosophical thoughts on the Meaning of Life and Everything...

 

[Guru]

 

[Mensa]

Re: Re: Re: Isn't it about time the American Constitution was dropped altogether?

Glenfiddich...taken with deep philosophical thoughts on the Meaning of Life and Everything...

And an equally deep glass, by the sound of it.

 

[fgarvb1]

sure let's take what may be the third greatest document the world has ever known and throw it in the trash. who needs rules for their people and goverment to live by and follow?

 

[Guru]

 

[fgarvb1]

the goverment is made up of people. the constiution tells them how far they can go or not go as the case may be.

 

[Guest]

Actually

We do tend to regard it as applying only on our own soil at times.

My mother (who is very ignorant and racist) and I had an argument regarding this. Her take on all the events of late is that we should close the borders and kick out everyone who is a foreigner. I asked her about the Constitution and she said it doesn't apply to them. I love her but she can be such a Xenophobe. I grew up hearing her refer to the civil rights movement as a buncha "troublemakin niggers" and calling Dr. King a card carrying communist. It's a wonder I am such a liberal eh? She really shouldn't engage me in such conversations..or maybe I should just avoid them.

My opinion is that it applies to all people of the world and that it should be our guide in how we deal with other races, cultures and peoples of the world. We have not done this in the past and it has contributed to some of our image and foreign policy problems today.

I think we can rectify this and we may indeed be doing so...I hear Our government has taken issue with the strong rhetoric uttered by that idiot Sharon.

Maybe it is time that the UN set up shop between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Israeli dead since 9/00 less than 200
Palestinian dead in same time frame over 600

Since when do ya need tanks to defend against rocks. (They just sent 20 tanks into Palestinian territory and shelled homes)

WTF were we talking about? Oh Yeah the Constitution....

PP dude...we are continually examining the document and amending it occasionally when certain issues need addressing...but the basic tenets remain intact. As long as we don't let fear destroy it.

 

[Thumper]

Up there...

Someone better give me my cookie back...

 

[Problem Child]

It's quoted; misquoted; argued about as to its meaning; debated as to whether it's relevent in a modern world; not adhered to and is amended without any national debate.

It probably should be dropped altogether or re-named "Very Flexible Rules Under Which America Conducts Itself And Protects Its Way Of Life"

I used to think you posted shit like this just to be provocative, but since the shreds of any intelligence or thoughtfulness come gurgling from your lips so infrequently, I am now forced to believe that you are simply an ignorant moron.

 

[Mensa]

Re: Actually

My opinion is that it applies to all people of the world and that it should be our guide in how we deal with other races, cultures and peoples of the world.

I trust you meant that it should apply to all peoples of the world who come to America's shores and not to extending it's influence "ex-patria"?

 

[Thumper]

Not exactly

I meant that we should adhere to it's tenets when dealing with other nations.

If a nation elects by popular vote a government of it's own choosing then we should respect that and do nothing to interfere, even if that government is less than ideal for our interests. The CIA deposed the elected leader of Iran in 1953 and helped prop up the Shah, who, by our own intelligence agency's description was weak and a coward and was brutally oppressive to his own people. (He was staunchly anti Soviet though)

 

[Mensa]

Sage advice

Hear! Hear! Thumper.

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Re: Isn't it about time the American Constitution was dropped altogether?

I used to think you posted shit like this just to be provocative...

Thought provoking would be nearer the mark...

 

[SweetNick]

Ok, I know going to bed right after posting is bad form, but really I just want to throw a question out there to Thumper. Going by what you've said, long standing monarchies like those in Saudi Arabia, Brunei, Nepal (ok, most of them were killed back in June), and other places have no place as they aren't democracies and we don't need to deal with them the same way?? Or am I just too damn tired and reading things wrong tonight?

 

[Thumper]

No ..not exactly

We just don't interfere with the internal structure of a sovereign nation just to advance our own agenda.

In Iran we set up a dictator just because he was pro west. We entangled ourselves in Vietnam because we were more concerned about Soviet expansionism and ignored the rampant corruption and oppresiion of the South Vietnamese government of Diem.

When we deal with people or nations we should adhere to our own beliefs as stated in the Constitution. They decide what is best for them.

That said we are getting ready to depose the Taliban. They however have forfeited any legitimacy by harboring and aiding Osama Bin Laden. We may not directly destrooy them but we will undermine them by doing what they have failed to do. Care for their people. We got involved when they were fighting the Soviets and then we bugged out in the end. That is meddling selfishly. Should we have helped them in the first place? I don't know. But once there we should have lent some stability in the post Soviet decade. We may not have had to deal with some of this crap we are facing now.

We should be an example...we shouldn't dictate.

Deal with each nation as they deal with us...the Saudi's, while repressive, have been our allies despite our support of Israel.

Let's mind our own house instead of trying to make the world in our image.

 

[shadowsource]

re pp -

The Brits don't have a Constitution. They don't have a right to privacy, except insofar as the European Union forces it upon them. They have laws allowing the government to ban books and articles before they're published. An enormous number of civil cases in the European Court are just piddly crap from the UK, whose courts don't address numerous problems. Etc., Etc.
pp must be jealous. Or bored. He even complained that the US Constitution is flexible. As opposed to the House of Lords - a bunch of windy geezers and appointed political hacks who can still stymie legislation passed by elected representatives, though they're finally curbing its powers.
Sorry to the other Brits, but pp's doddering here.

 

[Mensa]

Re: re pp -

The Brits don't have a Constitution. They don't have a right to privacy, except insofar as the European Union forces it upon them. They have laws allowing the government to ban books and articles before they're published. An enormous number of civil cases in the European Court are just piddly crap from the UK, whose courts don't address numerous problems. Etc., Etc.
pp must be jealous. Or bored. He even complained that the US Constitution is flexible. As opposed to the House of Lords - a bunch of windy geezers and appointed political hacks who can still stymie legislation passed by elected representatives, though they're finally curbing its powers.
Sorry to the other Brits, but pp's doddering here.

Actually, the British model had much to commend it because you were perfectly free to do whatever you wanted unless it was specifically proscribed by law.

 

[sch00lteacher]

It's quoted; misquoted; argued about as to its meaning; debated as to whether it's relevent in a modern world; not adhered to and is amended without any national debate.

It probably should be dropped altogether or re-named "Very Flexible Rules Under Which America Conducts Itself And Protects Its Way Of Life"

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Re: re pp -

Actually, the British model had much to commend it because you were perfectly free to do whatever you wanted unless it was specifically proscribed by law.

That's exactly how it's done.

We have Laws of Precedence. As shadowsource says books (as an example) can be banned before they are published but it is up to someone (publisher author, interest groups even individuals, if they can afford it, to challenge the ban through the Courts). The highest court in the land is the House of Lords.

Once the ban is overturned by a judicial decision then it is quoted as defence in similar future cases. Thus strengthening that defence.

It's not our fault if we fill the European courts up with "piddly crap" little cases. That's what they're there for. We're just using a system which has been put in place by countries that have the same form of written Constitution that so hidebounds America. In fact since the Brits realised they could take cases to Brussels more and more precedents have been created in Europe pertaining to English Law which have turned out to be the good of general commonsense.

Perhaps the European Court will change its own definition to read something like "To Re-consider Cases In Member States Which Are Open To Mis-interpretation, Except For The UK Which Creates It's Own Rules And Regulations As It Goes Along"!

Dodder? Me dodder? Never!

 

[Myrrdin]

Re: re pp -

The Brits don't have a Constitution.
Since our country is far older than yours and moved through several different languages a written constitution would have been difficult to write, until relatively late in our countries life. By which time laws had evolved on the principles of natural justice and preceding cases.

They don't have a right to privacy,
Since when? We have laws against stalking , intrusion, property rights, etc.

They have laws allowing the government to ban books and articles before they're published.
Would the U.S. be happy if the D.I.Y bombers handbook was freely available on bookshelves?

An enormous number of civil cases in the European Court are just piddly crap from the UK,
The European Court is the highest Court Of Appeal (Like your Supreme Court) . For a case to get that far it would hardly be piddly crap.