# Is the constitution outdated?



## MacTheKnife (Jul 20, 2018)

I am beginning to think the constitution is highly overated.  I have talked to people who say the constitution protects me an my family. 

How so?

Not even to mention all the Presidents who have violated it.  So what gives?


----------



## Mousterian (Jul 21, 2018)

The Constitution allows you to argue your opinion based on your interpretation of it.
The official interpretation is determined by the color of the Supreme Court at any given time.
So it can protect you, or threaten your welfare, depending on the composition of this politically appointed covey of witches.


----------



## fncceo (Jul 21, 2018)

MacTheKnife said:


> *Is the constitution outdated?*




Ummm ... no.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 21, 2018)

MacTheKnife said:


> I am beginning to think the constitution is highly overated.  I have talked to people who say the constitution protects me an my family.
> 
> How so?
> 
> Not even to mention all the Presidents who have violated it.  So what gives?


You think it is out dated? Then get enough votes in Congress to hold a convention to change it. Otherwise just obey it.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 21, 2018)

MacTheKnife said:


> I am beginning to think the constitution is highly overated.  I have talked to people who say the constitution protects me an my family.
> 
> How so?
> 
> Not even to mention all the Presidents who have violated it.  So what gives?



Yes Obama and the far left thought the same thing..

To the far left it is just a GD piece of paper..


----------



## Crepitus (Jul 21, 2018)

MacTheKnife said:


> I am beginning to think the constitution is highly overated.  I have talked to people who say the constitution protects me an my family.
> 
> How so?
> 
> Not even to mention all the Presidents who have violated it.  So what gives?


Living documents evolve.  They never get outdated.  These so called "originalists", they are outdated.


----------



## MacTheKnife (Jul 21, 2018)

Mousterian said:


> The Constitution allows you to argue your opinion based on your interpretation of it.
> The official interpretation is determined by the color of the Supreme Court at any given time.
> So it can protect you, or threaten your welfare, depending on the composition of this politically appointed covey of witches.



Yes, I completely agree....I think a lot of people overlook that.....so in essence I think you would admit that the Supreme Court is the one that protects us or puts us in danger. And, since Presidents or the congress or some combination thereof determine who is on the Supreme Ct.  it is the people who by their actions of voting actually determine their own safety and security.  And, unfortunately the people often make the wrong decisions..  That is how we got someone like ginsburg.  

Thus I must conclude the constitution is not the great protector of the people as so many mistakenly believe.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 21, 2018)

MacTheKnife said:


> Mousterian said:
> 
> 
> > The Constitution allows you to argue your opinion based on your interpretation of it.
> ...



Exactly direct from the far left doctrines..

SCOTUS is supposed to determine what is and what is not Constitutional, not legislate from the bench.

That is why you never vote far left!


----------



## MacTheKnife (Jul 21, 2018)

Kosh said:


> MacTheKnife said:
> 
> 
> > I am beginning to think the constitution is highly overated.  I have talked to people who say the constitution protects me an my family.
> ...



I seem to remember George Bush saying that?  Am I wrong? hmmmmm ...pardon me while I look that up:

Capitol Hill Blue, reported that president George Bush responded to GOP concerns (behind a closed door, non-verifiable meeting) about the more onerous provisions of the Patriot Act renewal in a rather cheney like manner.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”


----------



## cnm (Jul 21, 2018)

Yes, a system where a voter in one state may have an effective voting power multiples of a voter in another state is well past its use by date. Combined with legislation the US Constitution ensures unequal representation of US citizens. If for no other reason than that it should be amended, at the least.
Too, the two house Congress is unwieldy, with the 2nd house of little benefit except to ignore the will of the people. I will concede it was probably created with this in mind, but such notions are now outdated.


----------



## MacTheKnife (Jul 21, 2018)

fncceo said:


> MacTheKnife said:
> 
> 
> > *Is the constitution outdated?*
> ...



How about the provision that says a President must be a natural born citizen?  That does not seem applicable today.  As in it was ignored in regards to obama....and even worse the Supreme Court who is set up to resolve matters involving constitutional disputes would not even consider how the constitution requirement applied to obama as in they said it was a political matter ....not a matter for the court.  Were they just too cowardly to deem a black presidential contender...unqualilfied?


----------



## cnm (Jul 21, 2018)

MacTheKnife said:


> How about the provision that says a President must be a natural born citizen? That does not seem applicable today. As in it was ignored in regards to obama


Are you a birther?


----------



## Kosh (Jul 21, 2018)

MacTheKnife said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > MacTheKnife said:
> ...



No he never said that, that is just another debunked far left religious narrative.

Bush: The Constitution a 'Goddamned Piece of Paper'? - FactCheck.org


----------



## Kosh (Jul 21, 2018)

cnm said:


> Yes, a system where a voter in one state may have an effective voting power multiples of a voter in another state is well past its use by date. Combined with legislation it ensures unequal representation of US citizens. If for no other reason than that it should be amended, at the least.
> Too, the two house Congress is unwieldy, with the 2nd house of little benefit except to ignore the will of the people. I will concede it was probably created with this in mind, but such notions are now outdated.



Another fine example of a far left drone not understanding the Constitution.

Just pushing another debunked far left religious narrative.

Here this may help you:

https://www.usconstitution.net/constkidsK.html


----------



## MacTheKnife (Jul 21, 2018)

cnm said:


> MacTheKnife said:
> 
> 
> > How about the provision that says a President must be a natural born citizen? That does not seem applicable today. As in it was ignored in regards to obama
> ...



It seems that Barack Obama is not qualified to be president after all for the following reason:

'Barack Obama is not legally a U.S. natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between “December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986.” Presidential office requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. citizen parents, which of course is what exempts John McCain though he was born in the Panama Canal. US Law very clearly stipulates: “If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.” Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means though she had been a U.S. citizen for 10 years, (or citizen perhaps because of Hawaii being a territory) the mother fails the test for being so for at least 5 years **prior to** Barack Obama’s birth, but *after* age 16. It doesn’t matter *after* . In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. citizenship. At most, there were only 2 years elapsed since his mother turned 16 at the time of Barack Obama’s birth when she was 18 in Hawaii. His mother would have needed to have been 16+5= 21 years old, at the time of Barack Obama’s birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen. As aforementioned, she was a young college student at the time and was not. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at that time his mother would have needed to have waited to have him as the only U.S. Citizen parent. Obama instead should have been naturalized, but even then, that would still disqualify him from holding the office.'

Thus the constitution was ignored, not enforced and thus once again demonstrates how irrelevant it can be in some cases.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 21, 2018)

MacTheKnife said:


> I am beginning to think the constitution is highly overated.  I have talked to people who say the constitution protects me an my family.
> 
> How so?
> 
> Not even to mention all the Presidents who have violated it.  So what gives?



The Constitution has some very good things, and some things that aren't working any more.

1) The way people vote is not working any more.

If the states are to have supremacy over the feds, then make it so. If the feds have supremacy over the states, then let everyone have equal say in the how the country works, rather than a half in/half out system which only benefits the rich.

2) The separation of powers is a good thing, however it could potentially do with a massive shake up.

I might consider things like making the president more of a political body than a one person affair. 

Yes, have a president who is in charge of making decisions in certain aspects, but in terms of say, education, healthcare etc, there could be an elected person on the presidency who deals with this, who could potentially be from a different party, and who gets elected on a mandate for that one issue.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jul 21, 2018)

MacTheKnife said:


> I am beginning to think the constitution is highly overated.  I have talked to people who say the constitution protects me an my family.
> 
> How so?
> 
> Not even to mention all the Presidents who have violated it.  So what gives?


It prevents people from voting to take all your stuff and give it to themselves.

there's a reason we are not a democracy


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jul 21, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> MacTheKnife said:
> 
> 
> > I am beginning to think the constitution is highly overated.  I have talked to people who say the constitution protects me an my family.
> ...


what part of it needs to 'evolve'?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jul 21, 2018)

MacTheKnife said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > MacTheKnife said:
> ...


yeah, you got a  to back that up?


----------



## Erinwltr (Jul 21, 2018)

Jesus, where is Pogo when you need him....


----------



## playtime (Jul 21, 2018)

cnm said:


> MacTheKnife said:
> 
> 
> > How about the provision that says a President must be a natural born citizen? That does not seem applicable today. As in it was ignored in regards to obama
> ...



it's probably russian.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jul 21, 2018)

playtime said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > MacTheKnife said:
> ...


I was going with weirdo libertarianish


----------



## playtime (Jul 21, 2018)

MacTheKnife said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > MacTheKnife said:
> ...



a 'laughing @ you'  emoji doesn't seem to do your post the CONsideration it deserves... so let me add this for a bit more emphasis:


----------



## playtime (Jul 21, 2018)

Two Thumbs said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...



perhaps,  but  the way it's answering with unlinked snippets from biased so called 'sources'- i'm leaning towards roooskie.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 21, 2018)

_Is the constitution outdated? _

No. 

In fact, the Constitution can never be ‘outdated’ as it was the Framer’s intent that the Constitution would be of service to future generations of Americans.

As Justice Kennedy explained in _Lawrence_:

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

The Framers wisely acknowledged the fact that they did not have a comprehensive understanding of what constitutes liberty and freedom and that liberty and freedom did not exist in some finite context.

This is why conservative judicial dogma known as ‘originalism’ is false and runs contrary to the Framers’ intent of the Constitution, our Republic, and the rule of law.


----------



## Disir (Jul 21, 2018)

MacTheKnife said:


> I am beginning to think the constitution is highly overated.  I have talked to people who say the constitution protects me an my family.
> 
> How so?
> 
> Not even to mention all the Presidents who have violated it.  So what gives?



The Constitution is a contract.  The Bill of Rights was originally just protection from the federal government but it contains rights that have been incorporated and protects you from the States.


----------



## cnm (Jul 21, 2018)

MacTheKnife said:


> Thus the constitution was ignored, not enforced and thus once again demonstrates how irrelevant it can be in some cases.


Ok. Thanks. I think I've got it. Obama was born in 1961.

_*8 U.S. Code § 1405 - Persons born in Hawaii*

A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.


(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 1, § 305, 66 Stat. 237.)
_​


----------



## cnm (Jul 21, 2018)

Two Thumbs said:


> there's a reason we are not a democracy


Ffs. You are a democracy. An ignorant democracy perhaps, but a democracy for all that.

_democracy noun (*democracies*) *1* a form of government in which the people govern themselves or elect representatives to govern them. *2* a country, state or other body with such a form of government. 
ETYMOLOGY: 16c: from French démocratie, from Greek demos people + kratos_ strength.​


----------



## Marion Morrison (Jul 21, 2018)

No, punkass midterm shill. /thread.


----------



## sparky (Jul 21, 2018)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Framers wisely acknowledged the fact that they did not have a comprehensive understanding of what constitutes liberty and freedom and that liberty and freedom did not exist in some finite context.
> 
> This is why conservative judicial dogma known as ‘originalism’ is false and runs contrary to the Framers’ intent of the Constitution, our Republic, and the rule of law.



Good one Clay.....

It strikes me that these constitutional fundamentalists have probably been responsible for more _counter productive constitutional violations _than anyone else

~S~


----------



## sparky (Jul 21, 2018)

Disir said:


> The Constitution is a contract



Oh please.....i'm a contractor......now i'm all bummed out....   ~S~


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Jul 21, 2018)

cnm said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > there's a reason we are not a democracy
> ...



As a REPUBLIC which we stand!

We are a Republic not a true Democracy.

republic meaning - Bing

As to answer the OP'er the Constitution is only outdated and wrong when someone does not get their way...

As for Obama, it is over let not start the birther nonsense again.


----------



## Disir (Jul 21, 2018)

sparky said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> > The Constitution is a contract
> ...



Awe.....lemme just noogy you. You can move faster and get more done in a shorter period of time than it takes for any thing to move involving the Constitution.


----------



## cnm (Jul 21, 2018)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> We are a Republic not a true Democracy.


You fit the definition. Ffs. Do you think you are not governed by elected representatives?


----------



## Crepitus (Jul 21, 2018)

Two Thumbs said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > MacTheKnife said:
> ...


All of it.  That's how evolution works.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jul 24, 2018)

cnm said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > there's a reason we are not a democracy
> ...


We are a Constitutional Republic.

Your 'definition' doesn't mention our Constitution, so that should have told you that you're wrong, but you're a leftist.....


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jul 24, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


So you want to change the best Constitution in the world to what?


Please list the rights you want removed or added and why.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 24, 2018)

MacTheKnife said:


> I am beginning to think the constitution is highly overated.  I have talked to people who say the constitution protects me an my family.
> 
> How so?
> 
> Not even to mention all the Presidents who have violated it.  So what gives?



Would you like to start with the fact that you can la-di-da onto the Internet, or into anywhere public, and badmouth the Constitution or any other aspect of our government in the complete security of knowing that they aren't going to retaliate in any way?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 24, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> MacTheKnife said:
> 
> 
> > I am beginning to think the constitution is highly overated.  I have talked to people who say the constitution protects me an my family.
> ...



"They never get outdated."  Of course, "living documents" are also utterly meaningless, so there's that.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Jul 30, 2018)

MacTheKnife said:


> I am beginning to think the constitution is highly overated.  I have talked to people who say the constitution protects me an my family.
> 
> How so?
> 
> Not even to mention all the Presidents who have violated it.  So what gives?



The Constitution is about preserving and defending freedom.  ONLY idiots think it's outdated and overrated.



> the constitution protects me an my family.
> 
> How so?



By limiting the power the government has in order to protect individual rights.  Without the constitution, the government would be running roughshod over the people.


----------



## gipper (Jul 30, 2018)

Wildcard said:


> MacTheKnife said:
> 
> 
> > I am beginning to think the constitution is highly overated.  I have talked to people who say the constitution protects me an my family.
> ...


The problem is the government doesn’t abide by the Constitution.  This is clearly evident in the lack of privacy all Americans are now subject to. Not to state the numerous other violations by government.


----------



## Vastator (Jul 30, 2018)

MacTheKnife said:


> I am beginning to think the constitution is highly overated.  I have talked to people who say the constitution protects me an my family.
> 
> How so?
> 
> Not even to mention all the Presidents who have violated it.  So what gives?


Its the violations, through artistic leftist interpretation, that have weakened the Constitution. And the many laws on the books that violate our constitution.


----------



## MacTheKnife (Aug 1, 2018)

frigidweirdo said:


> MacTheKnife said:
> 
> 
> > I am beginning to think the constitution is highly overated.  I have talked to people who say the constitution protects me an my family.
> ...



Government by comittee would be a disaster.  Congress itself is bad enough.  In fact our form of government is increasingly dysfunctional.  Mainly due to diversity/multiculturalism.  We have so many different groups now with their own agendas and all pulling and pushing for their particular agenda....creates paralysis at the highest levels.  Time to change our form of government.  Democracy/republic requires a certain level of homogenity which we no longer have.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 1, 2018)

MacTheKnife said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > MacTheKnife said:
> ...



Well, the problem is the US govt is a disaster right now. It needs to change and couldn't be that much worse. 

So you don't want democracy. Then what?


----------



## MacTheKnife (Aug 1, 2018)

frigidweirdo said:


> MacTheKnife said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



It is not a question of not wanting democracy.   It is a problem of our system of government  democracy/republic becoming increasingly dysfunctional.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Aug 1, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> MacTheKnife said:
> 
> 
> > I am beginning to think the constitution is highly overated.  I have talked to people who say the constitution protects me an my family.
> ...



WTF is a_ living document?_


----------



## MacTheKnife (Aug 1, 2018)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > MacTheKnife said:
> ...



An illusion that idealists are hung up on.  Not admitting that the constitution is just a piece of paper of which(depending on the time of day) is sometimes abided by and sometimes not.  Just depends on whether there are more liberals or more conservatives on the supreme court.

 Not to mention Presidents have routinely violated it.

One of the most egregious cases of a violation of the constitution was the election of Obama who by the constitutional requirements for the presidency was unquallified...but no one stepped in to support the constitution.  Not even the supreme ct.  A matter crying out for a decision by the Supreme Court...but they were too cowardly to address it....so they washed their hands of it and declared it is a political matter.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 1, 2018)

MacTheKnife said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > MacTheKnife said:
> ...



Yes, but the fact remains that if you make the system functional, then it'll be a better system. 

Now, how do you make democracy more functional?


----------



## MacTheKnife (Aug 1, 2018)

frigidweirdo said:


> MacTheKnife said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



I do not think it can be made more functional, as I said it is becoming increasingly dysfunctional and it will do so till it gets so bad we will be forced to deal with it in a manner a great many people will not like.  The bottom line we are in a huge, huge mess.  A mess that will not go away of its own accord.  As pointed out  prviously our demographics are working against us.  There has never been a society  or nation in the history of the world that has been successful when composed of so many disparate factions. 

This nation in a most foolish manner let itself go down a path of diversity and multiculturalism  that will lead to our being relegated to the dustbin of history unless we manage to somehow get off that path and to do so now will require a revolutionary change in the way we govern ourselves..


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Aug 1, 2018)

MacTheKnife said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...



Looka, no Obama fan, but how was he unqualified?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 1, 2018)

MacTheKnife said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > MacTheKnife said:
> ...



Well, perhaps the best thing to say is, what can the very best be? If Democracy is always going to bad, and a dictatorship is always going to be bad, then what is the least bad system available?

Personally I think it's when you have fair democracy, one person, one vote. 

I think it's where everyone gets to have the representatives they want to have.


----------



## TNHarley (Aug 1, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> MacTheKnife said:
> 
> 
> > I am beginning to think the constitution is highly overated.  I have talked to people who say the constitution protects me an my family.
> ...


The only way it is a "living document" is if you do an amendment. English doesnt change because some bedwetter has a black cloak


----------



## EGR one (Aug 1, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> MacTheKnife said:
> 
> 
> > I am beginning to think the constitution is highly overated.  I have talked to people who say the constitution protects me an my family.
> ...



Living documents do not exist.  You are either ruled by the words of the law, or by the words of those currently in power.  Which do you have more faith in.


----------



## Crepitus (Aug 1, 2018)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > MacTheKnife said:
> ...


Look it up.


----------



## Crepitus (Aug 1, 2018)

MacTheKnife said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


In what way do you fantasize that President Obama wasn't qualified to be president?


----------



## Crepitus (Aug 1, 2018)

TNHarley said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > MacTheKnife said:
> ...


How many times have portions of the Constitution been reinterpreted to mean different things?  Just start with the second amendment.  Until fairly recently it wasn't considered to apply to individuals.  Now it is.


----------



## dblack (Aug 1, 2018)

MacTheKnife said:


> I am beginning to think the constitution is highly overated.  I have talked to people who say the constitution protects me an my family.
> 
> How so?
> 
> Not even to mention all the Presidents who have violated it.  So what gives?



It's protecting you right now. Its the reason you can publish a post saying that previous Presidents have violated the Constitution.


----------



## TNHarley (Aug 1, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


Because of bedwetting political activists in black cloaks. The words do not change. 9/10s of the Constitution is quite clear.
Use to, people knew the Constitution didnt give the federal govt the power to give aid to other states or localities.
In the 19th century, there was a huge fire in savannah georgia. Burnt most of the city. They wanted help. The feds said "No, we do not have that power"
And now we give aid to individuals, localities, states, foreign govts, corporations etc.
Did the Constitution change or the people in the govt?
The second has ALWAYS meant the right of the individual to have arms and ammo, shall not be fucked with. Did it always get "interpreted" to mean that? No. Does that change what it says? No.
The people that actually wrote the damn thing would probably decide to nuke DC...


----------



## miketx (Aug 1, 2018)

MacTheKnife said:


> I am beginning to think the constitution is highly overated.  I have talked to people who say the constitution protects me an my family.
> 
> How so?
> 
> Not even to mention all the Presidents who have violated it.  So what gives?


You don't even know what it is.


----------



## MacTheKnife (Aug 1, 2018)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> MacTheKnife said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



He was not a natural born citizen...even if he was born in Hawaii.  

'Obama is not qualified to be president after all for the following reason:

Barack Obama is not legally a U.S. natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between “December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986.” Presidential office requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. citizen parents, which of course is what exempts John McCain though he was born in the Panama Canal. US Law very clearly stipulates: “If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.” Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means though she had been a U.S. citizen for 10 years, (or citizen perhaps because of Hawaii being a territory) the mother fails the test for being so for at least 5 years **prior to** Barack Obama’s birth, but *after* age 16. It doesn’t matter *after* . In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. citizenship. At most, there were only 2 years elapsed since his mother turned 16 at the time of Barack Obama’s birth when she was 18 in Hawaii. His mother would have needed to have been 16+5= 21 years old, at the time of Barack Obama’s birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen. As aforementioned, she was a young college student at the time and was not. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at that time his mother would have needed to have waited to have him as the only U.S. Citizen parent. Obama instead should have been naturalized, but even then, that would still disqualify him from holding the office.'

*** Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/native-son/


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Aug 1, 2018)

MacTheKnife said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > MacTheKnife said:
> ...



The Snopes article you quoted says this claim is false.


----------



## MacTheKnife (Aug 1, 2018)

frigidweirdo said:


> MacTheKnife said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Well, of course to begin with what we have is a republic but I get what you say.  

One man one vote would be good if we had an homogenous population...people with similar values, goals, aspirations, etc.  In a few short years the people that founded and built this nation will be a minority in our own country if the current demographic trends continue.

Thus all these different groups and nationalities of people we now have here as citizens have different agendas, goals, aspirations etc. and each pulling in a different direction hence the paralyslis in Washington and not even to mention the majority pop. as of now....being caucasians are also split between liberals and conservatives...net result a huge mess tht is not going to get any better unless we make some radical or extremist type changes.


----------



## MacTheKnife (Aug 1, 2018)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> MacTheKnife said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



That is one view and there are others and that is why the Supreme Ct. should have stepped in and clarified what a natural born citizen is .  But they were too cowardly to do so --as in they were unwilling to take the heat or blowback that would have occurred if they had declared Obama not to be a natural born citizen and thus unqualified.  There would likely have been riots in black communities all across America.  So they passed the buck.  Refused to deal with it....claiming it was not their responsibilty...that it was a political matter.  Unfriggin believable...the supreme ct. saying that interpeting what the constitution means by natural born citizen does not fall under their authority???


----------



## Crepitus (Aug 1, 2018)

TNHarley said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


Nobody said the words change.  The interpretation does.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 1, 2018)

MacTheKnife said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > MacTheKnife said:
> ...



Well, the US could have a homogeneous population, but the problem with democracy is that people find it easier to stand on a platform of division and hate than on actually doing the best for the country. 

But when people are forced to cooperate, then it is better.

The Swiss have a nice system. Not sure how it'd translate up to a large population like the US.

The executive is made up of people who have gained bi-partisan support, there are 7 members and one holds the status of head of state for like a year and it rotates. 

So, you have to have gone through the legislature and proven yourself to both sides in order to get to be a part of the executive. This stops people like Trump who come from nowhere. 

Obama wouldn't have had anywhere near enough experience. Dubya neither. It'd lead to cooperation, as it does in Switzerland.

Also they have referenda and some other stuff which I never figured out the difference between the two (or three).

But there are things that can be done.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 1, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...



Especially when the things around the words change.

Before the internet and after the internet, the first amendment interpretation is going to change, because everything is different.


----------



## TNHarley (Aug 1, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


That doesnt make it a "living document" that means new people come in with their own agenda.
If the Constitution was the agenda, it would never change.
Thats why people like me always call them political activists.


----------



## TNHarley (Aug 1, 2018)

frigidweirdo said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


How? Wouldnt it just be trying to decide if the internet is "speech" or not?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 1, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


Wrong as usual, it was never ruled on, there is NO body of law that EVER said the 2nd was a collective right controlled by the Government.


----------



## MacTheKnife (Aug 1, 2018)

frigidweirdo said:


> MacTheKnife said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 2, 2018)

MacTheKnife said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > MacTheKnife said:
> ...



Right....


----------



## Crixus (Aug 2, 2018)

MacTheKnife said:


> I am beginning to think the constitution is highly overated.  I have talked to people who say the constitution protects me an my family.
> 
> How so?
> 
> Not even to mention all the Presidents who have violated it.  So what gives?




Okay it’s like this, in some countries one could drag you off and shoot you in the face. Here, it’s a constitutional right that you can ask such a stupid question and just get called stupid for asking it. I mean, if you wonder, just move to Mexico.


----------

