# As great as it was and still is, the US Constitution has at least one fatal flaw



## BasicHumanUnit (Jul 7, 2017)

And that flaw is providing equal freedom to those who vehemently oppose it's principles.

Racial, gender-based and religious freedoms and protections are fine and should have been and actually are covered under the Constitution.   The race, gender, religion etc of a US President or congress person should not matter.   What should matter is that person TRULY and faithfully follows the Constitution and works in the best interest of the American people as outlined by the US Constitution.   If they show they are not going to do that, removal from office should not just be considered, it should be mandatory and immediate.

But when you allow people who diametrically oppose the core principles of the Republic it applies to, you give full access to those wishing to dispose of it, it's core principles and it's protections, and empower them to defeat and eliminate it.   And we are in the bad position we are in today as a nation because of it.

That is the fatal flaw of the US Constitution.

All men are created equal..."Until they prove their intent is to undermine the Constitution or their principles are incompatible with the tenants of the US Constitution" should have been included clearly and with zero ambiguity.  Should there ever be a convention of the states (Constitutional Convention) I would like to see this amended to the US Constitution.

Had this been clearly enumerated in the Constitution, it would most like have greatly delayed the success of modern day Progressives in changing it or eliminating it to fit their Socialist / Communist agendas.

Forming a more perfect Union does not include allowing unbridled surveillance on Americans,  attempts to weaken or eliminate the 2nd amendment, silencing the voice of Constitutional opposition on US university campuses, eliminating our borders and trade policies geared toward globalism to name a few.
All of the above have the net effect of nullifying the US Constitution and should have been clearly forbidden.
And all of the above were created and supported by people allowed to obtain political powers by the very same mechanism designed to guard against their tyranny.

People such as Charles Schumer, Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, and Barack Obama should never have been allowed to attain government office in the first place.   These people CLEARLY have supported anti-Constitutional laws and work to subvert it every day.   I question WHY they are allowed to even participate in government much less hold the positions they do.

A "representative" government consisting of those intent on destroying America should not be considered "representative".   Suppose the Democrats are successful in bringing an Islamic state into America (as is happening and has already occurred under Leftist Europeans in the UK for example).   Should Sharia Law then be accepted simply because Democrats were able to illegally saturate the nation with a large enough Islamists to effect the change?

Was it the INTENT of the Constitution to provide "equality" to the extent that it's very existence could be questioned, compromised and then eventually eliminated or nullified?  I think not.

Another potential flaw in the Constitution was failure to provide a clause for "earned" freedoms.   Every citizen should be given the right to EARN freedom based on the absence of a history of criminal activity or Constitutionally subversive activities.   That doesn't mean everyone should be born into slavery, instead, it means that the freedom to do many things should be based on proving the responsibility and morality NOT to do things that harm the society at large.   People caught throwing trash out of vehicle windows should NOT be given the freedom to obtain a driver license for example.  People who have committed heinous crimes against others should not simply be released back into the general population after serving punitive sentences in the criminal justice system.  They should also LOSE many basic rights law abiding people enjoy every day.  
It is human nature to not treasure those things obtained with out any sacrifice.   Freedom is no different.

Freedom was handed out too freely in this nation and millions of people who do not deserve freedom are granted it as equally as those who do.   This is why the Justice system is so perverted and inadequate and why we have large groups of people today who brazenly advocate for Constitutional nullification.

Some might say all this would nullify the Constitution....I say they are wrong.   Look at the direction of this nation and the evidence is clear.


----------



## TNHarley (Jul 7, 2017)

so, basically, collectivism?
I also find it humorous you mention surveillance and dont even mention a republican.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jul 7, 2017)

The US Constitution was written with the ability to change it, nullify parts of it ect.   

If the freedoms guaranteed in the US Constitution are, in fact, rights, then disagreeing with the document does not nullify those freedoms.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jul 7, 2017)

Also, using the rationale that you did, those who pressed for a constitutional amendment to give women the vote and to end slavery would have lost their constitutionally protected rights for doing so.   In a word...NO.


----------



## norwegen (Jul 7, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Also, using the rationale that you did, those who pressed for a constitutional amendment to give women the vote and to end slavery would have lost their constitutionally protected rights for doing so.   In a word...NO.


A Women's suffrage amendment was unnecessary; the Constitution did not deny women any right to participate in the franchise.

And what amendment ended slavery?


----------



## WinterBorn (Jul 7, 2017)

norwegen said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Also, using the rationale that you did, those who pressed for a constitutional amendment to give women the vote and to end slavery would have lost their constitutionally protected rights for doing so.   In a word...NO.
> ...



The Thirteenth Amendment actually abolished slavery.  "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

The US Constitution did not deny any women the right to vote.  But it also did not, specifically, say that women were allowed to vote.  Consequently, state and local laws were passed to prevent women from voting.  The 19th Amendment made it illegal to deny women the vote.


----------



## grantmartin850 (Jul 8, 2017)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> And that flaw is providing equal freedom to those who vehemently oppose it's principles.
> 
> Racial, gender-based and religious freedoms and protections are fine and should have been and actually are covered under the Constitution.   The race, gender, religion etc of a US President or congress person should not matter.   What should matter is that person TRULY and faithfully follows the Constitution and works in the best interest of the American people as outlined by the US Constitution.   If they show they are not going to do that, removal from office should not just be considered, it should be mandatory and immediate.
> 
> ...



I agree with the problem, I just disagree with the solution.  Who would decide when someone was against the Constitution and our founding principles?


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Jul 8, 2017)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> And that flaw is providing equal freedom to those who vehemently oppose it's principles.
> 
> Racial, gender-based and religious freedoms and protections are fine and should have been and actually are covered under the Constitution.   The race, gender, religion etc of a US President or congress person should not matter.   What should matter is that person TRULY and faithfully follows the Constitution and works in the best interest of the American people as outlined by the US Constitution.   If they show they are not going to do that, removal from office should not just be considered, it should be mandatory and immediate.
> 
> ...



REALLY LONG POST, so I didn't read it all. But every elected congressperson and president  has to take an oath to defend the constitution and the oath is required by the constitution,  so not sure why we need a constitutional Amendment. 

U.S. Senate: Oath of Office
Upon taking office, senators-elect must swear or affirm that they will "support and defend the Constitution." The president of the Senate or a surrogate administers the oath to newly elected or re-elected senators. The oath is required by the Constitution; the wording is prescribed by law.


----------



## yiostheoy (Jul 8, 2017)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> And that flaw is providing equal freedom to those who vehemently oppose it's principles.
> 
> Racial, gender-based and religious freedoms and protections are fine and should have been and actually are covered under the Constitution.   The race, gender, religion etc of a US President or congress person should not matter.   What should matter is that person TRULY and faithfully follows the Constitution and works in the best interest of the American people as outlined by the US Constitution.   If they show they are not going to do that, removal from office should not just be considered, it should be mandatory and immediate.
> 
> ...


I think the Constitution needs the following:

1 - a shall-issue amendment for concealed firearms in all 50 states and DC;

2 - an abortion amendment either pro or con once and for all;

3 - an anti filibuster amendment for Senate rules;

4 - a balanced budget amendment;

5 - a voucher amendment for education;

6 - a maximum tax rate amendment;

7 - a repeal of capital gains amendment;

Now, the Congress should get to work on all this and stop p!ssing and moaning about ACA.


----------



## yiostheoy (Jul 8, 2017)

grantmartin850 said:


> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> > And that flaw is providing equal freedom to those who vehemently oppose it's principles.
> ...


You grantmartin850 need to pick an avatar to go with your new moniker.


----------



## yiostheoy (Jul 8, 2017)

norwegen said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Also, using the rationale that you did, those who pressed for a constitutional amendment to give women the vote and to end slavery would have lost their constitutionally protected rights for doing so.   In a word...NO.
> ...


You were supposed to learn in 8th Grade History that the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments (1) set the Negro slaves free, (2) made them citizens, and (3) gave them the right to vote.

The 14th also extends all the amendments to the States as well.


----------



## Desperado (Jul 8, 2017)

The US Constitution allows for Freedom of Religion even religion diametrically opposed to the US Constitution and want to replace it with their own law, (Sharia)


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 8, 2017)

Desperado said:


> The US Constitution allows for Freedom of Religion even religion diametrically opposed to the US Constitution and want to replace it with their own law, (Sharia)


No it does not.  If that were true then pedophiles could start a religion saying fucking kids was okay or a religion that allows cannibalism....or marrying more than one wife.


----------



## Conservative65 (Aug 4, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Also, using the rationale that you did, those who pressed for a constitutional amendment to give women the vote and to end slavery would have lost their constitutionally protected rights for doing so.   In a word...NO.



The Constitution didn't grant women the right to vote.  If you're referring to the 19th Amendment, not one word in it says "woman", "female", or anything that distinguishes men from women.    Also, to say that the Constitution gave women the vote would mean that no women voted prior to it being in the Constitution.


----------



## Conservative65 (Aug 4, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Specifically, the 19th Amendment said a person's sex could not be used to deny or abridge their right to vote.  It doesn't say "women".


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 4, 2017)

Conservative65 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > norwegen said:
> ...



Yes.   And prior to that women were routinely turned away from polling places or even arrested for trying to vote.   So, while there was no specific rule in the constitution against women voting, they were denied access to the polls until the 19th amendment.

And no, the word "woman" does not appear in the amendment.   

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

Considering that women were routinely denied access to the polls because of state and local laws (or just assholes in charge), the 19th amendment did not need to say "women" to be an amendment that gave women the vote.


----------



## Conservative65 (Aug 4, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Something can't give women a right to do something if women had done it prior to the amendment.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 4, 2017)

Conservative65 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



If state and local laws forbid women from voting, as was the case, then a constitutional amendment certainly can give women the vote.


----------



## Conservative65 (Aug 4, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Only to an uneducated moron like you that doesn't understand anything beyond the rote memorization you learned at whatever public school you attended.  They did you a disservice and you're too fucking stupid to know it.  

Since an amendment can't single out a specific group, it can't clearly do what you say, retard.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 5, 2017)

Conservative65 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Retard?   LMAO!!

The proof of the inaccuracy of your accusations can be seen by answering 2 questions.

1) How many genders did the gov't recognize in 1920?    The correct answer would be 2, male and female.
2) Were men routinely denied access to polling places based solely on their gender?   No.


So we have an amendment saying a person cannot be denied access to voting based solely on their gender.   And since men were not commonly denied voting access due to their gender, it was women who were protected by the 19th amendment.


----------



## Conservative65 (Aug 5, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...




Since the amendment didn't say women, it protected everyone.  That's how amendments are written.  Your argument might have validity if women hadn't been able to vote proper to 
the 19th Amendment.  They were.

\Next thing you'll try to say is the 15th gave blacks the right to vote.  If that was the case, why were so many still unable to vote after it was passed if that's what a document higher than any other law in the land grants them?


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 5, 2017)

Conservative65 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



A very few women were allowed to vote.   Most were not.   Until the 19th amendment.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 5, 2017)

Conservative65 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Are you saying that the 19th amendment didn't do anything?

By 1920, 19 states had given women the vote by state law.   There were 48 states.   So 40% of the states did not allow women to vote.

I'll concede that some women were allowed to vote prior to the 19th being raitified.

So change my post to "The 19th amendment gave MOST women the vote, and protected them from having their right to vote revoked".


----------



## Conservative65 (Aug 5, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Something can't give a group a right if said group could already do, in many cases, what you say the amendment did for them.  What it did was prevent states from using sex of a person to deny the vote.  Since states, not the federal government, set the regulations for what it takes to vote within that state, what the 19th amendment did was say states could still makes those rules but one of them couldn't deny someone the right to vote because of their sex.  It also applied to men the same.  

It appears as if you didn't look at the link.  By 1919, women has partial or full suffrage in all but, the best I can tell, 11 states.  That means, since there were 48, somewhere in the 36 - 37 range could vote in some elections.  I can count 15 that had full suffrage.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 5, 2017)

Conservative65 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



So you are conceding that all women could not vote prior to the 19th amendment being ratified?


----------

