name a dozen people you would trust to rewrite the constitution

[bripat9643]

Those folks had a lot more freedom than we do now, so of course they would. But this nation is quickly descending into totalitarianism. An average person can't get through the day without breaking several laws. Government bureaucrats can expropriate your property at the stroke of a pen. Government destroys entire industries. If you think that's freedom, then you're a servile brainwashed troll.

I disagreed wit the Kelo SC decision about expropriation of private property for private profit....but that is a problem with elitists courts....and the structure of our court system and choosing of judges.

Government destroys entire industries?...name one.....

[MENTION=45102]dcraelin[/MENTION] "I disagreed wit the Kelo SC decision"

The decision or the news reports and ideological attacks against the decision?

Well of course no one would object to the government expropriating private property unless they were brainwashed FOXbots, right?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Ron and Rand Paul, author John Ross, Mark Levin, and Peter McWilliams.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Can you name a dozen people you would trust to rewrite the constitution?

ok, simplify: name 5

Fifty-five men attended most of the meetings, there were never more than 46 present at any one time, and ultimately only thirty-nine actually signed the Constitution. The Signers of the Constitution of the United States


I would not trust a small group of people with my freedoms

 

[occupied]

I commented way earlier in this thread, sort of brushed it off as ludicrous, but on further reflection maybe we do need a rewrite, not to short circuit our rights but to enshrine them in the main text as the foundational goals rather than add-ons. A constitution is a simple contract between the governed and the government, a thing of sturdy utility not near religious reverence so maybe the oldest constitution in world needs some modernization to make it bullet-proof from our periodic outbreaks of hard-line security state fascism.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I disagreed wit the Kelo SC decision about expropriation of private property for private profit....but that is a problem with elitists courts....and the structure of our court system and choosing of judges.

Government destroys entire industries?...name one.....

[MENTION=45102]dcraelin[/MENTION] "I disagreed wit the Kelo SC decision"

The decision or the news reports and ideological attacks against the decision?

Well of course no one would object to the government expropriating private property unless they were brainwashed FOXbots, right?

keystone xl goes across some property. So the government shouldn't have any power to build things and make agreements with property owners?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Ron and Rand Paul, author John Ross, Mark Levin, and Peter McWilliams.

yeah, let's give all the powers back to the states like we had it before the (1789)constitution! Didn't work out very good the first time it was tried.

 

[dcraelin]

Those folks had a lot more freedom than we do now, so of course they would. But this nation is quickly descending into totalitarianism. An average person can't get through the day without breaking several laws. Government bureaucrats can expropriate your property at the stroke of a pen. Government destroys entire industries. If you think that's freedom, then you're a servile brainwashed troll.

I disagreed wit the Kelo SC decision about expropriation of private property for private profit....but that is a problem with elitists courts....and the structure of our court system and choosing of judges.
Government destroys entire industries?...name one.....

[MENTION=45102]dcraelin[/MENTION] "I disagreed wit the Kelo SC decision"
The decision or the news reports and ideological attacks against the decision?

I believe I did read most of the decision if thats what your getting at, tho its been awhile. I also agree with the ideological attacks. Confiscation to enrich private developers should not be allowed. Not really a public purpose.

I disagreed wit the Kelo SC decision about expropriation of private property for private profit....but that is a problem with elitists courts....and the structure of our court system and choosing of judges.
Government destroys entire industries?...name one.....

[MENTION=45102]dcraelin[/MENTION] "I disagreed wit the Kelo SC decision"
The decision or the news reports and ideological attacks against the decision?

Well of course no one would object to the government expropriating private property unless they were brainwashed FOXbots, right?

I never said that. But we probably do look at the situation differently.

 

[bayoubill]

President Obama of course

John Kerry, Joe Biden and Hillary

You forgot to mention Vladimir Putin...

 

[dcraelin]

Ron and Rand Paul, author John Ross, Mark Levin, and Peter McWilliams.

yeah, let's give all the powers back to the states like we had it before the (1789)constitution! Didn't work out very good the first time it was tried.

The rap against the Articles of Confederation was overblown...if thats what your talking about. In my opinion they had a better way of appointing judges tho I believe it was just temporary. A method close to what they had where there was a random element in the choice towards last would be an improvement on what we have now.

one of the original proposed amendments to US constitution would have insured one rep per around 50,000 residents....this failed basically only due to a wording snafu. We should have more representatives...paid for mostly by cutting the staff they currently have. Also there was a saying that where yearly elections end tyranny begins...There should be a house election every year.

these are ideas drawn from the founding generations ideas.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Ron and Rand Paul, author John Ross, Mark Levin, and Peter McWilliams.

yeah, let's give all the powers back to the states like we had it before the (1789)constitution! Didn't work out very good the first time it was tried.

Are you on LSD?

 

[bripat9643]

Ron and Rand Paul, author John Ross, Mark Levin, and Peter McWilliams.

yeah, let's give all the powers back to the states like we had it before the (1789)constitution! Didn't work out very good the first time it was tried.

According to whom?

 

[bripat9643]

I disagreed wit the Kelo SC decision about expropriation of private property for private profit....but that is a problem with elitists courts....and the structure of our court system and choosing of judges.
Government destroys entire industries?...name one.....

[MENTION=45102]dcraelin[/MENTION] "I disagreed wit the Kelo SC decision"
The decision or the news reports and ideological attacks against the decision?

I believe I did read most of the decision if thats what your getting at, tho its been awhile. I also agree with the ideological attacks. Confiscation to enrich private developers should not be allowed. Not really a public purpose.

The Constitution doesn't say "public purpose." It says "public use." There's a big difference between those two things.

[MENTION=45102]dcraelin[/MENTION] "I disagreed wit the Kelo SC decision"
The decision or the news reports and ideological attacks against the decision?

Well of course no one would object to the government expropriating private property unless they were brainwashed FOXbots, right?

I never said that. But we probably do look at the situation differently.

Yep. You think government should be allowed to steal private property and I don't.

 

[bripat9643]

[MENTION=45102]dcraelin[/MENTION] "I disagreed wit the Kelo SC decision"

The decision or the news reports and ideological attacks against the decision?

Well of course no one would object to the government expropriating private property unless they were brainwashed FOXbots, right?

keystone xl goes across some property. So the government shouldn't have any power to build things and make agreements with property owners?

Eminent domain is the kind of "agreement" you make with a mugger when he has a gun to your head.

 

[dcraelin]

[MENTION=45102]dcraelin[/MENTION] "I disagreed wit the Kelo SC decision"
The decision or the news reports and ideological attacks against the decision?

I believe I did read most of the decision if thats what your getting at, tho its been awhile. I also agree with the ideological attacks. Confiscation to enrich private developers should not be allowed. Not really a public purpose.

The Constitution doesn't say "public purpose." It says "public use." There's a big difference between those two things.

Yep. You think government should be allowed to steal private property and I don't.

OK public use....whats the difference?

certainly not steal...but not get gouged for either...which I've seen happen.

I'm not certain I get where your coming from...do you actually agree with the KELO case outcome?

 

[bayoubill]

Can you name a dozen people you would trust to rewrite the constitution?

me and 11 bayoubill clones...

 

[American4Americ]

Actually I would want God, and Jesus to rewrite the constitution.

 

[dcraelin]

I never said that. But we probably do look at the situation differently.

Yep. You think government should be allowed to steal private property and I don't.

actually I think I can agree with Justice Thomas in these quottes from Wikipedia.

“ This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a 'public use.' ”

Thomas additionally observed:
“ Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not.

Thomas also made use of the argument presented in the NAACP/AARP/SCLC/SJLS amicus brief on behalf of three low-income residents' groups fighting redevelopment in New Jersey, noting:
“ Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful.[8]

 

[hatman]

A little late didn't read this yet but I am for sure the same players in here are arguing like children for 8 or 9 pages.

Ron Paul
Ron Wyden
Anthony Scalia
Jesse Ventura
Matt Taibbi
Anthony Kennedy


Calvin Broadus


Alright I cant think of 12.

 

[Freewill]

Can you name a dozen people you would trust to rewrite the constitution?

ok, simplify: name 5

Other then these, no one:

Numbered Key of Singers' Identities


1.Washington, George, VA


2.Franklin, Benjamin, PA


3.Madison, James, VA


4.Hamilton, Alexander, NY


5.Morris, Gouverneur, PA


6.Morris, Robert, PA


7.Wilson, James, PA


8.Pinckney, Chas. Cotesworth, SC


9.Pinckney, Chas, SC


10.Rutledge, John, SC


11.Butler, Pierce, SC


12.Sherman, Roger, CT


13.Johnson, William Samuel, CT


14.McHenry, James, MD

15. Read, George, DE
16. Bassett, Richard, DE
17. Spaight, Richard Dobbs, NC
18. Blount, William, NC
19. Williamson, Hugh, NC
20. Jenifer, Daniel of St. Thomas, MD
21.King, Rufus, MA
22.Gorham, Nathaniel, MA
23.Dayton, Jonathan, NJ
24.Carroll, Daniel, MD
25.Few, William, GA
26.Baldwin, Abraham, GA
27.Langdon, John, NH
28.Gilman, Nicholas, NH
29.Livingston, William, NJ
30.Paterson, William, NJ
31.Mifflin, Thomas, PA
32.Clymer, George, PA
33.FitzSimons, Thomas, PA
34.Ingersoll, Jared, PA
35.Bedford, Gunning, Jr., DE
36.Brearley, David, NJ
37.Dickinson, John, DE
38.Blair, John, VA
39.Broom, Jacob, DE
40. Jackson, William, Secretary

 

[dcraelin]

Can you name a dozen people you would trust to rewrite the constitution?
ok, simplify: name 5

Other then these, no one:

Numbered Key of Singers' Identities
1.Washington, George, VA 2.Franklin, Benjamin, PA 3.Madison, James, VA 4.Hamilton, Alexander, NY 5.Morris, Gouverneur, PA 6.Morris, Robert, PA 7.Wilson, James, PA 8.Pinckney, Chas. Cotesworth, SC 9.Pinckney, Chas, SC 10.Rutledge, John, SC
11.Butler, Pierce, SC 12.Sherman, Roger, CT 13.Johnson, William Samuel, CT 14.McHenry, James, MD 15. Read, George, DE 16. Bassett, Richard, DE 17. Spaight, Richard Dobbs, NC 18. Blount, William, NC 19. Williamson, Hugh, NC 20. Jenifer, Daniel of St. Thomas, MD 21.King, Rufus, MA 22.Gorham, Nathaniel, MA 23.Dayton, Jonathan, NJ 24.Carroll, Daniel, MD 25.Few, William, GA 26.Baldwin, Abraham, GA 27.Langdon, John, NH 28.Gilman, Nicholas, NH 29.Livingston, William, NJ 30.Paterson, William, NJ 31.Mifflin, Thomas, PA 32.Clymer, George, PA 33.FitzSimons, Thomas, PA
34.Ingersoll, Jared, PA 35.Bedford, Gunning, Jr., DE 36.Brearley, David, NJ 37.Dickinson, John, DE 38.Blair, John, VA 39.Broom, Jacob, DE 40. Jackson, William, Secretary

Madison is on record as saying Dickenson (#37 and probably others) wanted a King.....

Franklin didnt want two legislative houses....and didnt want a president but an executive council.

The Founders had different opinons...can we please quit pretending they were godlike creatures who could do no wrong?