Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What about those who openly espouse taking up arms against the government? In effect, that means taking up arms against the Constitution.Most people who are credible and who are speaking of amending or revamping the Constitution know history. I have never heard any of them make the points you have raised.
No, it isn't. But, it IS the word of Law.The principles behind the Constitution are cherished, but that document is not the word of a god.
How so? What's inadequate about it?A document written over 200 years ago is inadequate to fully address the issues that pop up in the 21st century.
What makes you think it may be time to trash the Constitution and replace it? Replace it with what?The Articles of Confederation gave way to our Constitution. It may be time for a new one. Is the amendment process adequate? Only narrowly
Why should people in Iowa be at the mercy of New Yorkers? We're not a democracy, never have been and hopefully never will be. The electoral college assures that states with smaller poplulations have an equal say in the electoral process. We have the House of Representatives for popular representation.
Would you abolish the senate, too?
If you let democracy run rampant, rural citizens would become vassals to urban citizens.
We are a constitutional republic, or should be. Let's limit democracy to the house and state houses.
Already, we have the best marketers taking the White House. Why give them any more power?
Get rid of the Constitution in favor of what? Do you want a new one written by the morons in office today who can agree on nothing other than let's give ourselves a raise and go on vacation? Do you want something totally different from the Constitution as we know it if so what would that be?
Why should people in Iowa be at the mercy of New Yorkers? We're not a democracy, never have been and hopefully never will be. The electoral college assures that states with smaller poplulations have an equal say in the electoral process. We have the House of Representatives for popular representation.
Would you abolish the senate, too?
If you let democracy run rampant, rural citizens would become vassals to urban citizens.
We are a constitutional republic, or should be. Let's limit democracy to the house and state houses.
Already, we have the best marketers taking the White House. Why give them any more power?
These are straw man arguments in that, when saying the US Constitution is not fully adequate for facing challenges we face in a changed world, and especially the world unfolding in this 21st century, to list how the government is set up does not address the main issue...
Dante gave one example: the War Powers Act. We still debate it because of an 18th and 19th century notion of 'no standing armies'
Did the OP just call Wilson one of our greatest Presidents?
Did the OP just call Wilson one of our greatest Presidents?
I think history and a majority of historians have already done that
Did the OP just call Wilson one of our greatest Presidents?
I think history and a majority of historians have already done that
By the way, where's the straw man in my argument? These are straw man arguments in that, when saying the US Constitution is not fully adequate for facing challenges we face in a changed world, and especially the world unfolding in this 21st century, to list how the government is set up does not address the main issue...Why should people in Iowa be at the mercy of New Yorkers? We're not a democracy, never have been and hopefully never will be. The electoral college assures that states with smaller poplulations have an equal say in the electoral process. We have the House of Representatives for popular representation.
Would you abolish the senate, too?
If you let democracy run rampant, rural citizens would become vassals to urban citizens.
We are a constitutional republic, or should be. Let's limit democracy to the house and state houses.
Already, we have the best marketers taking the White House. Why give them any more power?
These are straw man arguments in that, when saying the US Constitution is not fully adequate for facing challenges we face in a changed world, and especially the world unfolding in this 21st century, to list how the government is set up does not address the main issue...
Dante gave one example: the War Powers Act. We still debate it because of an 18th and 19th century notion of 'no standing armies'
We debate it because the President should not be able to kill anyone he pleases --which is exactly the situation we have today. Congress should act as a balance to executive power -- it's the main reason it exists.
No, we don't need to be off on any military adventure corporate America deems in its interest. We can't become lawless for the sake of convenience for the executive branch.
Sorry, no cigar.
The Constitution allows for changes. If it was followed, instead of ignored for expediency, we would all be much better off.
By the way, where's the straw man in my argument?
like law, the meanings in the Constitution are debated with disagreements over the text, the meanings, the understandings of those who wrote and ratified...all gets to be judged in a court and we follow what the courts say.
The US constitution is a document written over 200 years ago and it is inadequate in many ways and that is why we debate it so fiercely now...even simple remedies run up against the meanings and understandings of a world much different.,...it is why I gave the War Powers Act as an example. {No standing armies became obsolete in the 20th century, yet that antiquated notion existed in the 18th and 19th centuries and made sense then...today we still argue over the constitutionality of the War Powers Act} -- again, history
Dante is not saying "it is time to trash the Constitution and replace it" in the same way the men who first met to consider the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation were not calling to trash them and replace them...you are jumping the gun, so to speak
you either agree or disagree the Constitution seems inadequate for the 21st century. If you disagree it is I point out how. What do you do then?
Why should people in Iowa be at the mercy of New Yorkers? We're not a democracy, never have been and hopefully never will be. The electoral college assures that states with smaller poplulations have an equal say in the electoral process. We have the House of Representatives for popular representation.
Would you abolish the senate, too?
If you let democracy run rampant, rural citizens would become vassals to urban citizens.
We are a constitutional republic, or should be. Let's limit democracy to the house and state houses.
Already, we have the best marketers taking the White House. Why give them any more power?
These are straw man arguments in that, when saying the US Constitution is not fully adequate for facing challenges we face in a changed world, and especially the world unfolding in this 21st century, to list how the government is set up does not address the main issue...
Dante gave one example: the War Powers Act. We still debate it because of an 18th and 19th century notion of 'no standing armies'
Did the OP just call Wilson one of our greatest Presidents?
I think history and a majority of historians have already done that
Majority of historians, eh? Link?
Wilson was a racist, a war monger, and enemy to liberty. Oh hell, NOW I see why you like him.
Are you referring to yourself in the third person?
I think history and a majority of historians have already done that
Majority of historians, eh? Link?
Wilson was a racist, a war monger, and enemy to liberty. Oh hell, NOW I see why you like him.
Link? common knowledge shouldn't have to be linked, but in this day and age of FOX and Talk Radio and Kieth O B ...
look t up
By the way, where's the straw man in my argument? These are straw man arguments in that, when saying the US Constitution is not fully adequate for facing challenges we face in a changed world, and especially the world unfolding in this 21st century, to list how the government is set up does not address the main issue...These are straw man arguments in that, when saying the US Constitution is not fully adequate for facing challenges we face in a changed world, and especially the world unfolding in this 21st century, to list how the government is set up does not address the main issue...
Dante gave one example: the War Powers Act. We still debate it because of an 18th and 19th century notion of 'no standing armies'
We debate it because the President should not be able to kill anyone he pleases --which is exactly the situation we have today. Congress should act as a balance to executive power -- it's the main reason it exists.
No, we don't need to be off on any military adventure corporate America deems in its interest. We can't become lawless for the sake of convenience for the executive branch.
Sorry, no cigar.
The Constitution allows for changes. If it was followed, instead of ignored for expediency, we would all be much better off.
By the way, where's the straw man in my argument?
Dante gave one example: the War Powers Act. We still debate it because of an 18th and 19th century notion of 'no standing armies'
in another post Dante wrotelike law, the meanings in the Constitution are debated with disagreements over the text, the meanings, the understandings of those who wrote and ratified...all gets to be judged in a court and we follow what the courts say.
The US constitution is a document written over 200 years ago and it is inadequate in many ways and that is why we debate it so fiercely now...even simple remedies run up against the meanings and understandings of a world much different.,...it is why I gave the War Powers Act as an example. {No standing armies became obsolete in the 20th century, yet that antiquated notion existed in the 18th and 19th centuries and made sense then...today we still argue over the constitutionality of the War Powers Act} -- again, history
Dante is not saying "it is time to trash the Constitution and replace it" in the same way the men who first met to consider the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation were not calling to trash them and replace them...you are jumping the gun, so to speak
you either agree or disagree the Constitution seems inadequate for the 21st century. If you disagree it is I point out how. What do you do then?
Are you referring to yourself in the third person?
Dante knows that if you have to ask...
It just needs updating, that's all. Or, we could simply scrap the entire thing and make a new one, either way I'm all for it.
Did the OP just call Wilson one of our greatest Presidents?
I think history and a majority of historians have already done that
You should go back to your school and demand a refund immediately.
You got robbed.
In guess being a right winger denying reality is just another day for you...By the way, where's the straw man in my argument? These are straw man arguments in that, when saying the US Constitution is not fully adequate for facing challenges we face in a changed world, and especially the world unfolding in this 21st century, to list how the government is set up does not address the main issue...We debate it because the President should not be able to kill anyone he pleases --which is exactly the situation we have today. Congress should act as a balance to executive power -- it's the main reason it exists.
No, we don't need to be off on any military adventure corporate America deems in its interest. We can't become lawless for the sake of convenience for the executive branch.
Sorry, no cigar.
The Constitution allows for changes. If it was followed, instead of ignored for expediency, we would all be much better off.
By the way, where's the straw man in my argument?
Dante gave one example: the War Powers Act. We still debate it because of an 18th and 19th century notion of 'no standing armies'
in another post Dante wrotelike law, the meanings in the Constitution are debated with disagreements over the text, the meanings, the understandings of those who wrote and ratified...all gets to be judged in a court and we follow what the courts say.
The US constitution is a document written over 200 years ago and it is inadequate in many ways and that is why we debate it so fiercely now...even simple remedies run up against the meanings and understandings of a world much different.,...it is why I gave the War Powers Act as an example. {No standing armies became obsolete in the 20th century, yet that antiquated notion existed in the 18th and 19th centuries and made sense then...today we still argue over the constitutionality of the War Powers Act} -- again, history
Dante is not saying "it is time to trash the Constitution and replace it" in the same way the men who first met to consider the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation were not calling to trash them and replace them...you are jumping the gun, so to speak
you either agree or disagree the Constitution seems inadequate for the 21st century. If you disagree it is I point out how. What do you do then?
No, none of the "examples" given by you and others show that the Constitution is inadequate because of its age. You are operating from a false premise and when the shortcomings of your arguments are brought to the fore, you retreat and holler straw man.
Of course I believe the Constitution is adequate in its present form. If you missed that implication, you need to re-read for meaning.
