Take our country back, from the Constitution

[Crackerjaxon]

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...

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 wrote

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.

In guess being a right winger denying reality is just another day for you...

you can ignore examples like the War Powers act all you want, but the evidence is there for all to see.

You keep jumping to the straw man argument that it is about the principles and {strike this}structure{strike this and insert} form of our government that is the main issue...they are not

What is the main issue, that the Constitution should be scrapped because it is 200 years old?

What a wonderfully stupid idea.

You've shown no evidence, only offered tepid ideas and opinions that anyone with a triple digit IQ can see are nonsense.

I addressed the silly idea concerning the Was Powers Act, but you seem enamored of the notion that the executive branch should have unlimited power to kill anyone the President doesn't like.

Do you think standing armies are a good thing? Is that it?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What is the main issue, that the Constitution should be scrapped because it is 200 years old? What a wonderfully stupid idea.

You've shown no evidence, only offered tepid ideas and opinions that anyone with a triple digit IQ can see are nonsense.

I addressed the silly idea concerning the Was Powers Act, but you seem enamored of the notion that the executive branch should have unlimited power to kill anyone the President doesn't like.

Do you think standing armies are a good thing? Is that it?

Oh I see where you struggle...

The idea that the Constitution is not fully inadequate in allowing us to deal with issues in a 21st century world is the main issue. The fact that is over 200 years old is not the main issue. What it fails to address is. We have an amendment process, but just as the War Powers act was needed to effect changes because of the realities of modern warfare, the amendment process needs something. What, I don't have the answers to...

That is what discussion and debate is for. Remember, we have the Constitution because men who were charged with amending the Articles of Confederation ... who had far more serious issues separating them from each other than we do today...(slavery ring a bell?)...we able to civilly and openly discuss and debate, in a reasonable and rational manner, the issues facing them.

Dante never commented upon the Executive's opinion and that of the Courts so far, on the targeted killings of enemies who may be US citizens

and standing Armies are a necessity, whether that is a good or a bad thing itself is an opinion that is for another thread

please stop trolling for trouble.

 

[regent]

While the constitution has only been amended 27 times since ratification, it has been changed hundreds if not thousands of times through usage, and court decisions. Most strong presidents are always accused of violating the constitution, Obama is only the latest. If the constitution had to be amended every time a question was raised as to the constitutionality of an issue we can only guess at the length. I think the California constitution has over 600 amendments, even as the height of a fruit tree to be taxed. It is the changing of government that should be closely watched.
If an issue is really great it usually finds its way to a court.

 

[LibertyLemming]

We haven't been using the Constitution in decades so he's a little slow in his request

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

While the constitution has only been amended 27 times since ratification, it has been changed hundreds if not thousands of times through usage, and court decisions. Most strong presidents are always accused of violating the constitution, Obama is only the latest. If the constitution had to be amended every time a question was raised as to the constitutionality of an issue we can only guess at the length.

I think the California constitution has over 600 amendments, even as the height of a fruit tree to be taxed. It is the changing of government that should be closely watched.
If an issue is really great it usually finds its way to a court.

Nice, but who is talking about the courts? How many times and in what way the Constitution has been amended is irrelevant to the discussion on hand. It has historically (in hindsight) been a good thing that the amendment process was made difficult, but addressing the needs of a nation in the 21st century?

We now spend enormous sums of money and manpower over whether the document is a living one or not. We have bitter disagreements over everything and this keeps us splintered in areas where we should by all rational reasoning, be together as one.

It is time to discuss what crazy-old-slave-banging-daddy Jefferson spoke about,, the very idea that one generation is beholden and restricted to things set out by the prior ones

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We haven't been using the Constitution in decades so he's a little slow in his request

this adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. go play in the Flame Zone

 

[dblack]

We haven't been using the Constitution in decades so he's a little slow in his request

True enough. But, then from that perspective there may be some real value in calling a halt to the charade and dropping the pretense that there are any predictable limits on state power. It would at least allow us to come to terms with reality.

 

[LibertyLemming]

We haven't been using the Constitution in decades so he's a little slow in his request

this adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. go play in the Flame Zone

It adds me wondering why people choose now to dismiss or want to follow the Constitution when it has been eras since we followed it with some sort of integrity.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

We now spend enormous sums of money and manpower over whether the document is a living one or not. We have bitter disagreements over everything and this keeps us splintered in areas where we should by all rational reasoning, be together as one.

Awfullest bunch of bullshit I ever read. No, we're not going to suspend the Constitution becuase you think you're rational.

Next question.

 

[JoeB131]

Did the OP just call Wilson one of our greatest Presidents?

Given the times he had to deal with, yes.

Most historians rate Wilson in the top 10.

Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conservative and Liberal rankers both put Wilson in the top 10.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We haven't been using the Constitution in decades so he's a little slow in his request

this adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. go play in the Flame Zone

It adds me wondering why people choose now to dismiss or want to follow the Constitution when it has been eras since we followed it with some sort of integrity.

Americans have been fighting over the interpretations since day one. Nothing new. Your argument is as tired and old as the document.

What is new is the world around us

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We now spend enormous sums of money and manpower over whether the document is a living one or not. We have bitter disagreements over everything and this keeps us splintered in areas where we should by all rational reasoning, be together as one.

Awfullest bunch of bullshit I ever read. No, we're not going to suspend the Constitution becuase you think you're rational.

Next question.

you obviously live in a make believe world where people say what it is you want to hear and not what they've really said

 

[PaulS1950]

I think that the OP was trying to say lets take back our country from those who have been abusing the constitution. More simply put lets get back to the constitution.

 

[LibertyLemming]

this adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. go play in the Flame Zone

It adds me wondering why people choose now to dismiss or want to follow the Constitution when it has been eras since we followed it with some sort of integrity.

Americans have been fighting over the interpretations since day one. Nothing new. Your argument is as tired and old as the document.

What is new is the world around us

It may appear you but it's the same forces running the show.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It adds me wondering why people choose now to dismiss or want to follow the Constitution when it has been eras since we followed it with some sort of integrity.

Americans have been fighting over the interpretations since day one. Nothing new. Your argument is as tired and old as the document.

What is new is the world around us

It may appear you but it's the same forces running the show.

and there my fine, flustered, friend is where you expose your neurosis and paranoia ... the thing that feeds your alarmist rhetoric

 

[mudwhistle]

I've got a simple idea: Let's give up on the Constitution. I know, it sounds radical, but it's really not. Constitutional disobedience is as American as apple pie.

For example, most of our greatest Presidents -- Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and both Roosevelts -- had doubts about the Constitution, and many of them disobeyed it when it got in their way.

To be clear, I don't think we should give up on everything in the Constitution. The Constitution has many important and inspiring provisions, but we should obey these because they are important and inspiring, not because a bunch of people who are now long-dead favored them two centuries ago.

Unfortunately, the Constitution also contains some provisions that are not so inspiring. For example, one allows a presidential candidate who is rejected by a majority of the American people to assume office. Suppose that Barack Obama really wasn't a natural-born citizen. So what?

Constitutional obedience has a pernicious impact on our political culture. Take the recent debate about gun control. None of my friends can believe it, but I happen to be skeptical of most forms of gun control.

I understand, though, that's not everyone's view, and I'm eager to talk with people who disagree.

But what happens when the issue gets Constitutional-ized? Then we turn the question over to lawyers, and lawyers do with it what lawyers do. So instead of talking about whether gun control makes sense in our country, we talk about what people thought of it two centuries ago.

Worse yet, talking about gun control in terms of constitutional obligation needlessly raises the temperature of political discussion. Instead of a question on policy, about which reasonable people can disagree, it becomes a test of one's commitment to our foundational document and, so, to America itself.

This is our country. We live in it, and we have a right to the kind of country we want. We would not allow the French or the United Nations to rule us, and neither should we allow people who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country as it exists today.

If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making decisions for ourselves, and stop deferring to an ancient and outdated document.



Professor: Take our country back, from the Constitution - CBS News

I have a better idea.......move.

 

[Michelle420]

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.

In guess being a right winger denying reality is just another day for you...

you can ignore examples like the War Powers act all you want, but the evidence is there for all to see.

You keep jumping to the straw man argument that it is about the principles and {strike this}structure{strike this and insert} form of our government that is the main issue...they are not

What is the main issue, that the Constitution should be scrapped because it is 200 years old?

What a wonderfully stupid idea.

You've shown no evidence, only offered tepid ideas and opinions that anyone with a triple digit IQ can see are nonsense.

I addressed the silly idea concerning the Was Powers Act, but you seem enamored of the notion that the executive branch should have unlimited power to kill anyone the President doesn't like.

Do you think standing armies are a good thing? Is that it?

The main issue is that when this document was socially constructed society was one in which women had no right to vote and black people were owned property and held socially hostage. From the get go there was a bias in who got to make the rules.

Coming from an ethical standpoint it was slanted to what the social norms were for those times.

Constitutional loyalists will say well an amendment will remedy whatever outdated law needs changing, yet that has not always been the case.

When the FDR programs came out for instance, they primarily benefited white people. During the 1930's black people worked in agriculture and as nannies, they did not receive any social security that white folk got in the 1960's.

The document while allowing for change is slow to do so and a big part of that is which class and race was in control at the time it was socially constructed now any change has to be a major ordeal.

Women also have been effected and even in today's society the era was never passed.

ERA: Home

In our modern society things like this should not even be an issue that has to be ratified or argued.

The document constructed from a different time era with a bias advantage and because of that even in present day people are still striving for civil rights.

A new document in which all the people rightfully represented would draw up a much different type of social contract.

 

[yidnar]

Majority rule would be nice.

yes !! only the strong will survive !! the end of libbs !!

 

[eflatminor]

Did the OP just call Wilson one of our greatest Presidents?

Given the times he had to deal with, yes.

Most historians rate Wilson in the top 10.

Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conservative and Liberal rankers both put Wilson in the top 10.

Popularity among big government nanny staters does not change the fact Wilson was a war mongering liar and a rabid racist to boot. But hey, he started the Federal Reserve...and hasn't that worked out beautifully!

 

[LibertyLemming]

Americans have been fighting over the interpretations since day one. Nothing new. Your argument is as tired and old as the document.

What is new is the world around us

It may appear you but it's the same forces running the show.

and there my fine, flustered, friend is where you expose your neurosis and paranoia ... the thing that feeds your alarmist rhetoric

What does that even mean? You don't think big business basically runs the show?