What "rights" does nature give us?

[Procrustes Stretched]

Well...

True, but it's not that simple. Whoever controls the military...

I know it's not simple but we need a new one and scrap the old one, from the get go that old document had bias, slaves didn't have a voice, women were not allowed to vote.

Secondly, we ought to let our native americans have a voice in this whole thing dontcha think?

let me repeat:



Is the US Constitution a flawed document? Of course and many of the framers and the 'people' who ratified it understood that. What would you have them do? It was an up or down vote, or stay with the Articles of Confederation.

You conveniently ignore, or gloss over the fact that people excluded are now included. We have a process to change it.

I have asked people for decades now "name me a dozen people you would trust to write a new constitution" -- no takers. It would of course take many more than a dozen. Trust the current Congress to do it?

The US Constitution was drafted behind closed doors with no official record kept of the deliberations, in order to allow members meeting to go back and forth and change minds as arguments were made and remade. Then the document was not given to the states to vote on, but to the people of the states to vote on through elected committee members separate from state government.

No government voted on what type of new government would rule the Americans. The 'people' of the states voted as a nation for the first time. They demanded a Bill of Rights as a condition of ratification, even though many of the framers argued they didn't need one, as rights were supposed to be self evident...

Part of the Bill of Rights allows for amendments to alter the document to fit the times, but it's a difficult process because they understood....human nature.

 

[Michelle420]

That doesn't necessarily mean it's not a worthy document to organize behind.

It's outdated imo and I resent the fact that only white males constructed it, I suspect bias.

Constitutionalists are like bible thumpers in the way they treat this document, it's as if people in the modern age are not allowed to question it.

What is it you don't get? Your agenda is childish, immature. You truly need to experience life and learn more.

good luck

I don't get how you can ignore groups of people that had no rights when this document was constructed.

What are you so afraid of to address it and see why it presents problems?

It's a discussion and all you can come at me with is it's immature try educating me with your experience.

Do you agree that a President should be a "natural born citizen"? constitutionalists love to run with that one about Obama (because he is black), they use a lot of the outdated constitution idealogies like bible purists who take the bible literally, there are problems with how it was constructed and it still effects people today.

Your too conservative.

 

[bripat9643]

The people that are confused are the idiots that think intangible means unreal.

Magnetic fields are not tangible. Nevertheless, they are clearly real. Nuetrinoes are also not tangible. They are also very real. Evolution isn't tangle, and it's also very real.

Definition of TANGIBLE
1) a : capable of being perceived especially by the sense of touch : palpable
b : substantially real : material

2) : capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind <her grief was tangible>

3) : capable of being appraised at an actual or approximate value <tangible assets>

----

now what definition is it people were/are using?

Definition #1 is the one you are using. According to that, magnetic fields are human constructs that don't in fact exist in reality.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's outdated imo and I resent the fact that only white males constructed it, I suspect bias.

Constitutionalists are like bible thumpers in the way they treat this document, it's as if people in the modern age are not allowed to question it.

What is it you don't get? Your agenda is childish, immature. You truly need to experience life and learn more.

good luck

I don't get how you can ignore groups of people that had no rights when this document was constructed.

What are you so afraid of to address it and see why it presents problems?

It's a discussion and all you can come at me with is it's immature try educating me with your experience.

Do you agree that a President should be a "natural born citizen"? constitutionalists love to run with that one about Obama (because he is black), they use a lot of the outdated constitution idealogies like bible purists who take the bible literally, there are problems with how it was constructed and it still effects people today.

Your too conservative.

Idiot, the natural born argument was used against others before Obama. Now stop embarrassing everyone.

reply to the other posts that address this.

 

[Murf76]

We are not bound to the document and Lincoln was constitutionally disobedient in his timeline


What are Constitutions for ?

"The Constitution of the United States was a layman's document, not a lawyer's contract."

Since it was written over 200 years ago and during a time of slave labor that offered no representation for many folks in the minority I see no reason to blind obedience.

Does it never occur to you people that without the U.S. Constitution, the federal government has no authority over any of us? Doesn't even exist. We go back to being 50 separate States. Kind of puts a crimp in the whole top-down socialist thingie, doesn't it?

Well...

True, but it's not that simple. Whoever controls the military...

Right of Might and Mob Rule. Yeah... it's not like THAT isn't a double-edged sword, right?

 

[Michelle420]

Well...

True, but it's not that simple. Whoever controls the military...

I know it's not simple but we need a new one and scrap the old one, from the get go that old document had bias, slaves didn't have a voice, women were not allowed to vote.

Secondly, we ought to let our native americans have a voice in this whole thing dontcha think?

let me repeat:



Is the US Constitution a flawed document? Of course and many of the framers and the 'people' who ratified it understood that. What would you have them do? It was an up or down vote, or stay with the Articles of Confederation.

You conveniently ignore, or gloss over the fact that people excluded are now included. We have a process to change it.

I have asked people for decades now "name me a dozen people you would trust to write a new constitution" -- no takers. It would of course take many more than a dozen. Trust the current Congress to do it?

The US Constitution was drafted behind closed doors with no official record kept of the deliberations, in order to allow members meeting to go back and forth and change minds as arguments were made and remade. Then the document was not given to the states to vote on, but to the people of the states to vote on through elected committee members separate from state government.

No government voted on what type of new government would rule the Americans. The 'people' of the states voted as a nation for the first time. They demanded a Bill of Rights as a condition of ratification, even though many of the framers argued they didn't need one, as rights were supposed to be self evident...

Part of the Bill of Rights allows for amendments to alter the document to fit the times, but it's a difficult process because they understood....human nature.

When did the era get passed?

Why Was the Equal Rights Amendment Never Passed?
Is gay marriage legal now?

Nobody questions white males births, but get a black man running and we go back to the fact that this document was written for white men, as black men were slaves owned property and women had no voting voice.

I appreciate your reply.

I had posted directly after this post because I had not seen it, apologies for my snarky.

I understand the living document concept, for some it isn't working out so well which stands to reason if only one group had an advantage from the get go the rest strive to catch up.

Be well !

 

[bripat9643]

love and freedom? you can touch them? of course not because they are abstract concepts

We already know you think they are hard to understand.

stop being a friggin' idiot. It gets boring

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Magnetic fields are not tangible. Nevertheless, they are clearly real. Nuetrinoes are also not tangible. They are also very real. Evolution isn't tangle, and it's also very real.

Definition of TANGIBLE
1) a : capable of being perceived especially by the sense of touch : palpable
b : substantially real : material

2) : capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind <her grief was tangible>

3) : capable of being appraised at an actual or approximate value <tangible assets>

----

now what definition is it people were/are using?

Definition #1 is the one you are using. According to that, magnetic fields are human constructs that don't in fact exist in reality.

natural rights are human constructs = definition 1?


what people are responding to...

1. Is the value of anything based on whether it is tangible?

2. My freedoms and my loves are the most valuable aspects of my life.

1. Not at all. Merely differentiating concepts and material objects, since that was getting confused by you and others.

2. Glad they're working out for you, and fingers crossed you don't change your mind, and with it, their existence, for you. (noodle on that, and you'll see how they're both conceptual.)

The people that are confused are the idiots that think intangible means unreal.

 

[bripat9643]

We are not bound to anything as human beings, we are born into socially constructed civilizations that expect us to adhere to rules setup perhaps over 200 years ago that from the get go was hypocritical in that "we the people" were not allowed a chance to even vote on this constitution, only white men had that honor.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's not a worthy document to organize behind.

It's outdated imo and I resent the fact that only white males constructed it, I suspect bias.

Constitutionalists are like bible thumpers in the way they treat this document, it's as if people in the modern age are not allowed to question it.

Would you be happier with a Soviet style constitution if everyone got to vote on it?

 

[Michelle420]

What is it you don't get? Your agenda is childish, immature. You truly need to experience life and learn more.

good luck

I don't get how you can ignore groups of people that had no rights when this document was constructed.

What are you so afraid of to address it and see why it presents problems?

It's a discussion and all you can come at me with is it's immature try educating me with your experience.

Do you agree that a President should be a "natural born citizen"? constitutionalists love to run with that one about Obama (because he is black), they use a lot of the outdated constitution idealogies like bible purists who take the bible literally, there are problems with how it was constructed and it still effects people today.

Your too conservative.

Idiot, the natural born argument was used against others before Obama. Now stop embarrassing everyone.

reply to the other posts that address this.

It would take consideration for me to reply.

You wrote alot to be considered, so I cannot not just read it and respond back in two minutes with any real thought put into it.

 

[bripat9643]

Well...

True, but it's not that simple. Whoever controls the military...

I know it's not simple but we need a new one and scrap the old one, from the get go that old document had bias, slaves didn't have a voice, women were not allowed to vote.

Secondly, we ought to let our native americans have a voice in this whole thing dontcha think?

I know you answer will be hysterical, but just from curiosity, what would you put in a new Constitution that isn't in our current one?

 

[Michelle420]

That doesn't necessarily mean it's not a worthy document to organize behind.

It's outdated imo and I resent the fact that only white males constructed it, I suspect bias.

Constitutionalists are like bible thumpers in the way they treat this document, it's as if people in the modern age are not allowed to question it.

Would you be happier with a Soviet style constitution if everyone got to vote on it?

I would be happier if all people of the " we the people" were actually represented by our particular group and allowed to participate in socially constructing a "we the people" constitution.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I know it's not simple but we need a new one and scrap the old one, from the get go that old document had bias, slaves didn't have a voice, women were not allowed to vote.

Secondly, we ought to let our native americans have a voice in this whole thing dontcha think?

let me repeat:

Is the US Constitution a flawed document? Of course and many of the framers and the 'people' who ratified it understood that. What would you have them do? It was an up or down vote, or stay with the Articles of Confederation.

You conveniently ignore, or gloss over the fact that people excluded are now included. We have a process to change it.

I have asked people for decades now "name me a dozen people you would trust to write a new constitution" -- no takers. It would of course take many more than a dozen. Trust the current Congress to do it?

The US Constitution was drafted behind closed doors with no official record kept of the deliberations, in order to allow members meeting to go back and forth and change minds as arguments were made and remade. Then the document was not given to the states to vote on, but to the people of the states to vote on through elected committee members separate from state government.

No government voted on what type of new government would rule the Americans. The 'people' of the states voted as a nation for the first time. They demanded a Bill of Rights as a condition of ratification, even though many of the framers argued they didn't need one, as rights were supposed to be self evident...

Part of the Bill of Rights allows for amendments to alter the document to fit the times, but it's a difficult process because they understood....human nature.

When did the era get passed?

Why Was the Equal Rights Amendment Never Passed?
Is gay marriage legal now?

Nobody questions white males births, but get a black man running and we go back to the fact that this document was written for white men, as black men were slaves owned property and women had no voting voice.

I appreciate your reply.

I had posted directly after this post because I had not seen it, apologies for my snarky.

I understand the living document concept, for some it isn't working out so well which stands to reason if only one group had an advantage from the get go the rest strive to catch up.

Be well !

When did the era get passed? I remember the battle well. The people did not step up.

The Constitution has been applied to protect the rights of minorities of all sorts. Even people who were held at GITMO. Did you know that?

I am not talking about the living document theory. Others have agreed the Constitution applies to black men, women, people without property, immigrants...

Unless you can convince others about the need for change, then convince them you have the answers for change, you are wasting your time arguing about what was what in the 1700s and 1800s

 

[bripat9643]

It's outdated imo and I resent the fact that only white males constructed it, I suspect bias.

Constitutionalists are like bible thumpers in the way they treat this document, it's as if people in the modern age are not allowed to question it.

What is it you don't get? Your agenda is childish, immature. You truly need to experience life and learn more.

good luck

I don't get how you can ignore groups of people that had no rights when this document was constructed.

What are you so afraid of to address it and see why it presents problems?

Tell us what changes you would make to the document and then we'll explain what there is to be afraid of.

 

[Michelle420]

Does it never occur to you people that without the U.S. Constitution, the federal government has no authority over any of us? Doesn't even exist. We go back to being 50 separate States. Kind of puts a crimp in the whole top-down socialist thingie, doesn't it?

Not really I would move to California

there would have been no California

I would go to redding and hang out with the winnebago man

 

[bripat9643]

It's outdated imo and I resent the fact that only white males constructed it, I suspect bias.

Constitutionalists are like bible thumpers in the way they treat this document, it's as if people in the modern age are not allowed to question it.

Would you be happier with a Soviet style constitution if everyone got to vote on it?

I would be happier if all people of the " we the people" were actually represented by our particular group and allowed to participate in socially constructing a "we the people" constitution.

Would you still be happier even if those people voted for a Soviet style Constitution?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Not really I would move to California

there would have been no California

I would go to redding and hang out with the winnebago man

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Viral video star 'Winnebago man' loses his home to Ponderosa Fire » Redding Record Searchlight

August

 

[AVG-JOE]

Well...

True, but it's not that simple. Whoever controls the military...

I know it's not simple but we need a new one and scrap the old one, from the get go that old document had bias, slaves didn't have a voice, women were not allowed to vote.

Secondly, we ought to let our native americans have a voice in this whole thing dontcha think?

I think that before scrapping the concept launched in 1776 we should give it a try with fair and simple taxes, public budgets that are balanced by law and transparency in all things politics.

If I must contribute resources to fund a military, I'd rather organize behind the U.S. Constitution than any other political document ever proposed for a similar land mass and/or population. Is America 'evolving'? Duh! Of course! And that's the beauty of it. The Constitution is a flexible document that's evolving around and with those of us who choose to defend it.

Don't let the door hit you on the ass, Bro'.

 

[Michelle420]

let me repeat:

Is the US Constitution a flawed document? Of course and many of the framers and the 'people' who ratified it understood that. What would you have them do? It was an up or down vote, or stay with the Articles of Confederation.

You conveniently ignore, or gloss over the fact that people excluded are now included. We have a process to change it.

I have asked people for decades now "name me a dozen people you would trust to write a new constitution" -- no takers. It would of course take many more than a dozen. Trust the current Congress to do it?

The US Constitution was drafted behind closed doors with no official record kept of the deliberations, in order to allow members meeting to go back and forth and change minds as arguments were made and remade. Then the document was not given to the states to vote on, but to the people of the states to vote on through elected committee members separate from state government.

No government voted on what type of new government would rule the Americans. The 'people' of the states voted as a nation for the first time. They demanded a Bill of Rights as a condition of ratification, even though many of the framers argued they didn't need one, as rights were supposed to be self evident...

Part of the Bill of Rights allows for amendments to alter the document to fit the times, but it's a difficult process because they understood....human nature.

When did the era get passed?

Why Was the Equal Rights Amendment Never Passed?
Is gay marriage legal now?

Nobody questions white males births, but get a black man running and we go back to the fact that this document was written for white men, as black men were slaves owned property and women had no voting voice.

I appreciate your reply.

I had posted directly after this post because I had not seen it, apologies for my snarky.

I understand the living document concept, for some it isn't working out so well which stands to reason if only one group had an advantage from the get go the rest strive to catch up.

Be well !

When did the era get passed? I remember the battle well. The people did not step up.

The Constitution has been applied to protect the rights of minorities of all sorts. Even people who were held at GITMO. Did you know that?

I am not talking about the living document theory. Others have agreed the Constitution applies to black men, women, people without property, immigrants...

Unless you can convince others about the need for change, then convince them you have the answers for change, you are wasting your time arguing about what was what in the 1700s and 1800s

I happen to plenty of constitutionalists who like libertarians would love to go back to those times

Didn't protect american arabs after 9/11 from being held in detention camps not given an attorney or rights and liberty.

In a Virtual Internment Camp: Muslim Americans since 9/11