Where Do YOU Stand On The Constitution?

Constitutional Repbublic: YES or NO

  • I'm a Conservative FOR the Constitution.

    Votes: 13 72.2%
  • I'm a Conservative OPPOSED to the Constitution.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm Middle of the Road FOR the Constitution.

    Votes: 1 5.6%
  • I'm Middle of the Road who's ANTI-Constitution.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm a Liberal FOR the Constitution.

    Votes: 1 5.6%
  • I'm a Liberal who believes the Constitution has served it's purpose. Time to go.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I believe in keeping SOME aspects of the Constitution but changing other aspects.

    Votes: 4 22.2%
  • I'd like to return to the original Bill of Rights prior to any changes.

    Votes: 1 5.6%
  • I'd like to see a purely Secular version of the Constitution.

    Votes: 1 5.6%
  • I'd like to see a more religious version of the Constitution.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'd like to see the Constitution do more to protect States' Rights.

    Votes: 4 22.2%

  • Total voters
    18
  • Poll closed .
The United States Constitution is a beautiful document written by people who couldn't live by it. The People of The USA have been taking baby steps toward fulfilling its promise of Liberty and Justice for ALL ever since.

The beauty of the document is it's definition of who an American is. It specifies none and alludes liberally to 'all'. All who are born here, all who swear allegiance. All. Not just the straight ones. Not just the white ones. Not just the male ones. Not just the rich ones. All.

As more and more groups use it to claim their rightful piece of the American pie at the political expense of white, conservative Christians, We take baby steps toward a more genuine tolerance and the freedom that accompanies it.

I think that The Constitution Rocks!! :rock:
 
For the record, I chose the very first and the very last poll locations. States' Rights are currently being trampled by activist judges. Individuals who've totally ignored the will of the people of various States.
States already have their rights protected it's called the tenth amendment and Constitutional convention.
 
As is often the case.....in a thread where the OP is asking individuals to give their opinion on something....we have USMB nutters who CANNOT HELP BUT TELL OTHERS WHAT THEIR OPINION IS.

I submit that if USMB nutters would stop assigning beliefs to others in just about every fucking thread.....we might have a better time of it. It is really counterproductive.
 
where American citizens of the new Republic fully expected the courts to continue to review acts of Congress and the states and invalidate those offensive to the Founding Document.

again spoken like the true communist you are! No dear, they expected that the people would amend the Constitution when necessary, not that liberals would interpret it to mean our Founders were actually communists when they lacked the support to amend it.

Lets never forget our liberals spied for Stalin, gave him the bomb, and elected Obama, a guy with 3 communist parents, who voted to left of Bernie Sanders the only open communist in our govt.
 
"Where Do YOU Stand On The Constitution?"

Where one 'stands' on the Constitution is irrelevant.

The only thing relevant is the fact that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, and as codified by the Constitution in Articles III and VI.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion as to what the Constitution means, but he is not entitled to his own facts of Constitutional case law.

One is at liberty to disagree with the case law if he so desires, but he must also understand and accept the fact that Constitutional jurisprudence is the settled and accepted law of the land, binding on the states and citizens, until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

Last, the Constitution is neither 'living' nor 'static,' it is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition dating back to the Magna Carta and the Assizes of Henry II, and the doctrine of judicial review was practiced by Colonial courts for well over a century before the advent of the Foundation Era, where American citizens of the new Republic fully expected the courts to continue to review acts of Congress and the states and invalidate those offensive to the Founding Document.

You mention the Supreme Court as opposed to lower, Federal courts which should not have the power to overthrow the will of the People within the States. The founding fathers have provided us with much written documentation as to their underlying will which was a Federal government with limited power as well as a system of checks and balances. We currently have a court system than has run amok without a system currently in place to rein its Justices in. Their actions are out of line with the intent of the founding fathers and, thus, unconstitutional.
 
The only thing relevant is the fact that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, and as codified by the Constitution in Articles III and VI.
Complete and utter bunk.

Words have meaning.

And, while it is possible for sentences written by man to have vague or unclear meaning, there are very few examples of such vagueness in the Constitution. Most of it is clear and plain to people with reasonable knowledge and experience in English.

OTOH, many examples of "case law" were generated by people (often lawyers) who were trying to deliberately twist and distort the clear meaning of whatever Constitution passage they were debating. The result was often a DIFFERENT result from what the people who wrote and ratified it, intended.

To put it succinctly, they lied, and managed to get a gullible (or biased) judge to agree with the lie.

That did not change the clear meaning of the passage they were debating. It simply enabled a portion of society to violate it under the guise of "authority".

The advantage of a written Constitution, is that its meaning does not change with the changing winds of time... or deflection and disingenuousness.

In summary, lies do not change Constitutions. And neither does "case law". (But I repeat myself.) They might distort what people think of it for a while... but that is ALL they do.
 
we have USMB nutters who CANNOT HELP BUT TELL OTHERS WHAT THEIR OPINION IS.
Let's start a pool:

How long do you think it will take "lonelaugher" to realize he is complaining about exactly what he himself is doing in this very sentence?

No wonder he's the only one laughing.

Nope. I have not assigned anything to anyone. Nice fail, though.
 
we have USMB nutters who CANNOT HELP BUT TELL OTHERS WHAT THEIR OPINION IS.
Let's start a pool:

How long do you think it will take "lonelaugher" to realize he is complaining about exactly what he himself is doing in this very sentence?

No wonder he's the only one laughing.

Nope. I have not assigned anything to anyone. Nice fail, though.
Truth hurts don't it nutter?

What truth is that?
 
we have USMB nutters who CANNOT HELP BUT TELL OTHERS WHAT THEIR OPINION IS.
Let's start a pool:

How long do you think it will take "lonelaugher" to realize he is complaining about exactly what he himself is doing in this very sentence?

No wonder he's the only one laughing.

Nope. I have not assigned anything to anyone. Nice fail, though.
Truth hurts don't it nutter?

What truth is that?
"we have USMB nutters who CANNOT HELP BUT TELL OTHERS WHAT THEIR OPINION IS"
You're a nutter that thinks his self worth is priceless.
 
we have USMB nutters who CANNOT HELP BUT TELL OTHERS WHAT THEIR OPINION IS.
Let's start a pool:

How long do you think it will take "lonelaugher" to realize he is complaining about exactly what he himself is doing in this very sentence?

No wonder he's the only one laughing.

Nope. I have not assigned anything to anyone. Nice fail, though.
Truth hurts don't it nutter?

What truth is that?
"we have USMB nutters who CANNOT HELP BUT TELL OTHERS WHAT THEIR OPINION IS"
You're a nutter that thinks his self worth is priceless.

Cool. Thanks.
 
Looks like the liberal fanatics don't want to talk about the Constitution. Nothing but attacking conservatives, or avoiding the thread entirely.

SSDD.
 
As a liberal....I support it

After all, we wrote it
 

Forum List

Back
Top