Thread: A question on the constitution

Originally Posted by Bruno

Interesting. On the one hand you are talking about impeaching the president for doing something unconstitutional, yet at the same time you agree that it would be wrong NOT to continue unconstitutional actions such as imprisoning people without trial, habeas corpus or legal representation (nevermind the torture).

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Actually,, yes we can,,, it's pretty common knowledge that we sub-contract our "torture" out to the Europeans,,

,,, we can't & won't condone that type of activity on American soil,,,,, Why do you think we have GITMO ???

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Unfortunately folks like the OP are the issue. You see things in black and white and think you are right and everyone else with differing views are wrong and that's it. No compromise.

Don't take this as a personal attack. It isn't meant to be. Just think about how this country was formed and how folks worked out their differences.

Those days are long gone Spendur,,, there were common goals,, dreams on both sides that made compromise possible.

Originally Posted by Hirlau

Those days are long gone Spendur,,, there were common goals,, dreams on both sides that made compromise possible.

They better not be.

The bitter truth is our Government operation requires compromise. Without it Government doesn't work. I don't think you need any more proof of that than by looking at Washington D.C.

The electorate better wake up before it's too late.

I agree,,,,,,,,,,,,

Here's a compromise - Hillary/Jeb 016 they can switch around midterm it it's important who's on top

Hillary would be pitch'in & Jeb would be catch'in,,,,,

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Unfortunately folks like the OP are the issue. You see things in black and white and think you are right and everyone else with differing views are wrong and that's it. No compromise.

Don't take this as a personal attack. It isn't meant to be. Just think about how this country was formed and how folks worked out their differences.

I don't know but I believe that the founding fathers of this country would shake there heads at the way it's turning out. I truly believe that they were far better men in Washington then than there is now. That's just my opinion

Originally Posted by rhensley

I don't know but I believe that the founding fathers of this country would shake there heads at the way it's turning out. I truly believe that they were far better men in Washington then than there is now. That's just my opinion

Of course they would, for one I don't think most of them would be happy with a black guy voting, none the less being a president. Social norms change, and I think they understood this and upon reflection would be glad that the country has been going on the same general framework for over 200 years with just a single civil war, instead adapting peacefully with the evolution of society.
Means that they did a pretty decent job. Of course the jury on longevity is still out - the roman republic lasted over 450 years, the empire over 350, the various medieval monarchies on the order of several hundred closing to a thousand years (different dynasties, but roughly the same system).

Originally Posted by Grizzley1

I agree with Col. West's opinion that letting those guys out of Gitmo is tantamount to giving aid and comfort to the enemy, at very least. Treason at best.

Except that those guys never should have BEEN in Gitmo in the first place. They should have been brought to trial in a US Court. If anything, aid and comfort is given to the enemy when the State disobeys or ignores the very Laws that were enacted to preserve the Union.

Originally Posted by Orville

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,aid and comfort is given to the enemy when the State disobeys or ignores the very Laws that were enacted to preserve the Union.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,