The Constitution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

Crotalus, I think you give your fellow Americans much less respect than they deserve. Whilst they may disagree regarding the fundamentals of their politics, that doesn't make them stupid. I am not saying there aren't stupid people, there are, the way they vote doesn't make them stupid. The reasons people vote, well ... that can be a symptom of lower intelligence, BELIEVE, though ... there are people who shouldn't be left in charge of a broom on both sides of the line.

I don't understand the American's attachment to the bill of rights. Some people say this means I can't have an opinion on the issues, they're wrong. From my perspective, the US constitution was put into place to plain get rid of the British. There isn't anything wrong with that but times change, and so must legislation. At one point in all countries across the world, murder was legal. Does this mean it was right, NO!!! I have a comparison that I think is a good one. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein killed a lot of people, in his country this was legal. Does that make it right? Change was needed, as viewed by the rest of the world.

Most of the rest of the world has a pretty unanimous opinion that the USA needs to change on many fronts, yet it resists based on the US constitution. Sometimes a document that is over 200 years old is a little out of touch. The British are gone (apart from me :rofl2:), the rest of the world isn't coming to take the USA, so things have to change to protect the US citizens, and residents alike.

I am not only talking about weapons, I am talking about Health, extreme capitalism, low taxes. Evolution takes time ... God speed.

---

I never said the people are stupid. What I said was they don't bother to educate themselves on what the issues are or where their candidates really stand on those issue or even what the really important issues are.

The Bill of Right is the second most important part of the Constitution. Both parts of the Constitution define what the Government CAN do and MOST importantly what it CAN'T DO.

Eroding the Constitution is how we wind up with the Government regulating EVERY part of our lives to the point they are dictating what kinds of light bulbs and toilets we are allowed to have. The US Constitution has nothing to do with getting rid of the Brits. They were already gone.

What it was for was to eliminate the tyranny that the people had just cast off. All the petty regulations we put up with now ARE TYRANNY.

The Government bans things based on emotion and politics, not facts.

Case in point, banning DDT. DDT is NOT toxic. It was the most wonderful pesticide ever invented. NO DATA ever proved a link between DDT and any problem with people are wildlife. The judge the reviewed the Data reporting to the EPA that there was NOTHING bad about DDT, but the EPA banned it anyway. This has resulted in the deaths of MILLIONS of people to malaria.

Millions of people condemned to death for no reason but politics and bowing to extremist environmentalists. This is TYRANNY.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

Crotalus, I think you give your fellow Americans much less respect than they deserve. Whilst they may disagree regarding the fundamentals of their politics, that doesn't make them stupid. I am not saying there aren't stupid people, there are, the way they vote doesn't make them stupid. The reasons people vote, well ... that can be a symptom of lower intelligence, BELIEVE, though ... there are people who shouldn't be left in charge of a broom on both sides of the line.

I don't understand the American's attachment to the bill of rights. Some people say this means I can't have an opinion on the issues, they're wrong. From my perspective, the US constitution was put into place to plain get rid of the British. There isn't anything wrong with that but times change, and so must legislation. At one point in all countries across the world, murder was legal. Does this mean it was right, NO!!! I have a comparison that I think is a good one. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein killed a lot of people, in his country this was legal. Does that make it right? Change was needed, as viewed by the rest of the world.

Most of the rest of the world has a pretty unanimous opinion that the USA needs to change on many fronts, yet it resists based on the US constitution. Sometimes a document that is over 200 years old is a little out of touch. The British are gone (apart from me :rofl2:), the rest of the world isn't coming to take the USA, so things have to change to protect the US citizens, and residents alike.

I am not only talking about weapons, I am talking about Health, extreme capitalism, low taxes. Evolution takes time ... God speed.

---

I think you may be giving your Constitution and forefathers much less respect than they deserve. The Constitution is not out dated or insufficient to meet modern needs. It's amendment process allows for change. It's difficult, yes, by design. It was made that way so that our basic rights (believed to be granted by God Himself....yes we are a nation born of Christian principles) are not subject to knee jerk reactions. You say that other nations suggest that the US needs to change. What utopia is it that we need to emulate? Perhaps these other nations, or groups within these nations, would prefer it if the US were to change simply because their ends can not be accomplished as long as there is one nation like the US that exists in opposition to their goals. I don't see the Constitution (a document over two hundred years old) as out of touch. In fact, I attribute the fact that we have a constitution this old (the oldest still in use) as a testament to its superiority. It's long been the progressive goal to discredit the Constitution. And it was long acknowledged by the progressive movement that their ends could not be accomplished if the US continued to be rooted in its principles. Their ends could not be met as long as their was an alternative sharing the planet. Why? Because their goals were inconsistent with the nature of man himself. Most of the so called shortcomings of the Constitution can be easily attributed to the shortcomings of government. I don't think the rest of the world would speak of rights if there were the absence of the bill of rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

I don't think the rest of the world would speak of rights if there were the absence of the bill of rights.

---

There is a document drafted a bit over 550 years earlier, which evolved over the following centuries and it's commonly referred as Magna Carta. Of course, this document didn't spring out of nowhere either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

There is a document drafted a bit over 550 years earlier, which evolved over the following centuries and it's commonly referred as Magna Carta. Of course, this document didn't spring out of nowhere either.

---

No it didn't. It came from the same place that our Constitution did. Or rather our Constitution came from where IT did. But the Magna Carta is not a document that is still in use. It is not a govern ing document. If the Constitution goes the way of the Magna Carta, it'll be hanging in a bar near a pool table as a point of interest. This is specially true should we continue down a road that does not wish to embrace original ism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

But the Magna Carta is not a document that is still in use. It is not a govern ing document.

---

Neither is the US constitution, not in the original understanding anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

If the Constitution goes the way of the Magna Carta, it'll be hanging in a bar near a pool table as a point of interest. This is specially true should we continue down a road that does not wish to embrace original ism.

---

But it's already hanging for public display, just drinks are not served in its close proximity.
I'm sure you're fully aware that the first ten amendments were added few years later. Apparently they weren't important enough, or weren't thought of, to be put in right from the beginning. Just as the following 17 amendments, from an objective point of view they are just as equal as those ten, including the one establishing the prohibition, and the one lifting it.

Yes, it is a very important document, but I find it rather useful to not veer into hagiography.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

I think you may be giving your Constitution and forefathers much less respect than they deserve. The Constitution is not out dated or insufficient to meet modern needs. It's amendment process allows for change. It's difficult, yes, by design. It was made that way so that our basic rights (believed to be granted by God Himself....yes we are a nation born of Christian principles) are not subject to knee jerk reactions. You say that other nations suggest that the US needs to change. What utopia is it that we need to emulate? Perhaps these other nations, or groups within these nations, would prefer it if the US were to change simply because their ends can not be accomplished as long as there is one nation like the US that exists in opposition to their goals. I don't see the Constitution (a document over two hundred years old) as out of touch. In fact, I attribute the fact that we have a constitution this old (the oldest still in use) as a testament to its superiority. It's long been the progressive goal to discredit the Constitution. And it was long acknowledged by the progressive movement that their ends could not be accomplished if the US continued to be rooted in its principles. Their ends could not be met as long as their was an alternative sharing the planet. Why? Because their goals were inconsistent with the nature of man himself. Most of the so called shortcomings of the Constitution can be easily attributed to the shortcomings of government. I don't think the rest of the world would speak of rights if there were the absence of the bill of rights.

---

Yes, our Forefathers put a process in place to amend the Constitution to reflect changing time.

The problem is, the Executive and Courts are not following that process. We are passing laws that, a least to me and a lot of others, are clearly unconstitutional, yet they are allowed to stand.

The Commerce Clause and the words "General Welfare" are very tiny phrases, yet Congress uses them to regulate every aspect of our lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crotalus

The problem is, the Executive and Courts are not following that process. We are passing laws that, a least to me and a lot of others, are clearly unconstitutional, yet they are allowed to stand.

---

You can't have it both ways. Not liking a law doesn't make it unconstitutional, only going through the proscribed process does. The fact is that unless a law is challenged and goes through the courts and then it's deemed unconstitutional it is constitutional by default. And the exact same law can be constitutional or not depending on who sits on the highest court.
That is the process, so if you don't like it, you could put the blame squarely where it belongs at those who designed it.

I stopped being frustrated a couple of days after the election. The people vote for the government that they deserve. I won't expend any more energy until the people get it. Sometimes the burned hand teaches best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crotalus

The problem is, the Executive and Courts are not following that process. We are passing laws that, a least to me and a lot of others, are clearly unconstitutional, yet they are allowed to stand.

---

"A judge is but a law student that grades his own papers."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

You can't have it both ways. Not liking a law doesn't make it unconstitutional, only going through the proscribed process does. The fact is that unless a law is challenged and goes through the courts and then it's deemed unconstitutional it is constitutional by default. And the exact same law can be constitutional or not depending on who sits on the highest court.
That is the process, so if you don't like it, you could put the blame squarely where it belongs at those who designed it.

---

Show me in the Constitution where it says the Government can force you to purchase something you don't want. There is NOTHING remotely like that.

Show me in the Constitution where it says it is illegal to grow something on your own land. Farmers are stopped from growing more than a regulated amount of wheat even if they don't plan on selling it because since they are growing their own somehow this effects "Interstate Commerce". What a load of crap.

Yet both of these are taking place right now and upheld by the courts. Just because a court goes along with something does not make it Constitutional. This is the reason there are such fights on court appointments. Just so they can appoint tame judges that will go along with political agendas.

We even have Judges making decisions based on "Foreign" laws that clearly have nothing to do with US law.