|
Post by douger on Nov 1, 2013 9:49:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 1, 2013 10:00:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ravenchamp on Nov 1, 2013 10:06:18 GMT -5
The written laws set by our founders should never be changed.
The reason we should dump everyone in office and elect a party that abides by such laws, verbatim.
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 1, 2013 10:11:27 GMT -5
The written laws set by our founders should never be changed. The reason we should dump everyone in office and elect a party that abides by such laws, verbatim. Even if that constitution has lead to the dysfunctional government we have today? As brilliant as I see the US Constitution to be, it was written for a different time and it's too ambiguous, leading to wildly varying interpretations by unelected jurists. The reality is that you're not going to find enough politicians that can affect the change you envision that would be electable.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Nov 1, 2013 10:36:13 GMT -5
The written laws set by our founders should never be changed. The reason we should dump everyone in office and elect a party that abides by such laws, verbatim. Even if that constitution has lead to the dysfunctional government we have today? As brilliant as I see the US Constitution to be, it was written for a different time and it's too ambiguous, leading to wildly varying interpretations by unelected jurists. The reality is that you're not going to find enough politicians that can affect the change you envision that would be electable. The reality is that "never" changing the Constitution is not realistic.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Nov 1, 2013 10:42:35 GMT -5
The written laws set by our founders should never be changed. The reason we should dump everyone in office and elect a party that abides by such laws, verbatim. Even if that constitution has lead to the dysfunctional government we have today? As brilliant as I see the US Constitution to be, it was written for a different time and it's too ambiguous, leading to wildly varying interpretations by unelected jurists. The reality is that you're not going to find enough politicians that can affect the change you envision that would be electable. It is dysfunctional today because of all the politically driven interpretations of the constitution, not because it wasn't written well. After the crash we can see if things can be fixed, but frankly I don't see any fixes before the world takes a nose dive.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Nov 1, 2013 10:42:59 GMT -5
Even if that constitution has lead to the dysfunctional government we have today? As brilliant as I see the US Constitution to be, it was written for a different time and it's too ambiguous, leading to wildly varying interpretations by unelected jurists. The reality is that you're not going to find enough politicians that can affect the change you envision that would be electable. The reality is that "never" changing the Constitution is not realistic. That is why there is the amendment process.
|
|
|
Post by Ravenchamp on Nov 1, 2013 10:48:47 GMT -5
No , politicians need to stop making up rules as they go along and stop perverting the current laws
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Nov 1, 2013 10:51:23 GMT -5
Can you imagine what todays politicans would write as a constitution. It would be far worse that what we have going on now. Idiots like Obama Pelosi Reed Cruz Boener picking the people to write it. If that doesnt scare the manure out of you you have no brains at all.
|
|
|
Post by davo on Nov 1, 2013 12:11:24 GMT -5
Even if that constitution has lead to the dysfunctional government we have today? As brilliant as I see the US Constitution to be, it was written for a different time and it's too ambiguous, leading to wildly varying interpretations by unelected jurists. The reality is that you're not going to find enough politicians that can affect the change you envision that would be electable. It is dysfunctional today because of all the politically driven interpretations of the constitution, not because it wasn't written well. After the crash we can see if things can be fixed, but frankly I don't see any fixes before the world takes a nose dive. I don't think it's much of a stretch to suggest that the 2nd Ammendment wasn't written well. It's pretty ambiguous, at best.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Nov 1, 2013 12:20:51 GMT -5
It is dysfunctional today because of all the politically driven interpretations of the constitution, not because it wasn't written well. After the crash we can see if things can be fixed, but frankly I don't see any fixes before the world takes a nose dive. I don't think it's much of a stretch to suggest that the 2nd Ammendment wasn't written well. It's pretty ambiguous, at best. Only to lefties.
|
|
|
Post by com6063 on Nov 1, 2013 12:29:48 GMT -5
The Constitution is not broken, IMO, but its interpretation has been lopsided over the years.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Nov 1, 2013 12:32:57 GMT -5
It is dysfunctional today because of all the politically driven interpretations of the constitution, not because it wasn't written well. After the crash we can see if things can be fixed, but frankly I don't see any fixes before the world takes a nose dive. I don't think it's much of a stretch to suggest that the 2nd Ammendment wasn't written well. It's pretty ambiguous, at best. Actually davo, your point about 2A being poorly written depends on which version one utilizes. The comma between “Arms” and “shall” (probably one of most hated commas in history) doesn’t exist in the version ratified by the states, though it does exist in the version passed by Congress. Whether one agrees with how the USSC has upheld the 2A, reading it without that damn comma adds great clarity to the amendment. Hard to believe all of the arguments that have been had over the years may be largely the result of the hand written equivalent of a typo!
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 1, 2013 12:37:07 GMT -5
The Constitution is not broken, IMO, but its interpretation has been lopsided over the years. How does one fix these misinterpretations? From whose prospective are they misinterpretations?
|
|
|
Post by com6063 on Nov 1, 2013 12:44:50 GMT -5
The Constitution is not broken, IMO, but its interpretation has been lopsided over the years. How does one fix these misinterpretations? From whose prospective are they misinterpretations? From a legal perspective, and many Americans as well. The SCOTUS does not always get it right. Unfortunately, once written into law it seems difficult to get poor decisions reversed.
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 1, 2013 12:51:39 GMT -5
How does one fix these misinterpretations? From whose prospective are they misinterpretations? From a legal perspective, and many Americans as well. The SCOTUS does not always get it right. Unfortunately, once written into law it seems difficult to get poor decisions reversed. From the history of your postings, I'd suggest we're largely on the same page regarding judicial interpretations. But allow me to play devil's advocate. There's a body of legal opinion that suggests these interpretations are correct, as well as perhaps an equal number of Americans that agree with them. What of these people? I ask the question knowing full well that consensus' on these matters are difficult to obtain.
|
|
|
Post by com6063 on Nov 1, 2013 13:10:42 GMT -5
From a legal perspective, and many Americans as well. The SCOTUS does not always get it right. Unfortunately, once written into law it seems difficult to get poor decisions reversed. From the history of your postings, I'd suggest we're largely on the same page regarding judicial interpretations. But allow me to play devil's advocate. There's a body of legal opinion that suggests these interpretations are correct, as well as perhaps an equal number of Americans that agree with them. What of these people? I ask the question knowing full well that consensus' on these matters are difficult to obtain. I don't know, it may be six of one and half a dozen of the other. If two lawyers disagree on a legal interpretation they sure as hell don't care what I think. People will always disagree with judicial interpretation of the Constitution.
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on Nov 1, 2013 13:12:51 GMT -5
The worst possible advice is ripping up the constitution and starting over. Our problems aren't because of the constitution, they stem from ignoring it. Imagine the corrupt bozos in there now trying to re-write probably the most all encompassing document for government. How many constitutions recognize human behavior then builds checks into the system? The problem isn't the constitution; it's the jackasses that want to tear it up.
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 1, 2013 13:18:59 GMT -5
From the history of your postings, I'd suggest we're largely on the same page regarding judicial interpretations. But allow me to play devil's advocate. There's a body of legal opinion that suggests these interpretations are correct, as well as perhaps an equal number of Americans that agree with them. What of these people? I ask the question knowing full well that consensus' on these matters are difficult to obtain. I don't know, it may be six of one and half a dozen of the other. If two lawyers disagree on a legal interpretation they sure as hell don't care what I think. People will always disagree with judicial interpretation of the Constitution. So why not clear things up - either via the amendment route or by constitutional convention?
|
|
|
Post by com6063 on Nov 1, 2013 13:20:44 GMT -5
I don't know, it may be six of one and half a dozen of the other. If two lawyers disagree on a legal interpretation they sure as hell don't care what I think. People will always disagree with judicial interpretation of the Constitution. So why not clear things up - either via the amendment route or by constitutional convention? Not a bad idea, douger.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Nov 1, 2013 13:26:21 GMT -5
Mark Levin's "The Liberty Amendments" is not a bad read. He has some ideas tied to the USSC and term limits that are at least worthy of disucssion. I would cite the paragraphs but I made the mistake of plugging my Nook into one of the airport devices to charge it- and now I can't get it to open any of my books.
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Nov 1, 2013 17:03:05 GMT -5
There are no limits to what a constitutional convention can do so that had best be a bag of snakes left unopened.
Amendments are the only safe way to go
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Nov 1, 2013 17:05:50 GMT -5
There are no limits to what a constitutional convention can do so that had best be a bag of snakes left unopened. Amendments are the only safe way to go Well as long as repealing a few is also in the cards.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 1, 2013 17:24:46 GMT -5
The worst possible advice is ripping up the constitution and starting over. Our problems aren't because of the constitution, they stem from ignoring it. Imagine the corrupt bozos in there now trying to re-write probably the most all encompassing document for government. How many constitutions recognize human behavior then builds checks into the system? The problem isn't the constitution; it's the jackasses that want to tear it up. Seems like the 2nd is the one that has the most confusion regarding its exact intent. Too bad. Guns are way down in my list of importance.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 1, 2013 17:27:11 GMT -5
These quotes are weird it keeps messing up the posts. Maybe I am doing something wrong
|
|