While the nation was watching football.........

uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3178401
No its not. I agree we are currently doing things that are not in lock step with the Constitution.We need to stop our course of action first and then clean up and right the past infractions.
Fair enough. Though we live on different sides of the political spectrum, I agree with you there.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3178309
I dont think it is possible to disagree with a statement or a person more than i disagree with you and your thoughts and opinions.
People (Progressives)have screwed up this nation not the document.The Constitution did not cause the Civil War ...thats insane thinking and although the US Constitution is not a religious document you apparently have never read the history of the document or the people responsible for writing it.
I cant believe how much crap you just packed into you above statement.Its gotta be some sort of world record.
It's apparent your narrow-minded thinking makes it incapable for you to understand what I'm saying. Trying to discuss politics with you is like talking to a brick wall. If someone doesn't agree with your twisted logic, you label them an idiotic liberal (and now Progressives). The Constitution isn't black and white. It has many interpretations, depending on who is interpreting it. You disagree with this statement because you only have YOUR interpretation. Problem is, unless you can go find a Wayback Machine, you'll never fully understand the full intentions of what these individuals meant when they wrote the document.
Learn to READ. I said it INDIRECTLY caused the Civil War. There was no provision in the Constitution that adressed the slavery of African Americans at that time. If there would've been, who knows what this country may have looked like today. Would The South have even 'imported' slaves from Africa if The Framers had the hindsight to include the provisions of the 13th Amendment into the Bill Of Rights? Who was 'We The People' back then? Apparently is wasn't any other race than white, since they didn't recognize the blacks as people in the first place. See what I mean about thinking 'outside of the box'?
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3178503
It's apparent your narrow-minded thinking makes it incapable for you to understand what I'm saying. Trying to discuss politics with you is like talking to a brick wall. If someone doesn't agree with your twisted logic, you label them an idiotic liberal (and now Progressives). The Constitution isn't black and white. It has many interpretations, depending on who is interpreting it. You disagree with this statement because you only have YOUR interpretation. Problem is, unless you can go find a Wayback Machine, you'll never fully understand the full intentions of what these individuals meant when they wrote the document.
Learn to READ. I said it INDIRECTLY caused the Civil War. There was no provision in the Constitution that adressed the slavery of African Americans at that time. If there would've been, who knows what this country may have looked like today. Would The South have even 'imported' slaves from Africa if The Framers had the hindsight to include the provisions of the 13th Amendment into the Bill Of Rights? Who was 'We The People' back then? Apparently is wasn't any other race than white, since they didn't recognize the blacks as people in the first place. See what I mean about thinking 'outside of the box'?
You keep saying im narrow minded because i dont share you distorted views.Lets be realistic here,you are a progressive,you can say it.You believe the Constitution is a living breathing document that should be changed or interpreted to suit your ideological whims.However it is black and white its not a complicated document ,its in plain English unlike the 2000+ page stack of bureaucracy you would like to see passed.Hell if you progressives can twist the Constitution around to suit you,imagine what you guys are going to be able to do with the stack of crap coming down the corruption pipeline now.
Im tired of hearing you progressive whine and cry about how bad this country is and i cant wait until November 2010.
You dont need a way back machine to understand what the Founders meant,all you have to do is read their other publication and you will have a clear understanding of what they thought on many subjects including slavery.
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3178512
You believe the Constitution is a living breathing document that should be changed or interpreted to suit your ideological whims.However it is black and white its not a complicated document ,its in plain English unlike the 2000+ page stack of bureaucracy you would like to see passed.
The Constitution is a living breathing document. How is that a problem?
No, it's not complicated, nor should it be changed to suit an individual's ideological whims. It's not black and white either though. It is subject to both interpretation and change.
Technology has changed the reality that existed at the time of its writing. The Constitution does not address that. How do you propose we should accomodate those changes - Constitutionally?
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3178519
The Constitution is a living breathing document. How is that a problem?
No, it's not complicated, nor should it be changed to suit an individual's ideological whims. It's not black and white either though. It is subject to both interpretation and change.
I dont agree that the Constitution should evolve with time,I believe we should fall in line with it.It works just fine unless we have groups that start "Interpreting"like on the 2nd Amendment for example.
It is a black and white document that need not be complicated by twisting of words.One only needs to read and research a little to find the true meanings of the document if they are confused by the English language. There are plenty of other writings by the founding fathers to get clear understandings.
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3178519
Technology has changed the reality that existed at the time of its writing. The Constitution does not address that. How do you propose we should accomodate those changes - Constitutionally?
Via Constitutional amendment, like its supposed to work.
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3178007
How does the 10th Amendment or "pursuing my happiness" have anything to do with the scenario I provided? Actually, it may even work with my scenario. Americans want to "pursue the happiness" of knowing that they have some for of healthcare coverage so when they do get sick, they can get proper medical attention without having to take out a second

[hr]
on their home or go into debt they can never get out of.
That's your answer for everything. Don't have a logical retort, you spout some Constitutional Amendment or wave your patriotic flag and sing "God Bless America". Sorry, but that's not the real world. You can't hide behind the Constitution everytime you disagree with something.

The Constitution does not limit the people from the prusuit of happiness. It limits the gov't from getting in the way of that pursuit. President Obama even stated that he was sorry the Constitution limited the power of the gov't.
Is not the Constitution the Supreme Law? Should we not look at every law passed through the Constitution? I guess you feel the same way as Speaker Pelosi( "Are you serious?") when it comes to the Constitution and the Gov't.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3178733
The Constitution does not limit the people from the prusuit of happiness. It limits the gov't from getting in the way of that pursuit. President Obama even stated that he was sorry the Constitution limited the power of the gov't.
Is not the Constitution the Supreme Law? Should we not look at every law passed through the Constitution? I guess you feel the same way as Speaker Pelosi( "Are you serious?") when it comes to the Constitution and the Gov't.
Without government, you have chaos.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3178303
The Constitution is a historical document that essentially created what we know as a democratic society. It has been used as a foundation for the philosophies and beliefs of how this country has advanced though history. However, it's NOT the only factor for why the US has been one of the more dominating nations on this planet. There's a lot more to it than that. You give this document more credit than it's due. It's also ironic that this very same document has been the catalyst for some of the most trying and upheaval times in American history. It indirectly caused a Civil War, allowed different classes and races to be discrimated against, caused corruption in our voting system, and several other legal points. How was it rectified? Politician's had to start 'tip toeing around it', and added Amendments to that 'etched in stone' document you think is directly tied to religion. You can't continue to live in the past. You need to learn to look 'outside of the box'. It's the close-minded attitudes like yours that has divided the people in this nation. That's quite apparent by the difference in the political attitudes of the members of the insignificant fish forum. Multiply the difference in opinions of the people here by 200 MILLION, and I'm not amazed another Civil War hasn't already broken out again.
If the document weren't "etched" in stone why would the founders included a provision to amend it? That is the most obvious response to liberals claims the constitution is a "living" document mean to change with the times based on current needs. Tip toeing around it is what is wrong with this country. The 10th amendment is pretty clear, powers not specifically granted the feds are given to the state and local governments.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3178519
The Constitution is a living breathing document. How is that a problem?
No, it's not complicated, nor should it be changed to suit an individual's ideological whims. It's not black and white either though. It is subject to both interpretation and change.
Technology has changed the reality that existed at the time of its writing. The Constitution does not address that. How do you propose we should accomodate those changes - Constitutionally?
Amendments. Some things don't need a change to be covered. Freedom of the press was meant to make sure the news media would not be censored so although radio, TV and the internet were not around they are forms of the
"press" so they would obviously be covered.
However where in the constitution does it create a special entitlement to privacy that only applies to a pregnent woman seeking an abortion? That is what happens when judges assume the right to try to guess what the founders would have wanted us to do.,
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3178528
I dont agree that the Constitution should evolve with time,I believe we should fall in line with it.It works just fine unless we have groups that start "Interpreting"like on the 2nd Amendment for example.
It is a black and white document that need not be complicated by twisting of words.One only needs to read and research a little to find the true meanings of the document if they are confused by the English language. There are plenty of other writings by the founding fathers to get clear understandings.
Ummm, really?
So how does the Constitution address those thing that didn't exist at the time of its writing?
How does it address the Internet, and internet commerce? How does it address internet gambling? How does it address the regulation of the airwaves? How does it address corporate tax breaks? How does it address personal welfare? How does it address farm subsidies? How does it address a standing army? How does it address the coining of currency? How does it address the establishment of said currency's value? How does it address the current taxation system? How does it address a National highway system? How does it address the regulation of a National speed limit? How 'bout the EPA? How 'bout the NRC? How 'bout regulation of GMO crops?
Via Constitutional amendment, like its supposed to work.
Good answer, but in reality, that's not how it works. I've just illustrated 15 examples of things that should've been addressed by either Constitutional Ammendment or left to the States, but which weren't on either count. I can go on if you'd like.
These things have all become the law of the land, however. How so?
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3179220
However where in the constitution does it create a special entitlement to privacy that only applies to a pregnent woman seeking an abortion? That is what happens when judges assume the right to try to guess what the founders would have wanted us to do.,
It doesn't. The "right" to privacy is overall, a myth. The Constitution creates no right to privacy at all.
Be careful though. What you would deny one person now will probaby also be denied to you at some point.
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3179216
If the document weren't "etched" in stone why would the founders included a provision to amend it?
I sure hope you meant "were" not "weren't" etched in stone.
That is the most obvious response to liberals claims the constitution is a "living" document mean to change with the times based on current needs.
Because, otherwise, I'm not at all sure I follow you here??? Are you saying the conservative ideology believes the document to be static and timeless?
Tip toeing around it is what is wrong with this country. The 10th amendment is pretty clear, powers not specifically granted the feds are given to the state and local governments.
Sorta agreed on the first sentence. The second sentence has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. Both dogmas have usurped the 10th on a Federal level when it suits them to do so.
See my upthread examples.
 
sandman181

sandman181

New Member
Here is a little high school economics for everyone to remember. Laissez faire which means allowing an industry to be free of government. When the government got involved by bailing out the auto industry that caused our economy to self destruck even more. I run my own business and I didn't get any government aid. Maybe I should bankrupt my business and ask for a bailout. Then I could give myself a fat bonus too. Yeah, that will be a great idea. If the US auto industry went under new car makers would eventually be created and they would learn that unions caused them to fail. Unions were a good thing back in the day but now they are too powerful when it comes to running a smooth operation. Paying someone $35 an hour to put a cigarette lighter in is the american dream getting paid to do nothing. Our economy has relied to much on china and other asian country's. We need to work harder and quit being so lazy. I know a person who is willing to sit on unemployment because he doesn't want to get a $12 an hour job because he thinks he is worth $20. When his unemployment runs out he will be wishing he got that $12 an hour job and who knows maybe he would have gotten raises. Sorry guys I like to ramble...its distrubing how lazy americans have become.
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3179354
Ummm, really?
So how does the Constitution address those thing that didn't exist at the time of its writing?
How does it address the Internet, and internet commerce?
It dosent address the internet,and why should it?It also dosent address telephones,written words ,spoken words,smoke signals........either, other than the protection of speech.It does however address commerce.
Article I Section 8
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3179354
How does it address internet gambling? How does it address the regulation of the airwaves?
Internet gambling isnt addressed neither is horse racing,dog racing,baseball... or gambling by any means weather it be by phone,in person, at the bet window or in Las Vegas.
It dosent visit the regulation of airways directly either other than the protection of Free Speech. %%
Im starting to wonder if you think the government needs to have its oppressive little fingers on all our liberty's.
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3179354
How does it address corporate tax breaks?
Ill have to look into it but i dont believe it does therefore the Federal Government shouldnt be giving any.
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3179354
How does it address personal welfare?
What do you mean by personal welfare?Do you mean federally funded health care,food,housing......?If you are ill refer you to Amendment X
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3179354
How does it address farm subsidies?
/>
It dosent and its not the Federal Governments job to do so. United States v. Butler
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3179354
How does it address a standing army?
Article I Section 8
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3179354
How does it address the coining of currency?
Article I Section 8
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3179354
How does it address the establishment of said currency's value?
See above
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3179354
How does it address the current taxation system?
This is a ginormous mess i think we need to just wipe the books clean and start over
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3179354
ge"> How does it address a National highway system?
Article 1 Section 8
To establish post offices and post roads;
This one is questionable but technically........

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3179354
How does it address the regulation of a National speed limit?
Its not the Feds job.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3179354
How 'bout the EPA? How 'bout the NRC? How 'bout regulation of GMO crops?
What about them?
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3179354
Good answer, but in reality, that's not how it works. I've just illustrated 15 examples of things that should've been addressed by either Constitutional Ammendment or left to the States, but which weren't on either count. I can go on if you'd like.These things have all become the law of the land, however. How so?
The Constitution does answer most of your question that you posed.
In US Constitutional reality its how it is supposed to work and as i have stated if we would stop trampling all over the Constitution we wouldnt have the gigantic mess we have now. Im suggesting that we stop trampling on the Constitution and start undoing the damage.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3179369
It doesn't. The "right" to privacy is overall, a myth. The Constitution creates no right to privacy at all.
Be careful though. What you would deny one person now will probaby also be denied to you at some point.
4th Amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
There is a right to privacy but not to the extent that it prevents the government from regulating medical proceedures. If the government is allowed to regulate medical proceedures why would one specific proceedure be exempt from it? That has always been my biggest gripe with roe v wade but that isn't the point here. That flawed decision is what happens when judges assume they have the power to change the interpretation of the constitution based on current societal views and events.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top