Mistakes in the US Constitution

[Getbrett]

You seem to mistaken anarchy and Tyranny.
anarchy good, tyranny bad.
People can pull a lot more crap in the wake of 9/11.

Your worldview is curiously warped and pathetically ignorant of reality. Amusing.

[Conserative Morality]

Maybe you could get Samuel L Jackson to re-draft it

"I'm tired of these motherfucking British in my motherfucking Country!"

[Conserative Morality]

Your worldview is curiously warped and pathetically ignorant of reality. Amusing.

Really? I was under the impression that taking power via force *was* bad.

[Barzan]

People can pull a lot more crap in the wake of 9/11.

They have and will continue to do that even with a constitution. Now the US airport guaurds are going through people's wallets asking them why they have such and such credit cards and cash -- even though they had no weapons!

A constitution in itself mean nothing, it's the society and its belief and willingness to follow the ideas, as well as stand-up to defy or challenge would be oppressors, that matters. There are too many Americans, in my opinion, who are just fine with letting the government implement pointless and invasive procedures -- such as the taking-off of the shoes at the airport or not allowing more than 5 mL or whatever of toothpaste on a plane or randomly searching peoples cars for pot -- just because htey think it makes them safer. A constitution isn't changing that.

You seem to mistaken anarchy and Tyranny.
anarchy good, tyranny bad.

Anarchy can be tyranny. There can be democracy with tyranny. Somalia is a case-in-point of the former.

[Krypton-Zod]

The US does indeed have a problem with a sense of entitlement -- everyone seems to think that they are the only ones who should matter and that everyone else can die or starve. Guess what? Just because you have money, you are not entitled to do whatever the hell you want. If you want some magical Ayn Rand fantasy life, go to Somalia. There's no "gubment terkin yer guns an steelin' yer money" there.

Let's just all live in a Hobbesian state of nature, where life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." Then you can have all your guns, do whatever you want with your oney, and no "ebil guv'ment" will be there to stop you!

maybe the 'working man should subsidize the lazy' crowd should emigrate to Canada or to one of Europe's overburdened welfare states (I particularly recommend France, they already have 52% of the country living off the government, and have been known to hide part of their national debt by simply not 'activating' future welfare/pension commitments).

[Chumblywumbly]

maybe the 'working man should subsidize the lazy' crowd should emigrate to Canada or to one of Europe's overburdened welfare states (I particularly recommend France, they already have 52% of the country living off the government, and have been known to hide part of their national debt by simply not 'activating' future welfare/pension commitments).

Wot, no stereotypes about abortion?

[The Cat-Tribe]

The entire document is a festering abortion of nonsense. Written constitutions result in petty arguments about wording on a document that is no longer relevant to today's political realities. Every character on the page is a mistake.

^^^
This statement is the best possible illustration of why we need a Constitution.

Precisely.

None of this 'living breathing document' nonsense.

otherwise, kiss your 2nd amendment rights goodbye...

I certainly agree that a written Constitution is a good thing. But New Mitanni's response to Getbrett sounds clever but makes no sense.

Similarly, there is nothing about a broad construction of the Constitution that is inconsistent with the Second Amendment.

Finally, I always find it funny when people scorn a broad construction of the Constitution at the same time they (1) are lauding the importance of the Constitution and (2) believe the Constitution protects unenumerated rights, like the right to self-defense.

(Note: For those wondering why I am still posting, my "take my marbles and go home" impulses have been overcome.)

[Galloism]

(Note: For those wondering why I am still posting, my "take my marbles and go home" impulses have been overcome.)

Hotel California.

[Krypton-Zod]

maybe the 'working man should subsidize the lazy' crowd should emigrate to Canada or to one of Europe's overburdened welfare states (I particularly recommend France, they already have 52% of the country living off the government, and have been known to hide part of their national debt by simply not 'activating' future welfare/pension commitments).

Wot, no stereotypes about abortion?

You like killing?

[The Cat-Tribe]

maybe the 'working man should subsidize the lazy' crowd should emigrate to Canada or to one of Europe's overburdened welfare states (I particularly recommend France, they already have 52% of the country living off the government, and have been known to hide part of their national debt by simply not 'activating' future welfare/pension commitments).

Wot, no stereotypes about abortion?

You like killing?

You don't?

[Krypton-Zod]

Finally, I always find it funny when people scorn a broad construction of the Constitution at the same time they (1) are lauding the importance of the Constitution and (2) believe the Constitution protects unenumerated rights, like the right to self-defense.

or the right to privacy, which people seem to have utterly made up.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Finally, I always find it funny when people scorn a broad construction of the Constitution at the same time they (1) are lauding the importance of the Constitution and (2) believe the Constitution protects unenumerated rights, like the right to self-defense.

or the right to privacy, which people seem to have utterly made up.

1) Are you saying the right to self-defense AND the right to privacy are utterly made up?

2) If not, how do you distinquish between the two?

3) If so, you have a sad, jaundiced view of the Constitution that runs counter not only to centuries of SCOTUS precedent, but the intent of the Founders and the plain language of Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.

[New Mitanni]

Precisely.

None of this 'living breathing document' nonsense.

otherwise, kiss your 2nd amendment rights goodbye...

Which is precisely the intent of the "living breathing document" enemies of American freedom. They know they can't amend the Constitution to their liking, so they corrupt the judicial branch in order to achieve their agenda.

The Constitution is no more a "living breathing document" than your mortgage from Bank of America. It says what it says, it means what it meant when it was written. Any judge who rules any other way is an enemy of the Constitution.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Precisely.

None of this 'living breathing document' nonsense.

otherwise, kiss your 2nd amendment rights goodbye...

Which is precisely the intent of the "living breathing document" enemies of American freedom. They know they can't amend the Constitution to their liking, so they corrupt the judicial branch in order to achieve their agenda.

The Constitution is no more a "living breathing document" than your mortgage from Bank of America. It says what it says, it means what it meant when it was written. Any judge who rules any other way is an enemy of the Constitution.

Small problem for you. It was meant when it was written to be living breathing document. And it deliberately uses language and contains provisions that are broad. Anyone who argues for a limited, jaundiced Constitution is an enemy of freedom and the U.S. Constitution as written and intended.

[Galloism]

Ok, I keep hearing this term - living breathing document.

What kind of... decisions... have been made based on the respiration of this piece of paper that NM objects to? What decisions have been made based on the respiration of this document that CT supports?

I really don't know what is meant by referring to it as a respirating piece of paper.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Ok, I keep hearing this term - living breathing document.

What kind of... decisions... have been made based on the respiration of this piece of paper that NM objects to? What decisions have been made based on the respiration of this document that CT supports?

I really don't know what is meant by referring to it as a respirating piece of paper.

Excellent point.

I mean that the Constitution is a broad document whose application evolves and includes rights and freedoms not specifically enumerated.

I would include rights like privacy, self-defense, marriage, childbearing, child-rearing, travel, etc, as constitutionally protected even though they are not expressly enumerated in the Constitution.

I have assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that New Mitanni believes in a narrow, static, literal Constitution.

EDIT: Wiki has what appears to be a fairly intelligent discussion of the concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution

[Krypton-Zod]

Finally, I always find it funny when people scorn a broad construction of the Constitution at the same time they (1) are lauding the importance of the Constitution and (2) believe the Constitution protects unenumerated rights, like the right to self-defense.

or the right to privacy, which people seem to have utterly made up.

1) Are you saying the right to self-defense AND the right to privacy are utterly made up?

2) If not, how do you distinquish between the two?

3) If so, you have a sad, jaundiced view of the Constitution that runs counter not only to centuries of SCOTUS precedent, but the intent of the Founders and the plain language of Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.

self defence is implied in the 2nd amendment, privacy isn't implied anywhere but I'm willing to go along with it as long as eminent domain is banned once and for all.

What does self-defence have to do with privacy?

There's plenty of scotus precedent that deserves repealing. Fortunately most of the worst ones (Dred Scott, Plessy-Ferguson) have been repealed already. Tomorrow's SC may not agree with yesterday's.
.

[The Cat-Tribe]

I'm willing to go along with it as long as eminent domain is banned once and for all

An odd position for one claiming to love the literal language of the Constitution. A literal reading of the Fifth Amendment specifically allows for eminent domain, requiring only just compensation.

[Greed and Death]

I'm willing to go along with it as long as eminent domain is banned once and for all

An odd position for one claiming to love the literal language of the Constitution. A literal reading of the Fifth Amendment specifically allows for eminent domain, requiring only just compensation.

with or without the comma?

[Poliwanacraca]

in the modern era? I'd get rid of the 2nd amendment, and add clear and consise language detailing equal protection clause protects against gender and sexuality discrimination as well, and include ironclad language clearly detailing abortion as a constitutional right. I'd also eliminate the electoral college and move to a purely popular vote test for president. Also, I am considering term limits on SCOTUS justices.

It kind of weirds me out a bit when you come up with the exact same things I would have said.

[Exilia and Colonies]

The US does indeed have a problem with a sense of entitlement -- everyone seems to think that they are the only ones who should matter and that everyone else can die or starve. Guess what? Just because you have money, you are not entitled to do whatever the hell you want. If you want some magical Ayn Rand fantasy life, go to Somalia. There's no "gubment terkin yer guns an steelin' yer money" there.

Let's just all live in a Hobbesian state of nature, where life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." Then you can have all your guns, do whatever you want with your oney, and no "ebil guv'ment" will be there to stop you!

maybe the 'working man should subsidize the lazy' crowd should emigrate to Canada or to one of Europe's overburdened welfare states (I particularly recommend France, they already have 52% of the country living off the government, and have been known to hide part of their national debt by simply not 'activating' future welfare/pension commitments).

Poor does not neccessarily equal lazy.

[SaintB]

Oooh, I know. A 42nd amendment that doesn't say anything. Just to reserve the number.

Amendment XLII
article 1. The answer.
article 2. Life the Universe everything.

its not the answer to life the Universe and Everything, it is the answer to the greatest question ever asked.

[Thethunderdome]

Wow, threads like this make me glad we had the Massachusetts Compromise. I just wish they had enumerated more rights or put the 9th first in gigantic bold text.

It would be interesting to see in an alternate reality if our rights would have been better protected without a bill of rights. But seeing how frequently people try to deny them when they are spelled out in black and white, I'm glad we've got it.

[Barzan]

maybe the 'working man should subsidize the lazy' crowd should emigrate to Canada or to one of Europe's overburdened welfare states (I particularly recommend France, they already have 52% of the country living off the government, and have been known to hide part of their national debt by simply not 'activating' future welfare/pension commitments).

Does your 52% statistic include pensioners? If not, then it's probably a bogus statistic. If it does, then I'd ask you to check how many people in the US draw government funded pensions. Also, the US Government (at all levels) already spends the same amount on health care on a percentage of GDP basis as the Canadian government (at all levels).

Who the hell said "working man" subsidise the lazy? The "working man" in the US doesn't pay crap in federal income taxes but pays them out the arse in all these stupid little nickel and dime fees. The people who saved their precious little 300$ per year in federal tax ended up paying more in less obvious forms of tax, such as property taxes, fees for all sorts of stuff, tolls, "communications" taxes, etc.

Precisely.

None of this 'living breathing document' nonsense.

otherwise, kiss your 2nd amendment rights goodbye...

Which is precisely the intent of the "living breathing document" enemies of American freedom. They know they can't amend the Constitution to their liking, so they corrupt the judicial branch in order to achieve their agenda.

The Constitution is no more a "living breathing document" than your mortgage from Bank of America. It says what it says, it means what it meant when it was written. Any judge who rules any other way is an enemy of the Constitution.

Yeah. How the hell do you interpret something that was written 200+ years ago in context without precedent? If it were possible it'd be stupid -- like a religious cult. It's too damn abstract and vague. "Only interpret it as written". Well then the guns should go if you aren't in the National Guard then, 'cuz you ain't in a militia. That's the only way to treat it as "black and white" straight reading.

Sure, everything is a conspiracy by the gays and blacks and whatevers. God forbid anyone should learn abuot how common law actually works.

[EDIT] Someone had a sig on here that want something like "A bunch of people from Georgia were against the original US Bill of Rights because if passed then some people would believe that only those rights specifically in the BoR are rights you're supposed to have"

[Blouman Empire]

Because I think FDR should hold the record

Because the founding fathers were smart enough to consider one of life's great truths, before anyone takes you seriously you have to either be stupid or middle aged.

Plenty of young stupid people.

But then again if people don't take him seriously they will vote for the older guy.