The constitution is confusing to washington elitist

[billc]

This is why politicians dislike the constitution, it is confusing. I mean it is not like it is over a 1000 pages long like some of the bills they deal with.

http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2010/12/30/which-part-of-the-constitution-is-confusing-ezra/

We should probably just fold it up and put it in the desk drawer so the politicians and political pundits don't get confused any more.

 

[elder999]

This is why politicians dislike the constitution, it is confusing. I mean it is not like it is over a 1000 pages long like some of the bills they deal with.

http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2010/12/30/which-part-of-the-constitution-is-confusing-ezra/

We should probably just fold it up and put it in the desk drawer so the politicians and political pundits don't get confused any more.

Why in a drawer? Why not just flush it down the toilet, after Bush wiping his *** with it for seven years???

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

Why in a drawer? Why not just flush it down the toilet, after Bush wiping his *** with it for seven years???

what is wrong with you people?
just because Bush did it its ok for Obama to currently do it?
just because Clinton did it was ok for Bush to do it?
I assume that the next president it will be ok for him to do it because Obama did it.

when are we going to wake up as a people and take our country back?

 

[chaos1551]

what is wrong with you people?
just because Bush did it its ok for Obama to currently do it?
just because Clinton did it was ok for Bush to do it?
I assume that the next president it will be ok for him to do it because Obama did it.

when are we going to wake up as a people and take our country back?

As soon as Proctor & Gamble sells "Take Our Country Back" on Wal-Mart shelves.

 

[Ken Morgan]

As soon as Proctor & Gamble sells "Take Our Country Back" on Wal-Mart shelves.

which is made in a sweat shop in China....

 

[Empty Hands]

what is wrong with you people?
just because Bush did it its ok for Obama to currently do it?

No. The point is the selective outrage and concern of those lambasting Obama now for violations of constitutional and civil liberties while supporting those self-same policies under Bush. Indeed, some of the very same people were arguing then that it was traitorous to oppose the President on these matters. Now that the President has a different letter after his name, the tune has changed.

I think you will find that many members of Obama's coalition are sorely disappointed and apprehensive about the continuation and extension of Bush-era security policies and violations of liberty. That doesn't keep those same people however from pointing out the extreme hypocrisy of lambasting Obama for behavior that some defended from Bush.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

when are we going to wake up as a people and take our country back?

First, in what way do 'we' (I presume you mean US citizens) not have possession of our country? No one holds elected office that was not elected, and when they lose elections, they leave office. There are plebiscite votes in various states that ensure that the will of the people is done. If there is harm being done to our nation and to our Constitution, it is we, the citizens, who are permitting it to occur. There is no 'they'. They is us.

Second, presuming our country needed 'taking back', just what are you proposing? I'd like specifics, if you don't mind.

 

[Touch Of Death]

what is wrong with you people?
just because Bush did it its ok for Obama to currently do it?
just because Clinton did it was ok for Bush to do it?
I assume that the next president it will be ok for him to do it because Obama did it.

when are we going to wake up as a people and take our country back?

They rely on votes. We can do it at any time. Why are we voting for these people, is the question. So, put down your weapon.:mst:
Sean

 

[Big Don]

Except for the leftist bent of most universities these days, I would think the best person to be on the Supreme Court would NOT be an attorney but, rather someone who was well versed in 18th century English.

"The issue of the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done."

The above quote, from Ezra Klein illustrates why.
BTW, more than 200 years ago, Ezra...


http://www.newsbusters.org/#ixzz19dofn3Om​

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

They rely on votes. We can do it at any time. Why are we voting for these people, is the question. So, put down your weapon.:mst:
Sean

"We" are voting for "these" people because "they" are the only one "they" allow "us" to vote for.

It's funny that people think that we still actually have a choice.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The "we don't know what it means" crown is full of ****.

We know. It's a simple document. The authors published their debates. We know what they were thinking, and when, and they even said how to read it in the future.

They're just lazy and stupid.

How do we take the country back?
By shrinking the government to where it's supposed to be.
By repealing the 17th Amendment and return selection of Senators to the State Governors.
By repealing the 16th Amendment, and return people wealth to them. (BTW, if this was done in 2008. it would have reduced the Fed Budget to 1997 levels)
By removing the Federal Reserve Bank and it's continued botched manipulation of the US economy and authorized counterfitting.
By recognizing that the States and the people, not the Federal government have the final say in things.
By eliminating the corrupt system of stimulus, subsidy and bailouts.
By requiting that all proposed laws be justified under strict Constitutional guidelines, not the "well, it's implied" crap.
By removing ALL nanny state government programs.

But, that's my opinion. Maybe dig up Jefferson and Madison and ask them.
I bet it's pretty close to what I just wrote..and I bet their own writings will clearly indicate their opposition to the things I say we should chuck.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Except for the leftist bent of most universities these days, I would think the best person to be on the Supreme Court would NOT be an attorney but, rather someone who was well versed in 18th century English.

The above quote, from Ezra Klein illustrates why.
BTW, more than 200 years ago, Ezra...​

More then 200 years ago would include more then 100 years ago.

Even if that is true, we have extensive documentation from the Founders as to what they meant, personal letters, the Federalist Papers, treatise. For some reason, I don't see it as being all that difficult. Maybe it's just me.

 

[crushing]

I think you will find that many members of Obama's coalition are sorely disappointed and apprehensive about the continuation and extension of Bush-era security policies and violations of liberty. That doesn't keep those same people however from pointing out the extreme hypocrisy of lambasting Obama for behavior that some defended from Bush.

And Conservatives went through the very same disappointment 8 years earlier. It's a never ending cycle and reminds me of a political cartoon that was recently posted in another thread:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Constitution is what, 19 pages?

 

[Ken Morgan]

Not trying to stir the pot guys, but as an outsider is the US constitution not open to interpretation or amendments? Or must it always be stuck in the late 18 century?

Surely no one wishes to governed by the laws of ancient Greece or even the Magna Carta, even though they both have contributed greatly to our modern democratic system. How is the US constitution any different? A good start but out dated? Or set in concrete and may not be touched?

 

[Empty Hands]

Not trying to stir the pot guys, but as an outsider is the US constitution not open to interpretation or amendments? Or must it always be stuck in the late 18 century?

It is by necessity open to interpretation and amendment. The founders certainly recognized that, which is why they included in the document the means for its amendment - not easy, but not impossible either. It is telling when those who insist that we must follow the Constitution to the letter also insist that any number of amendments should be repealed. If you just want things run a certain way, then say that - because the Constitution can be made to reflect the will of the people through amendment, to anything the people desire. You may not like what it becomes, and then where will your devotion to the Constitution lead you?

The Constitution is a tool, a very good tool, but like any tool it can be turned to any number of ends both fair and foul. Better then to develop a higher set of principles then the inerrancy of a particular document. Our history has shown that we are not above ignoring it when we want to - even some of those who wrote the damn thing to begin with! It was John Adams who signed the Alien and Sedition Act after all.

 

[Touch Of Death]

"We" are voting for "these" people because "they" are the only one "they" allow "us" to vote for.

It's funny that people think that we still actually have a choice.

Did you not have a write in space on your ballot?
Sean

 

[Touch Of Death]

Not trying to stir the pot guys, but as an outsider is the US constitution not open to interpretation or amendments? Or must it always be stuck in the late 18 century?

Surely no one wishes to governed by the laws of ancient Greece or even the Magna Carta, even though they both have contributed greatly to our modern democratic system. How is the US constitution any different? A good start but out dated? Or set in concrete and may not be touched?

No one is claiming they don't understand, it was those two loudmouths on the news program.
Sean

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Ken,
The Constitution IS set in stone, -unless- it is amended through the designated means. Otherwise it means exactly what it meant when it was written. That's Madison and Jefferson's views anyway. Hamilton's was rather more, ah, open to interpretation. So was Henry Clay's, Abraham Lincoln's, both Roosevelts, as well as most of the Presidents since 1860. The authors of the US Constitution were rather against the idea of democracy as they understood it to be what it is, 2 wolves voting with a sheep to decide dinner.


As to the vote, that's a sham. The GOP and DNC have things pretty well locked in their favor, causing any 3rd party options to have to expend large amounts of time and resources to even get on the ballot, while they can violate election laws and still be listed by default. The 2008 election was rife with that, the most glaring case being both the DP and RP missing their filing deadlines for inclusion on the Texas ballots yet being listed anyway, with the Libertarian Party complaint about that being rejected. There are many many other examples.

As designed, the US Federal government is supposed to be small and of low power, with the majority of power resting in the now 50 independent countries that make up the United State's. Unfortunately, since 1865 the idea has been corrupted and it's now accepted that the States are little more than geographic serfdoms of the all powerful Federal Government, reduced to begging for scraps of their own money back. It's no wonder that states like NY and California are broke and failing.

 

[crushing]

It is by necessity open to interpretation and amendment. The founders certainly recognized that, which is why they included in the document the means for its amendment - not easy, but not impossible either.

Amending the Constitution is no longer necessary. Legislators simply need to claim that an act is for the good of the people and it falls under the General Welfare clause. If that reason seems specious, then it would be covered by the Interstate Commerce clause. At one time prohibition required a constitutional amendment, now it could simply be part of a tax act or tacked on to some spending bill. The States must fall in line, because so much funding is tied to making sure they do so that they don't dare consider nullification of federal laws they don't consider constitutional.