The trouble with the Constitution is..........

[flightsimmer]

edit:

flightsimmer: So if someone ignores the Constitution they deserve to be killed? Your words, not mine.

Yes, my words.
I can tell that you have missed the point, intentional or otherwise.
My point is that it should be severe enough as to stop tyrants from doing harm to us, the American people.
Tyranny is punishable by death.

For a better understanding of the Constitution it is best to read and understand the "Federalist Papers" so that you can understand what the founders intent was and their reasoning behind it.

Anyone who doesn't believe that the Constitution was inspired by God is a fool. But then they also don't believe the Bible is the inspired word of God either.

10mm, when you care enough to send the very best.

 

[badwolf.usmc]

gunowner930: If it is the job of the Supreme Court to decide if something is constitutional then they have to interpret not only the meaning of the words but the intent behind them.

Let's look at Amendment Eight: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted. How do you form the basis for a government and laws on something so vague?


E5RANGER375: Na, look at my user name, i work for the system. The government have had my stats on file since the mid 90s and i'm sure i'm on some watch list somewhere.


Donnelly: And yet the founding fathers did not give liberty to women, slaves or Indians. Even as a white male, the only way you could vote was if you owned land, so if you were poor you didn't have political voice. Hell, it wasn't until the mid 70s that while a 18 year old was old enough to be drafted and die for his country, he wasn't allowed to vote. Not to even mention the literacy tests, poll taxes and religious tests that used to go on to be allowed to vote.


Bill of Rights/WWIIIDefender: Personally, i'm not worried about what someone did almost 250 years ago. I'm more worried about making the country today better and trying to make it better for my kids. I'll let my kids try and make it better for their kids.


flightsimmer: No, i understand your meaning and i disagree with it completely. Your definition of Tyrant is of someone who does not agree with your political point of view, and thus they deserve to die. Millions of people have died from other people having that viewpoint. It is wrong to have that view and you are wrong for having it.

As much as i detest politicians in general, they do not deserve to die just because they are doing what a majority of people voted them to do.

Yes, allah did inspire the US Constitution through John Locke's work that inspired the founding fathers.

When you say the Bible I assume, which i am loath to do, that you are talking about the New Testament. While they are a good set of stories, i trust it about just as much as anything that was written a hundred plus years after the events, by people who weren't there, assembled by a committee based on political desires and translated through several languages. I guess you can say i believe in God but not the Bible so unless you want to start that subject I would suggest dropping it.

 

[flightsimmer]

flightsimmer: No, i understand your meaning and i disagree with it completely. Your definition of Tyrant is of someone who does not agree with your political point of view, and thus they deserve to die.

No! you difinitely missed my point and I sense that your real intent is to start a war of words. All those who agree, raise your hands.

End of thread.

 

[E5RANGER375]

flightsimmer: No, i understand your meaning and i disagree with it completely. Your definition of Tyrant is of someone who does not agree with your political point of view, and thus they deserve to die.

No! you difinitely missed my point and I sense that your real intent is to start a war of words. All those who agree, raise your hands.

End of thread.

<<< well thats a thumb, but id give you a hand if I could, lol

 

[badwolf.usmc]

flightsimmer: No, i understand your meaning and i disagree with it completely. Your definition of Tyrant is of someone who does not agree with your political point of view, and thus they deserve to die.

No! you difinitely missed my point and I sense that your real intent is to start a war of words. All those who agree, raise your hands.

End of thread.

Irony. You start a thread on a rant, someone challenges you on your comments and then you end the thread because not everybody agrees with you or does not understand what you are trying to say.

 

[gunowner930]

gunowner930: If it is the job of the Supreme Court to decide if something is constitutional then they have to interpret not only the meaning of the words but the intent behind them.

I agree with you about intent, but original intent does not change over time. My issue is with judges changing what was intended by the Constitution. You don't have to look any further than the 2nd Amendment for an example of judges changing intent over time.

Let's look at Amendment Eight: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted. How do you form the basis for a government and laws on something so vague?

I think you and most of us here know what this means. Legal scholars and attorneys will debate common sense. You can't set dollar amounts or include every type of cruel and unusual punishment into the 8th Amendment because our currency has inflated and new means of cruel and unusual punishment have been devised since the founding of this nation.

Donnelly: And yet the founding fathers did not give liberty to women, slaves or Indians. Even as a white male, the only way you could vote was if you owned land, so if you were poor you didn't have political voice. Hell, it wasn't until the mid 70s that while a 18 year old was old enough to be drafted and die for his country, he wasn't allowed to vote. Not to even mention the literacy tests, poll taxes and religious tests that used to go on to be allowed to vote.

Attitudes regarding the injustices you mentioned have evolved over time and the Constitution has been legally amended to address the need for change. I'm not necessarily opposed to changing to Constitution as long as it is changed through the Amendment process and not by activist judges.

 

[ViperJock]

There is a significant difference in the righting of an injustice such as allowing women, minorities, etc to vote and eliminating the ammendments which give us freedom and rights.

Badwolf, you mentioned earlier that the Constitution is not a death pact. That is absolutely true. The Constitution was given to the people as a defense against tyranny. The right to voice your opinion, the right to protect yourself, the right to believe what you choose, etc. I don't see any circumstances in which maintaining those rights causes our proverbial ship to sink.

On the other hand, loss of those rights, loss of personal responsibility, loss of moral character... Those are the things that bring down a nation.

The Constitution of the United States of America sets the framework upon which freedom can be built AND maintained. Tear down the frame? --send your freedom to the furnace with the rest of the scrap.

 

[johenz]

Punish thee government witht he franchis, simply don't vote for them. Both the GOP and the Dems have run roughshod over the Constitution long enough.

"...when a statesman forsakes his private conscience for the sake of his public duties, he leads his country by the ahort route to chaos." Thomas More. I any form of government where the franchise is extended to th citizenry, we, the people, become statesmen. Vote your conscience.

 

[E5RANGER375]

There is a significant difference in the righting of an injustice such as allowing women, minorities, etc to vote and eliminating the ammendments which give us freedom and rights.

Badwolf, you mentioned earlier that the Constitution is not a death pact. That is absolutely true. The Constitution was given to the people as a defense against tyranny. The right to voice your opinion, the right to protect yourself, the right to believe what you choose, etc. I don't see any circumstances in which maintaining those rights causes our proverbial ship to sink.

On the other hand, loss of those rights, loss of personal responsibility, loss of moral character... Those are the things that bring down a nation.

The Constitution of the United States of America sets the framework upon which freedom can be built AND maintained. Tear down the frame? --send your freedom to the furnace with the rest of the scrap.

no one is saying tear down the framework. we want the framework, we just dont want the foreman time to hire a new guy to finish the house

 

[PatriotPride]

no one is saying tear down the framework. we want the framework, we just dont want the foreman time to hire a new guy to finish the house

It's time to stop moving the furniture to cover the holes in the walls, if I may say so. Seems to me when you have a solid foundation but a crumbling house, you tear it down and rebuild. Seems simple enough to me.

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

No! you difinitely missed my point and I sense that your real intent is to start a war of words.

WHOSE real intent is to start a war of words?

Anyone who doesn't believe[what I believe] that the Constitution was inspired by God is a fool. .

Just sayin'.....