The Constitution!!!

[Soul_Patch]

Since when did so many people become such constitutional activists? When did this new found love for all things constitution start, or has it always been that way and I am just aware of it now? Seems like you cant have a conversation with anyone these days without them screaming about PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!1 Why do I not really give a shit about the constitution? Should I feel guilty about that?

[clambake]

it started when the spook entered the white house.

[ChumpDumper]

The party out of power somehow remind themselves of the constitution about the minute they go out of power.

[Soul_Patch]

Am I the only person who is completely ambivalent about "The Constitution" I mean, I appreciate its historical context and all of that, but I'm not exactly frothing at the mouth ready to rain bullets in anyone who may speak ill of it...

[DMC]

Am I the only person who is completely ambivalent about "The Constitution" I mean, I appreciate its historical context and all of that, but I'm not exactly frothing at the mouth ready to rain bullets in anyone who may speak ill of it...

How old are you?

[Soul_Patch]

How old are you?

35. Why?

[boutons_deux]

text worshipping is for simple minds who are not adult, independent, educated, well-read enough to think critically on their own.

So, especially when they are confused, befuddled, feel threatened, they chicken out and wrap themselves in their fetish-ized, magical text, like the Bible, the Constitution, the Torah, the Koran, as if text were still magical, as it was 100s or 1000s of years ago when almost nobody could read or write and "priests" as keepers of texts, (ab)used it as a source of personal power over the non-readers.

Even the Muslims say "It Is Written ... "

Along with text worshipping goes cherry picking, and bizarre, twisted interpretations, esp when serving as basis for personal power, politics (esp politics of hate, exclusion, discrimination), money grabbing.

[Clipper Nation]

I sincerely hope people like you don't vote, tbh....

[Soul_Patch]

I sincerely hope people like you don't vote, tbh....


Let me guess, you LOVE the constitution?

[boutons_deux]

I sincerely hope people like you don't vote, tbh....

Too many duped, ignorant people like you DO VOTE, and that's why America is fucked and unfuckable.

[FromWayDowntown]

I understand the devotion to the Constitution.

With the reverence so many pay to it, however, I'm disappointed by: (a) how little people are actually concerned with learning about the document and its application to American society; and (b) the extent to which people are willing to distort those understandings -- and to inconsistently apply them -- to suit their own political ends.

[Clipper Nation]

Let me guess, you LOVE the constitution?
I love the liberties it protects and recognize the necessary limits it sets on government power....

[mrsmaalox]

Most people use the Constitution the same way they use the Bible. Pick out the parts they agree with and ignore or misinterpret the parts they disagree with.

[boutons_deux]

I love the liberties it protects and recognize the necessary limits it sets on government power....

typyical DISTORTION of the Constitution by ignorant right-wingers.

The Articles of Confederation were a failure, a mess, so the Constitution greatly strengthened the federal govt as the only SOVEREIGN power whose laws and regs trump all state laws.

[DarrinS]

it started when the spook entered the white house.



Yup, everything is because of Obama's melanin. Wash, rinse, repeat.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Most people use the Constitution the same way they use the Bible. Pick out the parts they agree with and ignore or misinterpret the parts they disagree with.

:tu

[ElNono]

Personally it's not love, but respect. Basically, it's the #1 rule book for the society I live in.

[vy65]

Most people use the Constitution the same way they use the Bible. Pick out the parts they agree with and ignore or misinterpret the parts they disagree with.

There's no problem with that.

[vy65]

I didn't mean to suggest misinterpreting was ok, just that agreement is not an all or nothing deal

[boutons_deux]

Yup, everything is because of Obama's melanin. Wash, rinse, repeat.

He's carried on most of Repug policies and disasters, so why else than racism would right-wingers, bubbas, "Christian" haters hate Barry? This past Repug campaign was saturated with appeals to racism.

[Soul_Patch]

Personally it's not love, but respect. Basically, it's the #1 rule book for the society I live in.

Respect is fine, but it has gone way beyond that lately. I respect it.

[101A]

typyical DISTORTION of the Constitution by ignorant right-wingers.

The Articles of Confederation were a failure, a mess, so the Constitution greatly strengthened the federal govt as the only SOVEREIGN power whose laws and regs trump all state laws.

You are correct in it's current application, but only because these words:


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.

are largely ignored....

or, more specifically, these words:


"To regulate Commerce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce) with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."


have been expanded to unbelievable proportions.

(rightly or wrongly - it's a simple academic discussion at this point)

[boutons_deux]

You are correct in it's current application, but only because these words:

are largely ignored....

or, more specifically, these words:

have been expanded to unbelievable proportions.

(rightly or wrongly - it's a simple academic discussion at this point)

the states have plenty of power. What the "states rights" assholes want is to override federal laws, esp about perverting public schools with "Christianity", racism, etc.

[EVAY]

The issue of loving or hating the Constitution per se is not where the action is, imo. It is that when another party does something politically that the first party doesn't like, the Constitution is used as the billy club to beat the offending party over the head.

We live in a society whose laws are essentially (theoretically) based on the Constitution. Ergo, any law with which someone disagrees is met with the scream "that is against the Constitution". It is sort of the paper version of 'I'm gonna get my big brother to make you stop this because it is against the rules'. Most people really don't love the Constitution...they just love being able to use their interpretation of it to bash things they don't like about somebody else's behaviors.

[mavs>spurs]

Undermining the importance of the constitution is the cool new liberal thing. Unfortunately for them this is a republic not a democracy and its nonnegotiable.

[101A]

Undermining the importance of the constitution is the cool new liberal thing.

I've picked up on that particular talking point, as well.

[EVAY]

It seems to me that liberals use the "the Constitution is a living document and must be interpreted to meet the needs of the day". Conservatives, especially those like Scalia, say "No, the Constitution is Dead and the only way to interpret any part of it is to know what the writers of the Constitution meant when they wrote it".

Support for the more liberal position is found in things like the amendment to free slaves, etc. Support for the conservative side is found in the "If it doesn't specifically say it in the constitution as written 220 years ago it cannot be included now" argument, which is seen in those who equate the absence of a specifically stated right to privacy as a means to deny the abortion decision, or same sex couples, or whatever.

[vy65]

It doesn't make sense to respect or not respect the constitution. The document itself is ambiguous, especially when applied to modern day America. What people really mean when they invoke the constitution is a particular interpretation or interpretative method. The construction itself is neutral; it's how people use it that matters

[Wild Cobra]

It doesn't make sense to respect or not respect the constitution. The document itself is ambiguous, especially when applied to modern day America. What people really mean when they invoke the constitution is a particular interpretation or interpretative method. The construction itself is neutral; it's how people use it that matters
You have to understand the times and definitions of the words then. It becomes easier to understand. It was straightforward language for the time.

[ElNono]

It doesn't make sense to respect or not respect the constitution. The document itself is ambiguous, especially when applied to modern day America. What people really mean when they invoke the constitution is a particular interpretation or interpretative method. The construction itself is neutral; it's how people use it that matters

Ambiguity doesn't preclude respect. You could never know everything about a person, but you can respect that person (or not).

Even if I don't agree with every interpretation of the book or every possible scenario laid out on it, personally I think it's a book with a fair set of rules, and I respect that.

[leemajors]

It seems to me that liberals use the "the Constitution is a living document and must be interpreted to meet the needs of the day". Conservatives, especially those like Scalia, say "No, the Constitution is Dead and the only way to interpret any part of it is to know what the writers of the Constitution meant when they wrote it".

Support for the more liberal position is found in things like the amendment to free slaves, etc. Support for the conservative side is found in the "If it doesn't specifically say it in the constitution as written 220 years ago it cannot be included now" argument, which is seen in those who equate the absence of a specifically stated right to privacy as a means to deny the abortion decision, or same sex couples, or whatever.

He went with the T.S. Eliot defense re: Shakespeare? :lol

[DMC]

35. Why?

Surprising. Most people who don't give a shit about their own freedoms are kids.

[EVAY]

He went with the T.S. Eliot defense re: Shakespeare? :lol

:lol yeah, pretty much, come to think of it.

[DMC]

The issue of loving or hating the Constitution per se is not where the action is, imo. It is that when another party does something politically that the first party doesn't like, the Constitution is used as the billy club to beat the offending party over the head.

We live in a society whose laws are essentially (theoretically) based on the Constitution. Ergo, any law with which someone disagrees is met with the scream "that is against the Constitution". It is sort of the paper version of 'I'm gonna get my big brother to make you stop this because it is against the rules'. Most people really don't love the Constitution...they just love being able to use their interpretation of it to bash things they don't like about somebody else's behaviors.

I'd have to label that as patently false since A: you don't know "most people" and have never interviewed "most people" to know what they think, and B: because many laws are indeed unconstitutional and are ruled as such at the highest court. It's nothing like the "big brother" argument. It's a system of checks and balances. The party in power isn't going to police itself, and the followers of that party are going to turn a blind eye to encroachments on our rights. The opposing party is therefore needed to maintain a balance.

[spursncowboys]

It seems to me that liberals use the "the Constitution is a living document and must be interpreted to meet the needs of the day". Conservatives, especially those like Scalia, say "No, the Constitution is Dead and the only way to interpret any part of it is to know what the writers of the Constitution meant when they wrote it".

Support for the more liberal position is found in things like the amendment to free slaves, etc. Support for the conservative side is found in the "If it doesn't specifically say it in the constitution as written 220 years ago it cannot be included now" argument, which is seen in those who equate the absence of a specifically stated right to privacy as a means to deny the abortion decision, or same sex couples, or whatever.

living document that can be changed to fit our liking: Roe v. Wade; Emminent Domain, Griswald v. Conneticut; Brown v. Board

Interpret the meaning: slavery; Miranda v. Arizona; Marbury v. Madison; DC v. Heller

[leemajors]

You have to understand the times and definitions of the words then. It becomes easier to understand. It was straightforward language for the time.

Yeah but this is also an old religious tactic used most effectively by Catholics. You can't understand the Bible, so don't bother. We'll do it for you!

[spursncowboys]

Living constitution: Dred Scott

[DMC]

It seems to me that liberals use the "the Constitution is a living document and must be interpreted to meet the needs of the day". Conservatives, especially those like Scalia, say "No, the Constitution is Dead and the only way to interpret any part of it is to know what the writers of the Constitution meant when they wrote it".

Support for the more liberal position is found in things like the amendment to free slaves, etc. Support for the conservative side is found in the "If it doesn't specifically say it in the constitution as written 220 years ago it cannot be included now" argument, which is seen in those who equate the absence of a specifically stated right to privacy as a means to deny the abortion decision, or same sex couples, or whatever.

Actually the liberal approach is to bitch about freedom of speech, of the press and too peacefully assemble, but to call for disposal of rights they don't themselves use. That's why they are liberals, they want progression and often at the sake of freedom. Ironic since to liberate means to disencumber, to free, yet they appear to be for more government control which equals fewer freedoms.

[Wild Cobra]

Yeah but this is also an old religious tactic used most effectively by Catholics. You can't understand the Bible, so don't bother. We'll do it for you!
I get your point, but 18th century language is still understood by those who choose to understand. It isn't the same as language and time combined, and not having the original documents that are likely misinterpretation.

[Soul_Patch]

Surprising. Most people who don't give a shit about their own freedoms are kids.


Has nothing to do with giving a shit about my freedoms, plenty of countries on this planet have freedoms without our constitution. I have no problems with the constitution, this country, or freedom. I am fond of all three. I just don't wear a chip on my shoulder and shout CONSTITUTION!!! ARRGGHH!! Every time someone makes a political comment I may not agree with. Quite a big difference.

[DMC]

Has nothing to do with giving a shit about my freedoms, plenty of countries on this planet have freedoms without our constitution. I have no problems with the constitution, this country, or freedom. I am fond of all three. I just don't wear a chip on my shoulder and shout CONSTITUTION!!! ARRGGHH!! Every time someone makes a political comment I may not agree with. Quite a big difference.

You started a topic about not giving a shit about the same document that grants you the freedoms you have. Aren't you a bit old for decadence?

[DMC]

text worshipping is for simple minds who are not adult, independent, educated, well-read enough to think critically on their own.


The coming from a person who's posts most often consists of copy paste from other websites.

[ElNono]

living document that can be changed to fit our liking: Roe v. Wade

uh? Roe vs Wade was decided 7-2...

[DarrinS]

Over 100 countries have used it as a model for their own

[Blake]

Surprising. Most people who don't give a shit about their own freedoms are kids.

Wut.

[Blake]

Surprising. Most people who don't give a shit about their own freedoms are kids.

Wut.

[spursncowboys]

uh? Roe vs Wade was decided 7-2...
ugh...ok. I knew that but maybe others didn't

[Blake]

ugh...ok. I knew that but maybe others didn't

Nobody needed you to take a stupid bullet for them.

[spursncowboys]

Nobody needed you to take a stupid bullet for them.
huh??

[boutons_deux]

The coming from a person who's posts most often consists of copy paste from other websites.

no surprise you mix the two totally different items.

[Clipper Nation]

typyical DISTORTION of the Constitution by ignorant right-wingers.

The Articles of Confederation were a failure, a mess, so the Constitution greatly strengthened the federal govt as the only SOVEREIGN power whose laws and regs trump all state laws.
"Strengthening the federal government" =/= "do whatever the hell you want"...

If your vision of how this country should be run were a reality, there'd be no Constitution because the federal government could do whatever they wanted at the expense of the states and the citizenry....

[boutons_deux]

"Strengthening the federal government" =/= "do whatever the hell you want"...

If your vision of how this country should be run were a reality, there'd be no Constitution because the federal government could do whatever they wanted at the expense of the states and the citizenry....

your vision is an ignorant, paranoid fantasy

[Blake]

huh??

hmmm. Yeah, the bullet isn't stupid.

[Clipper Nation]

your vision is an ignorant, paranoid fantasy
No, it's a fact...

“My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.”
- Thomas Jefferson

“A government is like fire, a handy servant, but a dangerous master.”
- George Washington

“Power must never be trusted without a check.”
- John Adams

[SA210]

I understand the devotion to the Constitution.

With the reverence so many pay to it, however, I'm disappointed by: (a) how little people are actually concerned with learning about the document and its application to American society; and (b) the extent to which people are willing to distort those understandings -- and to inconsistently apply them -- to suit their own political ends.

I agree, Obama should stop doing that.

[boutons_deux]

No, it's a fact...

“My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.”
- Thomas Jefferson

“A government is like fire, a handy servant, but a dangerous master.”
- George Washington

“Power must never be trusted without a check.”
- John Adams

and these very FFs created the Constitution strong enough to keep the fragile, infant country from destroying itself as the "sovereign" states were going their own way

[spursncowboys]

hmmm. Yeah, the bullet isn't stupid.
Worthless and clumsy

[Blake]

Worthless and clumsy

does that make you feel better about pretending to take a bullet for the stupid/ignorant people out there?

[Blake]

I agree, Obama should stop doing that.

Why are you singling him out? Name one politician that doesn't.

[ChumpDumper]

Why are you singling him out? Name one politician that doesn't.In before the Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich meme.

[Blake]

In before the Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich meme.

Since we're on ignore, could be a while.

[Clipper Nation]

and these very FFs created the Constitution strong enough to keep the fragile, infant country from destroying itself as the "sovereign" states were going their own way
And limited enough to guard against tyranny and rule through special interests and expediency, as long as the document is adhered to....

[spursncowboys]

does that make you feel better about pretending to take a bullet for the stupid/ignorant people out there?

What do you keep talking about 'taking a bullet'?

[boutons_deux]

And limited enough to guard against tyranny and rule through special interests and expediency, as long as the document is adhered to....

tyranny! freedom! liberty! marans! :lol

[LakerHater]

UberFacts ‏@UberFacts John F. Kennedy did not accept his presidential salary of $150,000 a year. Instead, he donated it to charity.



Obama wouldnt do that!! Michelle wouldnt let him! they get FREE vacations!

[leemajors]

UberFacts ‏@UberFacts John F. Kennedy did not accept his presidential salary of $150,000 a year. Instead, he donated it to charity.



Obama wouldnt do that!! Michelle wouldnt let him! they get FREE vacations!

Kennedy was also filthy rich from bootlegging.

[spursncowboys]

Kennedy was also filthy rich from bootlegging.
You mean his dad.

[SA210]

UberFacts ‏@UberFactsJohn F. Kennedy did not accept his presidential salary of $150,000 a year. Instead, he donated it to charity.



Obama wouldnt do that!! Michelle wouldnt let him! they get FREE vacations!

:lmao on Obama's best day (which isn't saying much, at all) he couldn't be 1/10 of JFK, not even close. The comparisons morons gave at one time weren't only hilarious and unfounded, but a complete disgrace and pure blasphemy.

lol

[leemajors]

You mean his dad.

Sorry, I forgot to make it plural.

[Th'Pusher]

Sorry, I forgot to make it plural.
Actually the whole bootlegging thing is a bit of a myth. Kennedy's definitely made money in booze, but it was all completely legal.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/04/26/the-kennedy-bootlegging-myth.html

[elbamba]

It seems to me that liberals use the "the Constitution is a living document and must be interpreted to meet the needs of the day". Conservatives, especially those like Scalia, say "No, the Constitution is Dead and the only way to interpret any part of it is to know what the writers of the Constitution meant when they wrote it".

Support for the more liberal position is found in things like the amendment to free slaves, etc. Support for the conservative side is found in the "If it doesn't specifically say it in the constitution as written 220 years ago it cannot be included now" argument, which is seen in those who equate the absence of a specifically stated right to privacy as a means to deny the abortion decision, or same sex couples, or whatever.

Not sure that strict constitutionalists would claim the Constitution is dead. They would argue that the founding fathers knew that while they needed to leave a basic set of rights and principles that would generally stand the test of time, they had just as little right to bind the next generation to their laws as England had to bind the colonists rights to English law. In arguing that the Constitution lives they would point to Article V which clearly allows the Constitution to be amended when 2/3 of Congress and the States feel that the Constitution needs to be amended to meet the needs of today.

Scalia in particular would have no problem with a state passing some of the laws that you reference in your post because the Constitution is silent on this; however, he would argue that if you want to broaden an amendment to say more than it actually says, just amend the constitution and spell it out specifically. That is perfectly constitutional. That would be my guess on what Scalia and other strict constitutionalists would argue, if they are being true to what a strict constitutionalist believes.

FYI, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were not liberal positions and not were pushed by conservatives at the time they were passed but it was necessary that conservatives supported the amendments to get them to pass. Having said that, Civil War conservatism and liberalism were very different to the contemporary political definitions.

[Blake]

:tu el bamba

[Th'Pusher]

Not sure that strict constitutionalists would claim the Constitution is dead. They would argue that the founding fathers knew that while they needed to leave a basic set of rights and principles that would generally stand the test of time, they had just as little right to bind the next generation to their laws as England had to bind the colonists rights to English law. In arguing that the Constitution lives they would point to Article V which clearly allows the Constitution to be amended when 2/3 of Congress and the States feel that the Constitution needs to be amended to meet the needs of today.

Scalia in particular would have no problem with a state passing some of the laws that you reference in your post because the Constitution is silent on this; however, he would argue that if you want to broaden an amendment to say more than it actually says, just amend the constitution and spell it out specifically. That is perfectly constitutional. That would be my guess on what Scalia and other strict constitutionalists would argue, if they are being true to what a strict constitutionalist believes.

FYI, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were not liberal positions and not were pushed by conservatives at the time they were passed but it was necessary that conservatives supported the amendments to get them to pass. Having said that, Civil War conservatism and liberalism were very different to the contemporary political definitions.

This does not necessarily contradict the point you are making but Scalia definitely believes the constitution is dead: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/scalia-the-constitution-is-dead-86853.html?hp=r1

[boutons_deux]

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/scalia_rect-300x200.jpg

Justice Scalia: The Constitution Is ‘Dead, Dead, Dead’

Scalia accurately identified just what the opposite of a living document is during remarks at Southern Methodist University, disparaging children who come to the court and refer to the Constitution as “living”:


It’s not a living document. It’s dead, dead, dead.

While there are reasonable interpretations of the Constitution that are defined as something other than “living,” Scalia’s extreme suggestion that the Constitution is “dead” reflects how ill-equipped his own brand of originalism is to address problems that are quite alive and well. But on this occasion, Scalia seemed to have realized the absurdity of his own claim, backtracking later in the event to say that “dead” was not a good description after all. “It’s an enduring document, not a dead one,” he said.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/29/1511841/justice-scalia-the-constitution-is-dead-dead-dead/

text worshippers, GFY

JINO Scalia knows damn well amending the Constitution is effectively impossible.

Scalia typifies the shitty quality of Repug judges.

[Clipper Nation]

It's not supposed to be easy to amend the Constitution, that's what you people don't understand... the Founders didn't want the federal government to have unlimited scope and power....

[boutons_deux]

one of the false originalist, gun-fellating Repug politicians in his perverted Constitutional interpretation said recently that military muskets were ok for 18th civilians, so NOW all military weaponry is OK for 21st century civilians.

[Th'Pusher]

It's not supposed to be easy to amend the Constitution, that's what you people don't understand... the Founders didn't want the federal government to have unlimited scope and power....

Well, when shit needs to get done on a federal level, lawmakers find the path of least resistance to get said shit done which is why you see the commerce clause being invoked as its language is much more broad. Take the 2nd amendment for example:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

So, each individual state has to pass a law saying fully automatic weapons are banned? And if some state like Texas says they shouldn't be, you don't think that is going to effect other states? People won't buy their autos in Texas and smuggle them across the border to Oklahoma? So we need to amend the constitution to ban automatic weapons? Untenable.

[Blake]

It's not supposed to be easy to amend the Constitution, that's what you people don't understand... the Founders didn't want the federal government to have unlimited scope and power....

Why is it bad for the federal government to have all the power?

[EVAY]

Not sure that strict constitutionalists would claim the Constitution is dead. They would argue that the founding fathers knew that while they needed to leave a basic set of rights and principles that would generally stand the test of time, they had just as little right to bind the next generation to their laws as England had to bind the colonists rights to English law. In arguing that the Constitution lives they would point to Article V which clearly allows the Constitution to be amended when 2/3 of Congress and the States feel that the Constitution needs to be amended to meet the needs of today.

Scalia in particular would have no problem with a state passing some of the laws that you reference in your post because the Constitution is silent on this; however, he would argue that if you want to broaden an amendment to say more than it actually says, just amend the constitution and spell it out specifically. That is perfectly constitutional. That would be my guess on what Scalia and other strict constitutionalists would argue, if they are being true to what a strict constitutionalist believes.

FYI, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were not liberal positions and not were pushed by conservatives at the time they were passed but it was necessary that conservatives supported the amendments to get them to pass. Having said that, Civil War conservatism and liberalism were very different to the contemporary political definitions.

Well I don't know that Scalia considers himself as much of 'Strict Constructionist' as he considers himself an 'Original Intent' interpreter.

Scalia did, however, in a speech just this week, say "The Constitution is Dead, Dead, Dead". He was making the point that those who consider the Constitution to be a 'Living Document" were wrong, wrong wrong.

I have often considered myself a strict constructionist, arguing that while I would like to see some things considered unconstitutional (or constitutional), it seems to me that we must amend it if we want to allow or disallow certain things. Scalia has specifically taken issue with that position in his adherence to his 'principal intent
interpretation. I will look up the reference to his speech this week and post it for you.

[EVAY]

^^^^^

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/scalia-the-constitution-is-dead-86853.html

I just noticed that several people had already found and referenced the quote from Scalia. Sorry to be late with it.

[Clipper Nation]

Why is it bad for the federal government to have all the power?
You really don't see a problem with the federal government being able to do whatever they want? Give politicians too much power and they will abuse and misuse it....

[boutons_deux]

"the federal government being able to do whatever they want"

boogey man scare mongering. You're OK with a Repug govt doing whatever it wants, but not a Dem President + Senate.

The real danger to America is not from the Dems, but if the Repugs ever again gain full control of Congress and Exec along with their control of SCOTUS.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

My biggest concern is that in no place does the Constitution even reference political parties. I understand the necessity for them even if it is an LCD thing. Universal suffrage is what it is. At the same time our entire political system revolves around them and they are entrenched within laws of their own making lacking any guiding principles. The way that names are put on our ballots, how leadership and committee choices are made in Congress and even the determining factors in what is supposed to be an apolitical body in the SCOTUS.

The second issue that I have is the lack of any address of legal entities other than to talk of the right to assemble.

In short, the two things that control the governance of the United States more than I would say 'We the people' are not even addressed in that document.

[Blake]

You really don't see a problem with the federal government being able to do whatever they want? Give politicians too much power and they will abuse and misuse it....

are the state governments really that much better?

I'm not seeing it.

[Clipper Nation]

are the state governments really that much better?

I'm not seeing it.
Except splitting the power between the federal level and the state level limits the power for both levels and therefore limits the possibility for abuse, overreach, and tyranny.... additionally, smaller-scale issues outside the specific federal powers laid out in the Constitution are best left to the states, as opposed to bureaucrats in Washington who don't give two shits about whether their ideas help anyone other than their lobbyist/special-interest cronies....

[Clipper Nation]

"the federal government being able to do whatever they want"

boogey man scare mongering. You're OK with a Repug govt doing whatever it wants, but not a Dem President + Senate.

Typical Boutons assumption with no merit, tbh.... both major parties have proven to be equally inept at leadership and honesty when able to push through their agenda...

[Blake]

Except splitting the power between the federal level and the state level limits the power for both levels and therefore limits the possibility for abuse, overreach, and tyranny.... additionally, smaller-scale issues outside the specific federal powers laid out in the Constitution are best left to the states, as opposed to bureaucrats in Washington who don't give two shits about whether their ideas help anyone other than their lobbyist/special-interest cronies....

Any specific examples of why state governments are beneficial or necessary?

[Clipper Nation]

Any specific examples of why state governments are beneficial or necessary?
To exercise powers not vested in the federal government (as per the Tenth Amendment)

To exercise powers vested in them by the state constitutions

To act on local, state-level issues that state politicians would know more about than Washington bureaucrats

[spursncowboys]

My biggest concern is that in no place does the Constitution even reference political parties. I understand the necessity for them even if it is an LCD thing. Universal suffrage is what it is. At the same time our entire political system revolves around them and they are entrenched within laws of their own making lacking any guiding principles. The way that names are put on our ballots, how leadership and committee choices are made in Congress and even the determining factors in what is supposed to be an apolitical body in the SCOTUS.

The second issue that I have is the lack of any address of legal entities other than to talk of the right to assemble.

In short, the two things that control the governance of the United States more than I would say 'We the people' are not even addressed in that document.

Good points.

The one thing the two parties have done with bipartisanship is make sure they maintain power and keep third parties out of it. It was after Perot ran as a third party the first time that all their laws started being created.

I personally hate lawyers and would love for laws to be written in plain english.

[spursncowboys]

Except splitting the power between the federal level and the state level limits the power for both levels and therefore limits the possibility for abuse, overreach, and tyranny.... additionally, smaller-scale issues outside the specific federal powers laid out in the Constitution are best left to the states, as opposed to bureaucrats in Washington who don't give two shits about whether their ideas help anyone other than their lobbyist/special-interest cronies....
Here here

[Blake]

To act on local, state-level issues that state politicians would know more about than Washington bureaucrats

if you aren't going to give a specific issue, just let me know now so that I can stop asking for one. Thanks.

[Blake]

Here here

no need to be a cheerleader. Feel free to get in the game and answer the question.

[spursncowboys]

no need to be a cheerleader. Feel free to get in the game and answer the question.
No need to act like you contribute beside a troll
What question?

[boutons_deux]

Good points.

The one thing the two parties have done with bipartisanship is make sure they maintain power and keep third parties out of it. It was after Perot ran as a third party the first time that all their laws started being created.

I personally hate lawyers and would love for laws to be written in plain english.

any third or other parties would be quickly corrupted by corporate/1% money.

There really is no solution. The people benefitting (being enriched) by the status quo have the power to maintain it, and improve to their increased benefit.

[Blake]

No need to act like you contribute beside a troll
What question?

I don't really care if you answer my question, tbh. Go back to cheerleading.

[spursncowboys]

I'll definitely go back to ignoring you.

[Blake]

I'll definitely go back to ignoring you.

but first, you'll tell me you're ignoring me.

keep on being the great contributor to this forum that you are. :tu

[Juggity]

The Constitution is a solid document for the most part, but to pretend it is completely applicable to today's world in the same capacity as it was when enacted is ludicrous. The world has changed almost beyond recognition. The Constitution should not be treated like some sacred thing locked behind an impenetrable barrier; if there is something wrong with the constitution it is our responsibility to recognize that and correct it. It was meant to be utilitarian more than symbolic, but has become a shield used by people who hate the fact that the world is changing.