Enlil said:

maddad said:

It was created with the intention of being able to change with the times, but it is taken too literally for that to ever happen.

---

Do you have any evidence that the Constitution was intended to "change with the times" or not be taken literally?  The whole point of a constitution is that it isn't subject to cultural trends.

---

Patlal said:

Every decent country rewrite their constitution once in a while. The US should consider it.

---

zappaisgod said:

We have a mechanism for that that was deliberately made very difficult.  Which is as it should be.  If the cultural consensus changes that much then it will get done.

Don't forget that our Constitution, unlike most other nations, elucidates what the government cannot do not just what it can do.

---

zappaisgod said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Gilgamesh18 said:

The constitution is designed to prevent government overreach. It is difficult for foreigners to grasp this concept when there governments trample there rights routinely.

---

What's an example?  Do you mean other Governments trample people's right to live in poverty?  To not have healthcare?  To be exploited by the rich?

What rights would say the EU tramples on?

---

More crap from commies.  My refusal to buy you a Ferrari does not impinge on your right to have one.  Buy your own shit or fuck off back to the Pub.  Private property rights are enshrined in the Constitution.  I don't see a right to health care anywhere in it.

---

zappaisgod said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Gilgamesh18 said:

The constitution is designed to prevent government overreach. It is difficult for foreigners to grasp this concept when there governments trample there rights routinely.

---

What's an example?  Do you mean other Governments trample people's right to live in poverty?  To not have healthcare?  To be exploited by the rich?

What rights would say the EU tramples on?

---

More crap from commies.  My refusal to buy you a Ferrari does not impinge on your right to have one.  Buy your own shit or fuck off back to the Pub.

---

maddad said:

zappaisgod said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Gilgamesh18 said:

The constitution is designed to prevent government overreach. It is difficult for foreigners to grasp this concept when there governments trample there rights routinely.

---

What's an example?  Do you mean other Governments trample people's right to live in poverty?  To not have healthcare?  To be exploited by the rich?

What rights would say the EU tramples on?

---

More crap from commies.  My refusal to buy you a Ferrari does not impinge on your right to have one.  Buy your own shit or fuck off back to the Pub.  Private property rights are enshrined in the Constitution.  I don't see a right to health care anywhere in it.

---

Because health care wasn't a concern back then, just because the need for it wasn't around at the time doesn't mean that people should be denied the right to be healthy just because they can't afford it. All you capitalist fucks should reevaluate your views.

---

Patlal said:

Every decent country rewrite their constitution once in a while.

---

Quote:

The US should consider it.

---

luvdemshrooms said:

Patlal said:

Every decent country rewrite their constitution once in a while.

---

We've changed ours quite a bit since it was written.

Quote:

The US should consider it.

---

You should consider knowing what you're talking aboot.

---

Patlal said:

luvdemshrooms said:

Patlal said:

Every decent country rewrite their constitution once in a while.

---

We've changed ours quite a bit since it was written.

Quote:

The US should consider it.

---

You should consider knowing what you're talking aboot.

---

You've simply added to it.

You've never rewrote it.

---

maddad said:

That's fine I'm not asking you to take anything from me, just stating that you have a very constipated view of how things work in our country. And it's people like you who give Americans a bad name, because you care only for yourself.

---

Quote:

.

Think of people who are stricken with life threatening diseases that can't get any treatment because they don't have insurance. If that is ok in your mind than it's no different than murdering someone.

---

Quote:

Maybe you should open your mind to something other than your own materialist mindset.

---

Quote:

I'd rather have my tax dollars go towards helping people who aren't as financially stable get the care they need than to buy myself shit I don't need.

---

Quote:

Take your holier than thou attitude somewhere else...

---

Patlal said:

luvdemshrooms said:

Patlal said:

Every decent country rewrite their constitution once in a while.

---

We've changed ours quite a bit since it was written.

Quote:

The US should consider it.

---

You should consider knowing what you're talking aboot.

---

You've simply added to it.

You've never rewrote it.

---

luvdemshrooms said:

Fuck. We could ban abortion. Re-institute slavery. Make certain groups subservient to others. Hell, we could institute a caste system. We could even give the government the power to tell us free speech is only free if they say it is (you know, like the Democrats want to do now).

We don't need to re-write it. Too many butthurt people would fuck it up for the rest of us.

We can put that stuff in now without tossing the baby out with the bathwater. It's why we have an amendment process.


You know, you strike me as a decent enough human but you know how I often mention you know little about the states? This is a perfect example: "Mayube give 3 senators per state instead of 2 (what happens if they can't agree? a standstill?)."

There is no requirement or even a need for them to agree. Each Senator votes independently of the other.

Which segues to the following. Originally it was done this way: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote."

It wasn't until the Constitution was... wait for it... amended that it was changed to a direct vote. A huge mistake in my opinion.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

If healthcare helps "promote the general Welfare", then it's not excluded.

---

Patlal said:

Yeah, but if you rewrite the constitution. each state is gonna have to sign it. The senators will be in charge of that. Thus needing 3 instead of 2.

But I'm thinking too far ahead here.

---

Quote:

Democrats Struggle With How to Ban Free Speech

We ridiculed here an absurd constitutional amendment that the Democrats proposed in the Senate Judiciary Committee, with the support of 42 Democratic senators. The amendment would give Congress unfettered powers to regulate spending on political campaigns in any way that it chooses. I wrote:

    Many observers have noted that if the Udall amendment became law, Congress could set ridiculously low contribution and spending levels, so as to virtually guarantee the re-election of incumbents. This is true–campaign finance “reform” has always been largely about incumbent protection. But I think the proposed amendment is even worse than that. Given its appallingly poor draftsmanship, I don’t see any reason why Congress couldn’t permit a high level of spending on behalf of incumbents (or no limit at all), while setting low limits for spending on behalf of challengers, or prohibiting such contributions altogether. The Democrats’ amendment would repeal the First Amendment with respect to its most fundamental application–supporting candidates in elections.

The Democrats, chastened, tinkered with their amendment. They still want to do away with free speech–no change there–but they are looking for a little camouflage. Byron York reports on the most recent developments:

    Senate Democrats are steadily pushing forward with what they hope will become the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

    The proposed amendment would give Congress authority to regulate every dollar raised, and every dollar spent, by every federal campaign and candidate in the country. It would give state legislatures the power to do the same with state races. …

    The problem is, Democrats aren’t quite sure exactly what the amendment should say. In a move that received virtually no attention, they recently re-wrote the measure — and in the process revealed its fatal flaw.

    This is the heart of the amendment as originally written by Udall and Bennet:

        To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes, Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to federal elections, including through setting limits on –

        (1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, federal office; and

        (2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

    There are literally no limits to congressional power in those words.

So, ridiculed by me and others, the Democrats went back to the drawing board.

    To show how reasonable the measure is, Durbin proposed a new wording for the amendment. This is the heart of the revised version:

        To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.

    The big difference is the insertion of the word “reasonable,” which Democrats apparently believe will allay concerns about government overreach. Don’t worry — we’ll be reasonable!

    But who decides what is reasonable?

Ultimately, of course, the courts would. The Democrats are happy to take their chances with federal judges, pretty much all of whom will be nominated by Democratic presidents once tens of millions of new immigrants, legal and illegal, are given the vote. It isn’t hard to see where this will go: the First Amendment says, in ringing, uncompromising terms, that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

But Democrats hate competition, so they want to rewrite the amendment to give all power to incumbents (i.e., them): Congress may make any law it pleases, abridging the freedom of speech and of the press and the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, insofar as those rights are exercised in connection with elections to public office, as long as Congress’s limitations on freedom of speech and freedom of the press are deemed reasonable by judges, all of whose appointments must be confirmed by Congress.

That is not, obviously, the charter of a free people. Which is what the Democrats want: they have sworn eternal hostility against every limitation on government’s tyranny over the mind of man.

---

Patlal said:

Yeah, but if you rewrite the constitution. each state is gonna have to sign it. The senators will be in charge of that. Thus needing 3 instead of 2.

But I'm thinking too far ahead here.

---

Enlil said:

Patlal said:

Yeah, but if you rewrite the constitution. each state is gonna have to sign it. The senators will be in charge of that. Thus needing 3 instead of 2.

But I'm thinking too far ahead here.

---

This shows a fundamental lack of understanding in how the American system works.  Senators aren't "in charge" of anything at the state level.  They don't decide state laws.  They don't decide if a state ratifies an amendment (or a "rewrite").  They simply don't decide shit about the state.  They solely vote on federal acts applying to the federal government.

Truthfully, Patlal, I don't blame you.  Most Americans don't understand the concepts of separate sovereigns and federalism.  I don't expect a Canadian to.  The fact that you don't understand it, however, doesn't make it a bad idea.  Federalism is one of the greatest inventions put into the Constitution, and its erosion is one of the greatest problems facing America today.

---