About Us
Mission Statement
Rules of Conduct
 
Name:
Pswd:
Remember Me
Register
 

Happy Birthday U.S.
Author: BobR    Date: 09/17/2010 10:30:44

It was 223 years ago today that the framework for our government was completed. The war with the British had been fought and won. It had been 11 long years since independence was declared and 12 months of debates and rewrites. It would be almost 6 more months (March 4, 1789) before it was ratified by all the colonies and made official. Happy Birthday to our Constitution (the final draft).

In retrospect, we were fortunate to have such wise and scholarly men writing this document. We are still a young country, when one compares it to others around the world. They had the benefit of history to use as a guide as to what worked and what didn't. They had the advantage of starting with a clean slate (or parchment, as the case may be).

They understood that men and country and situations would change, so they designed mechanisms to allow for creating and changing laws, and adding updates to the Constitution itself. Twenty years later, Thomas Jefferson wisely wrote:
I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

There are rumblings today of "returning to the Constitution", which is to imply that we have strayed far from its origins. That would seem to fly in the face of the intentions of its creators, who understood that change is inevitable, and so ensured that it was possible, within the parameters and safeguards included. The three-legged stool stands and does not wobble, regardless if one leg becomes longer or shorter. Thus it is with our trifurcated government.

It was two years after ratification that the Bill of Rights was added. Over the next 221 years another 17 amendments have been added (2 that essentially cancel each other out). These amendments have increased (or - more accurately - recognized and ensured) the rights of this country's citizens, and made changes to governmental procedure. Thousands of laws have been created, amended, revoked, and declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. For those that wish to "return to the Constitution", it begs the question: which version? For an amendment is a change to the Constitution; the "original" one we recognize (with the Bill of Rights added 2 years later) is really rev 1.1...

With that in mind, it also begs the question: which amendments are you willing to get rid of? As one tries to roll time backward, the amendments are slowly removed... There's the one that makes slavery illegal... the one that grants women the right to vote... You can't go back very far before you undo rights that everyone takes for granted nowadays. At one time, such complacency was not so. At one time, these too were radical changes.

So as we pause to celebrate another year of living in a country crafted on a single sheaf of paper, let's remember that nothing is static, and time only moves forward. As our society becomes more enlightened, so must the law of the land.

Happy Birthday U.S. Constitution...

 

41 comments (Latest Comment: 09/17/2010 22:57:03 by Scoopster)
   Perma Link

Share This!

Furl it!
Spurl
NewsVine
Reddit
Technorati

Add a Comment

Please login to add a comment...


Comments:

Order comments Newest to Oldest  Refresh Comments

Comment by wickedpam on 09/17/2010 12:39:52
Morning

Do you ever wonder if they really realized what they were doing back then? I mean do you think they stood around and said "200 years from now this is gonna really be awesome" (okay not in those words) or do you think they thought they were gonna give it their best shot but didn't really have a clue it was all going to still be here and working?

I mean I've been to a ton of places that helped start this country- Independance Hall, seen the Liberty Bell, Mount Vernon and so on (benefits of being an east coaster) but I often wonder did George Washington stand in his office and really get what they were doing?

Comment by Raine on 09/17/2010 13:03:19
Quote by wickedpam:
Morning

Do you ever wonder if they really realized what they were doing back then? I mean do you think they stood around and said "200 years from now this is gonna really be awesome" (okay not in those words) or do you think they thought they were gonna give it their best shot but didn't really have a clue it was all going to still be here and working?

I mean I've been to a ton of places that helped start this country- Independance Hall, seen the Liberty Bell, Mount Vernon and so on (benefits of being an east coaster) but I often wonder did George Washington stand in his office and really get what they were doing?


I think Washington did. The last paragraph of his farewell address
Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a man, who views it in the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations; I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat, in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow-citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a free government, the ever favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers.


George Washington, United States - September 17, 1796
The Independent Chronicle, September 26, 1796.


Comment by Raine on 09/17/2010 13:15:42
I kinda like the fact that Elizabeth Warren is going to create and set up the department.

Comment by TriSec on 09/17/2010 13:17:44
Well, I'm thinking John Adams might have been off in the corner with TJ hitting the Bourbon...

"Hey Tom, why don't we put some stuff in about guns, but make it so confusing that they'll never figure it out?"

"Oh, that's awesome!!" *giggles*



Comment by wickedpam on 09/17/2010 13:28:35
Quote by TriSec:
Well, I'm thinking John Adams might have been off in the corner with TJ hitting the Bourbon...

"Hey Tom, why don't we put some stuff in about guns, but make it so confusing that they'll never figure it out?"

"Oh, that's awesome!!" *giggles*



lol - and everyone singing "sit down John" and dancing around....... oh wait.... that 1776... maybe more people need to see that

Comment by wickedpam on 09/17/2010 13:31:13
Quote by Raine:
I kinda like the fact that Elizabeth Warren is going to create and set up the department.


Setting it up right the first time.

---

It sounds like Washington might have. I've just often wondered about that kinda thing


Comment by TriSec on 09/17/2010 13:39:45
I put this on facebook last night, but you all need to see this.

Wellesley school issues anti-Islam apology.

Ya know, I've been to a lot of churches and other places of worship in my life. "When in Rome..." I see it as a sign of respect. I have worn a Yarmulke and fumbled over Hebrew; I've been to Eastern Orthodox churches (which I really liked), and many foreign-language services. (Spanish and Haitian, most notably.)

I could sit stoic and impassive in the corner, but I've found that the rest of the congregants are more open to an "outsider" visiting if I at least tried to go through the motions with them.

Sheesh.



Comment by Raine on 09/17/2010 13:39:45
Comment by wickedpam on 09/17/2010 13:40:50
Okay so is anyone going to do the Rally for Sanity on 10/30/10 on the Mall?

Comment by Raine on 09/17/2010 13:41:33
Quote by TriSec:
I put this on facebook last night, but you all need to see this.

Wellesley school issues anti-Islam apology.

Ya know, I've been to a lot of churches and other places of worship in my life. "When in Rome..." I see it as a sign of respect. I have worn a Yarmulke and fumbled over Hebrew; I've been to Eastern Orthodox churches (which I really liked), and many foreign-language services. (Spanish and Haitian, most notably.)

I could sit stoic and impassive in the corner, but I've found that the rest of the congregants are more open to an "outsider" visiting if I at least tried to go through the motions with them.

Sheesh.


I meant to respond to this last night -- but to be honest - I was dumbfounded.

Comment by wickedpam on 09/17/2010 14:09:56
guide horses are a fairly new thing but I have heard of them and they do wear some kinda shoe that's not usual

Comment by TriSec on 09/17/2010 14:13:29
Jeter is a putz, BTW.



Comment by Al from WV on 09/17/2010 14:14:46
For those that wish to "return to the Constitution", it begs the question: which version? For an amendment is a change to the Constitution; the "original" one we recognize (with the Bill of Rights added 2 years later) is really rev 1.1...

With that in mind, it also begs the question: which amendments are you willing to get rid of? As one tries to roll time backward, the amendments are slowly removed... There's the one that makes slavery illegal... the one that grants women the right to vote... You can't go back very far before you undo rights that everyone takes for granted nowadays. At one time, such complacency was not so. At one time, these too were radical changes.


Usually, I let this stuff pass. I figure I'm not going to change anyone's mind anyway, so why bother? This idea, however, MUST be refuted.

I cannot imagine ANYONE on the conservative side of the house wanting to remove amendments. "Getting back to the Constitution" does not mean a previous version. Granted, there is one wingnut who has actually said something about modifying one of the amendments, but even that is not removing anything; it is rather amending the amendment (and his stupid idea has not and will not get any traction). "Getting back to the Constitution" means actually going by what it says today, in the words it says it in. A great example of being outside that was the conversation we had two days ago. One other poster here opined that the current voting system was more unconstitutional, based not on the words on the paper, but on an etherial interpretation of the overall sense of what some people thing the overall sense of the Constitution is.

"Return to the Constitution" is NOT about going back to any previous version, so talk of what amendment you would live without is specious and superfluous. It is about actually going by the words that are in the document today, as we speak, and not over stretching phrases like "general welfare" so that their practical meaning is "whatever the people in power want to do." THAT is the current state of affairs seen by many Americans, including me, and THAT is what would be abandoned by "returning to the Constitution."

Comment by Raine on 09/17/2010 14:16:02
Quote by TriSec:
Jeter is a putz, BTW.


Excuse M MOI?



Comment by wickedpam on 09/17/2010 14:18:34
I went to a fair housing thing and they were saying that guide horse were actually smarter then guide dogs - you can train them faster and they were more attuned to their person.

There are even "guide" birds and reptiles - they're more seen as companions animals to people who have mental or emotion issues but its all part of the disabilities act.

And I've learn from the fair housing people you don't piss off the disabilities groups they will go after your butt

Comment by BobR on 09/17/2010 14:20:52
Quote by Raine:
Quote by TriSec:
Jeter is a putz, BTW.


Excuse M MOI?


He faked being hit by a pitch so he could get a walk

Comment by Raine on 09/17/2010 14:36:29
Quote by Al from WV:

For those that wish to "return to the Constitution", it begs the question: which version? For an amendment is a change to the Constitution; the "original" one we recognize (with the Bill of Rights added 2 years later) is really rev 1.1...



With that in mind, it also begs the question: which amendments are you willing to get rid of? As one tries to roll time backward, the amendments are slowly removed... There's the one that makes slavery illegal... the one that grants women the right to vote... You can't go back very far before you undo rights that everyone takes for granted nowadays. At one time, such complacency was not so. At one time, these too were radical changes.




Usually, I let this stuff pass. I figure I'm not going to change anyone's mind anyway, so why bother? This idea, however, MUST be refuted.



I cannot imagine ANYONE on the conservative side of the house wanting to remove amendments. "Getting back to the Constitution" does not mean a previous version. Granted, there is one wingnut who has actually said something about modifying one of the amendments, but even that is not removing anything; it is rather amending the amendment (and his stupid idea has not and will not get any traction). "Getting back to the Constitution" means actually going by what it says today, in the words it says it in. A great example of being outside that was the conversation we had two days ago. One other poster here opined that the current voting system was more unconstitutional, based not on the words on the paper, but on an etherial interpretation of the overall sense of what some people thing the overall sense of the Constitution is.



"Return to the Constitution" is NOT about going back to any previous version, so talk of what amendment you would live without is specious and superfluous. It is about actually going by the words that are in the document today, as we speak, and not over stretching phrases like "general welfare" so that their practical meaning is "whatever the people in power want to do." THAT is the current state of affairs seen by many Americans, including me, and THAT is what would be abandoned by "returning to the Constitution."
I have seen more than one person call for modifying more than one amendment. -



More than one person. More than one amendment. It's been written about right here on the blog -- so the claim that no one on the conservative side of the house wants to remove amendments is simply not true. Al, I respect you, but this is a factual misnomer. Take a look here. There are links --- The GOP is making a play to change the constitution.





REPEALING CITIZENSHIP: Numerous GOP lawmakers, including their Senate leader and the most-recent Republican candidate for president, are lining up behind a “review” of the 14th Amendment’s grant of citizenship to virtually all persons born within the United States. Such a proposal literally revives the vision of citizenship articulated by the Supreme Court’s infamous pro-slavery decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford. It has no place in the twenty-first century.



REPEALING CONGRESS’ POWER TO REGULATE THE ECONOMY: The Constitution’s “Commerce Clause” gives national leaders broad authority to regulate the national economy, but much of the GOP has embraced “tentherism,” the belief that this power is small enough to be drowned in a bathtub. The most famous example of tentherism is the ubiquitous frivolous lawsuits claiming that health reform is unconstitutional, but these lawsuits are part of a much greater effort. In his brief challenging health reform, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli claims that Congress is allowed to regulate “commerce on one hand” but not “manufacturing or agriculture.” Cuccinelli’s discredited vision of the Constitution was actually implemented in the late 19th and early 20th century, and it would strike down everything from child labor laws to the federal ban on whites-only lunch counters.



REPEALING CONGRESS’ POWER TO SPEND MONEY: The Constitution also gives Congress power to “provide for the common defense and general welfare,” a broad grant of authority to create federal spending programs such as Social Security. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), however, recently called upon the Supreme Court to rewrite the Constitution’s clear language and repeal parts of the budget he doesn’t like. A Texas GOP official even went so far as to claim that the federal highway system is unconstitutional. Should this GOP vision of the Constitution ever be adopted, it could eliminate not just Social Security, but also Medicare, Medicaid, federal education spending and countless other cherished programs.



REPEALING CONGRESS’ POWER TO RAISE MONEY: The Constitution also gives Congress broad authority to decide how to distribute the tax burden. Thus, for example, Congress is allowed to create a tax incentive for people to buy houses by giving a tax break to people with mortgages, and it is allowed to create a similar incentive for people to buy health insurance by taxing people who have health insurance slightly less than people who do not. Nevertheless, the frivolous assaults on health reform would eliminate this Constitutional power. Many Tea Party Republicans go even further, calling for a full repeal of the 16th Amendment, the amendment which enables the income tax. Paying taxes is never popular, but it would be impossible to function as a nation if America lacked the power to raise the money it needs to pay our armed forces, among other things.



REPEALING EQUALITY: The Constitution entitles all persons to “equal protection of the laws,” a provision that formed the basis of Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision yesterday that California cannot treat gay couples as if they are somehow inferior. Immediately after this decision was announced, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) called upon Congress to “act immediately” to overturn it — something that it could only do through a constitutional amendment. Of course, Newt’s proposal does nothing more than revive President Bush’s call for a constitutional amendment repealing the parts of the Constitution that protect marriage equality.



REPEALING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: As Judge Walker also held, marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. The GOP’s anti-gay amendment would repeal this constitutional protection as well.



REPEALING ELECTION OF SENATORS: Finally, a number of GOP candidates have come out in favor of repealing the 17th Amendment, the provision of the Constitution which requires direct election of senators, although many of these candidates also backed off their “Seventeenther” stand after it proved embarrassing. It is simply baffling how anyone could take one look at the U.S. Senate, and decide that what it really needs is even less democracy.




Comment by TriSec on 09/17/2010 14:37:49
Here's another act of quiet diplomacy that hasn't been reported in the MSM. (Note who did cover it, and reasonably favorably, too.)

Russian's defense minister in first-ever visit to Pentagon



Comment by Raine on 09/17/2010 14:40:00
Quote by BobR:

Quote by Raine:

Quote by TriSec:

Jeter is a putz, BTW.





Excuse M MOI?





He faked being hit by a pitch so he could get a walk
Ahh -- and I am sure NO BoSox player NEVER EVER did that?







Comment by BobR on 09/17/2010 14:45:41
Quote by Al from WV:
For those that wish to "return to the Constitution", it begs the question: which version? For an amendment is a change to the Constitution; the "original" one we recognize (with the Bill of Rights added 2 years later) is really rev 1.1...

With that in mind, it also begs the question: which amendments are you willing to get rid of? As one tries to roll time backward, the amendments are slowly removed... There's the one that makes slavery illegal... the one that grants women the right to vote... You can't go back very far before you undo rights that everyone takes for granted nowadays. At one time, such complacency was not so. At one time, these too were radical changes.


Usually, I let this stuff pass. I figure I'm not going to change anyone's mind anyway, so why bother? This idea, however, MUST be refuted.

I cannot imagine ANYONE on the conservative side of the house wanting to remove amendments. "Getting back to the Constitution" does not mean a previous version. Granted, there is one wingnut who has actually said something about modifying one of the amendments, but even that is not removing anything; it is rather amending the amendment (and his stupid idea has not and will not get any traction). "Getting back to the Constitution" means actually going by what it says today, in the words it says it in. A great example of being outside that was the conversation we had two days ago. One other poster here opined that the current voting system was more unconstitutional, based not on the words on the paper, but on an etherial interpretation of the overall sense of what some people thing the overall sense of the Constitution is.

"Return to the Constitution" is NOT about going back to any previous version, so talk of what amendment you would live without is specious and superfluous. It is about actually going by the words that are in the document today, as we speak, and not over stretching phrases like "general welfare" so that their practical meaning is "whatever the people in power want to do." THAT is the current state of affairs seen by many Americans, including me, and THAT is what would be abandoned by "returning to the Constitution."

That still seems like a lot of generalities with no specific examples. I'd like to know what actions have been taken by government that are actually contrary to the Constitution. There must be a lot of them for everyone to clamoring so loudly.


Comment by Raine on 09/17/2010 14:51:17
Seriously, What does getting back to the constitution mean?

That is a far different statement than saying something is NOT constitutional.

Comment by TriSec on 09/17/2010 14:59:21
Quote by Raine:
Ahh -- and I am sure NO BoSox player NEVER EVER did that?





Our own Bob Ryan wrote about that today. (Boston Globe) It's not that no Sock would ever do that, it's that Derek Jeter did. Sure he's a Sith, but personally I think there is a great deal of respect. I'll point to that play a few seasons back where he dove headfirst into the stands and came up bloody...but with the ball. That speaks volumes about what kind of player he is. Should be above this sort of thing.



Comment by TriSec on 09/17/2010 15:01:38
Quote by BobR:

That still seems like a lot of generalities with no specific examples. I'd like to know what actions have been taken by government that are actually contrary to the Constitution. There must be a lot of them for everyone to clamoring so loudly.



Well, as the token Libertarian (remrof), there's an awful lot of legislation that's been passed that would seem to be counter to the tenth ammendment. Almost all of that has been justified by the "Promote the General Welfare" clause, but that's only the Preamble; it wasn't actually codified into law.



Comment by TriSec on 09/17/2010 15:03:53
*Non-Sequitir*

I am always glad to see Paul Rieckhoff in his increasingly rare visits to The Rachel Maddow Show. Lest we forget, it was his Tuesday segments on the old "Unfiltered" program (RIP) that gave birth to our own "Ask a Vet" segment here.

Anyway...



Comment by Will in Chicago on 09/17/2010 15:11:04
Good morning, bloggers!! BobR, thanks for a great blog on the Constitution. (One of the articles in Time for Kids this week is about the anniversary.)

I agree that the Constitution can and should change with time. However, this is not an easy process. What I find amazing on Raine's list is that all the proposed amendment's she lists seem to be aimed at restricting the power of the people to chose elected officials or urge them to make policy. This is despite a tradition in America of expanding liberty, as seen in the Bill of Rights, the 14th amendment, and the 19th amendment.

Comment by Will in Chicago on 09/17/2010 15:18:19
On a personal note, sorry that I have been away from here so much. I have been subbing a lot, and it is the High Holy Days. (Yom Kippur is at sunset, and I am going to run a few errands and get ready for tonight.)

One thing that I have learned is that forgiveness is sometimes not so much for others, but for ourselves. We may call it acceptance or reconciliation to an event or the actions of others, but sometimes we have to ensure that our anger or grief over something does not define who we are as people. Just a thought.

Comment by wickedpam on 09/17/2010 15:24:26
good lord what did I walk back into with that cacphony O.O

Comment by Mondobubba on 09/17/2010 15:44:10
Quote by Raine:
Human Mouse Hybrids.


Christine O'Donnell is no my absolute favorite loon right now. Did you know she is also a "Lord of the Rings" scholar? from Salon.com yesterdee.

BTW who has read the really unflattering profile of Newt in Esquire besides me?

Comment by TriSec on 09/17/2010 16:21:59
A couple of lunchtime snippets...

Boston was founded on this date in 1630.

Thomas Selfridge became the first aviation passenger fatality on this date in 1908. (At College Park, for any DC area folks.)

The NFL was founded in 1920.

The Shuttle Enterprise was unveiled in 1976.

And a curiosity, it's listed as this date in 1993 that Soviet/Russian troops finally left Poland. 54 years to the day after they invaded in 1939.



Comment by livingonli on 09/17/2010 16:38:11
Good day everyone.

Not exactly in good spirits right now. With my ongoing financial situation, my car has been impounded for various problems and I may need a good deal of money to make it right. Good thing I live fairly close to my job since I may be carless for a period unless I come into some money especially since I would need more money to buy even a used car of more recent vintage.

I am definitely in a funk right now so it doesn't help.

Comment by Will in Chicago on 09/17/2010 16:46:35
Quote by livingonli:
Good day everyone.

Not exactly in good spirits right now. With my ongoing financial situation, my car has been impounded for various problems and I may need a good deal of money to make it right. Good thing I live fairly close to my job since I may be carless for a period unless I come into some money especially since I would need more money to buy even a used car of more recent vintage.

I am definitely in a funk right now so it doesn't help.


I am so sorry to hear this, livingonli! I wish that I could say something, other than that I am here for you.


Comment by wickedpam on 09/17/2010 16:48:23
Quote by Will in Chicago:
Quote by livingonli:
Good day everyone.

Not exactly in good spirits right now. With my ongoing financial situation, my car has been impounded for various problems and I may need a good deal of money to make it right. Good thing I live fairly close to my job since I may be carless for a period unless I come into some money especially since I would need more money to buy even a used car of more recent vintage.

I am definitely in a funk right now so it doesn't help.


I am so sorry to hear this, livingonli! I wish that I could say something, other than that I am here for you.



Same here liv

Comment by Al from WV on 09/17/2010 17:41:49
Quote by Raine:

Quote by Al from WV:

For those that wish to "return to the Constitution", it begs the question: which version? For an amendment is a change to the Constitution; the "original" one we recognize (with the Bill of Rights added 2 years later) is really rev 1.1...



With that in mind, it also begs the question: which amendments are you willing to get rid of? As one tries to roll time backward, the amendments are slowly removed... There's the one that makes slavery illegal... the one that grants women the right to vote... You can't go back very far before you undo rights that everyone takes for granted nowadays. At one time, such complacency was not so. At one time, these too were radical changes.




Usually, I let this stuff pass. I figure I'm not going to change anyone's mind anyway, so why bother? This idea, however, MUST be refuted.



I cannot imagine ANYONE on the conservative side of the house wanting to remove amendments. "Getting back to the Constitution" does not mean a previous version. Granted, there is one wingnut who has actually said something about modifying one of the amendments, but even that is not removing anything; it is rather amending the amendment (and his stupid idea has not and will not get any traction). "Getting back to the Constitution" means actually going by what it says today, in the words it says it in. A great example of being outside that was the conversation we had two days ago. One other poster here opined that the current voting system was more unconstitutional, based not on the words on the paper, but on an etherial interpretation of the overall sense of what some people thing the overall sense of the Constitution is.



"Return to the Constitution" is NOT about going back to any previous version, so talk of what amendment you would live without is specious and superfluous. It is about actually going by the words that are in the document today, as we speak, and not over stretching phrases like "general welfare" so that their practical meaning is "whatever the people in power want to do." THAT is the current state of affairs seen by many Americans, including me, and THAT is what would be abandoned by "returning to the Constitution."
I have seen more than one person call for modifying more than one amendment. -



More than one person. More than one amendment. It's been written about right here on the blog -- so the claim that no one on the conservative side of the house wants to remove amendments is simply not true. Al, I respect you, but this is a factual misnomer. Take a look here. There are links --- The GOP is making a play to change the constitution.





REPEALING CITIZENSHIP: Numerous GOP lawmakers, including their Senate leader and the most-recent Republican candidate for president, are lining up behind a “review” of the 14th Amendment’s grant of citizenship to virtually all persons born within the United States. Such a proposal literally revives the vision of citizenship articulated by the Supreme Court’s infamous pro-slavery decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford. It has no place in the twenty-first century.



REPEALING CONGRESS’ POWER TO REGULATE THE ECONOMY: The Constitution’s “Commerce Clause” gives national leaders broad authority to regulate the national economy, but much of the GOP has embraced “tentherism,” the belief that this power is small enough to be drowned in a bathtub. The most famous example of tentherism is the ubiquitous frivolous lawsuits claiming that health reform is unconstitutional, but these lawsuits are part of a much greater effort. In his brief challenging health reform, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli claims that Congress is allowed to regulate “commerce on one hand” but not “manufacturing or agriculture.” Cuccinelli’s discredited vision of the Constitution was actually implemented in the late 19th and early 20th century, and it would strike down everything from child labor laws to the federal ban on whites-only lunch counters.



REPEALING CONGRESS’ POWER TO SPEND MONEY: The Constitution also gives Congress power to “provide for the common defense and general welfare,” a broad grant of authority to create federal spending programs such as Social Security. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), however, recently called upon the Supreme Court to rewrite the Constitution’s clear language and repeal parts of the budget he doesn’t like. A Texas GOP official even went so far as to claim that the federal highway system is unconstitutional. Should this GOP vision of the Constitution ever be adopted, it could eliminate not just Social Security, but also Medicare, Medicaid, federal education spending and countless other cherished programs.



REPEALING CONGRESS’ POWER TO RAISE MONEY: The Constitution also gives Congress broad authority to decide how to distribute the tax burden. Thus, for example, Congress is allowed to create a tax incentive for people to buy houses by giving a tax break to people with mortgages, and it is allowed to create a similar incentive for people to buy health insurance by taxing people who have health insurance slightly less than people who do not. Nevertheless, the frivolous assaults on health reform would eliminate this Constitutional power. Many Tea Party Republicans go even further, calling for a full repeal of the 16th Amendment, the amendment which enables the income tax. Paying taxes is never popular, but it would be impossible to function as a nation if America lacked the power to raise the money it needs to pay our armed forces, among other things.



REPEALING EQUALITY: The Constitution entitles all persons to “equal protection of the laws,” a provision that formed the basis of Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision yesterday that California cannot treat gay couples as if they are somehow inferior. Immediately after this decision was announced, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) called upon Congress to “act immediately” to overturn it — something that it could only do through a constitutional amendment. Of course, Newt’s proposal does nothing more than revive President Bush’s call for a constitutional amendment repealing the parts of the Constitution that protect marriage equality.



REPEALING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: As Judge Walker also held, marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. The GOP’s anti-gay amendment would repeal this constitutional protection as well.



REPEALING ELECTION OF SENATORS: Finally, a number of GOP candidates have come out in favor of repealing the 17th Amendment, the provision of the Constitution which requires direct election of senators, although many of these candidates also backed off their “Seventeenther” stand after it proved embarrassing. It is simply baffling how anyone could take one look at the U.S. Senate, and decide that what it really needs is even less democracy.






Hmmm. No. back to my original premise. have a great day.

Comment by BobR on 09/17/2010 18:03:57
Quote by livingonli:

Good day everyone.



Not exactly in good spirits right now. With my ongoing financial situation, my car has been impounded for various problems and I may need a good deal of money to make it right. Good thing I live fairly close to my job since I may be carless for a period unless I come into some money especially since I would need more money to buy even a used car of more recent vintage.



I am definitely in a funk right now so it doesn't help.


When you say "impounded", do you mean towed to a storage lot (for a parking violation or what-have-you)? I ask because those places have daily "storage" fees, so the longer it sits, the more you have to pay to get it out.



Or was it repo-ed?

Comment by Raine on 09/17/2010 18:16:14
Quote by Al from WV:
Hmmm. No. back to my original premise. have a great day.
Well --that was a bit dismissive.

I read your original premise. I also read the blog. I think you have yet to make your issues/premises really clear. PErhaps there is a point that you have not really communicated, I asked you and I will ask again What specifically do you mean by this?
"Return to the Constitution" is NOT about going back to any previous version, so talk of what amendment you would live without is specious and superfluous. It is about actually going by the words that are in the document today, as we speak, and not over stretching phrases like "general welfare" so that their practical meaning is "whatever the people in power want to do." THAT is the current state of affairs seen by many Americans, including me, and THAT is what would be abandoned by "returning to the Constitution."
I showed to you very specific examples of what people are/have been proposing.

That is factual. Dismissing that so lightly is a little insulting.

So, Hmm --- YES -- the original Blog premise stands. Perhaps you have not made your point clear -- and that is why I asked the question,
Seriously, What does getting back to the constitution mean?

That is a far different statement than saying something is NOT constitutional.
Dismiss it all you want, but there is TALK of changing amendments by elected officials -- That is documented.

That is fact.

I do not think you are making your premise well communicated. That is an opinion that I would very much like to see clarified and perhaps even changed by a more clear version of your original premise.








Comment by Mondobubba on 09/17/2010 18:20:12
Comment by Raine on 09/17/2010 18:39:44
Free Speech TV is going to cover the march on October 2!!

Comment by Al from WV on 09/17/2010 19:21:21
Wrong premise, Raine. Sorry it sounded dismissive. I don't want to start a fight because of my original premise: "I'm not going to change anyone's mind."

Take care.

Comment by livingonli on 09/17/2010 20:32:29
Quote by BobR:
Quote by livingonli:
Good day everyone.

Not exactly in good spirits right now. With my ongoing financial situation, my car has been impounded for various problems and I may need a good deal of money to make it right. Good thing I live fairly close to my job since I may be carless for a period unless I come into some money especially since I would need more money to buy even a used car of more recent vintage.

I am definitely in a funk right now so it doesn't help.

When you say "impounded", do you mean towed to a storage lot (for a parking violation or what-have-you)? I ask because those places have daily "storage" fees, so the longer it sits, the more you have to pay to get it out.

Or was it repo-ed?

It was impounded because the car was deemed to be undriveable, I also am late on my registration due to some unpaid parking violations because my old landlady was being bitchy and not allowing me to park in the driveway.and due to my financial situation I had not been able to pay up the parking fines and now I have to get them paid off in order to resolve my registration issues. It's just a question of how much I will have to shell out to straighten everything out. And I forgot to take my employee batch for work which is still in the car.

I really feel like someone just doesn't like me.

Comment by Scoopster on 09/17/2010 22:55:49
Erm.. morning all?

Quote by BobR:
Quote by Raine:
Quote by TriSec:
Jeter is a putz, BTW.

Excuse M MOI?


He faked being hit by a pitch so he could get a walk

BS - The ump called for a HBP before he even started acting. If he didn't turn, he would have been hit, and to be honest he's damned lucky the ball hit the end of the bat and not his wrist.

I don't approve of the acting job he did after the umpire called it a HBP - it was excessive and honestly damned sad for a player of his caliber. But the ump made the call before any of that.

Comment by Scoopster on 09/17/2010 22:57:03
Oh yeah.. what in the heck with the DC rallies!! I was thinkin' about coming down on Oct. 2, but we've got Oct. 30 too?! I don't suppose anyone still has a spare bed available for either one?