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.
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?
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.
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*
Quote by Raine:
I kinda like the fact that Elizabeth Warren is going to create and set up the department.
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.
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.
Quote by TriSec:
Jeter is a putz, BTW.
Quote by Raine:Quote by TriSec:
Jeter is a putz, BTW.
Excuse M MOI?
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."
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.
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
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."
Quote by Raine:
Ahh -- and I am sure NO BoSox player NEVER EVER did that?
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.
Quote by Raine:
Human Mouse Hybrids.
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.
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.
Quote by Raine:I have seen more than one person call for modifying more than one amendment. -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."
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.
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.
Quote by Al from WV:
Hmmm. No. back to my original premise. have a great day.
"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."
Seriously, What does getting back to the constitution mean?
That is a far different statement than saying something is NOT constitutional.
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?
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