It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Federal Judge: U.S. Constitution Is Outdated, Judges Should Stop Studying It

page: 10
62
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

No the actual breakdown is the bigots and haters in our country.


Two different things, but even after we had the 13th, 14th, and
15th Amendments your example is is why changing The Constitution
based upon culture would be disastrous.

Look at this current society, hate and discrimination
are rewarded and lauded in Hollywood. Music culture
encourages violence, political correctness in all its
hypocrisy....examples of yes there are problems in
society but changing The Constitution will not fix this.



Outside of that all men and women would be created equal.


Governments will always gravitate to elevate the rich, looking at
any 1st world country will tell you that much, which is one reason
why the framers based the language on unalienable rights.
They did not want to create a government that would end up
being the cause of another Revolution, cant have those too
often too many lives lost.






edit on 28-6-2016 by burntheships because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Sounds like he was involved in Scalias no-foul-play murder.

AGAIN - Death by a thousand cuts.

There is a concerted effort to erode and attack the Constitution by those entrusted to protect it. I've been observing this since Bush Snr.


"I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution"


This exact same sentiment is shared by tens of millions around the world in regards to the US governments very existence - it too then is an outdated thing, full of dinosaurs and having no relevance or understanding of todays world.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

No the actual breakdown is the bigots and haters in our country.


Two different things, but even after we had the 13th, 14th, and
15th Amendments your example is is why changing The Constitution
based upon culture would be disastrous.

Look at this current society, hate and discrimination
are rewarded and lauded in Hollywood. Music culture
encourages violence, political correctness in all its
hypocrisy....examples of yes there are problems in
society but changing The Constitution will not fix this.



Outside of that all men and women would be created equal.


Governments will always gravitate to elevate the rich, looking at
any 1st world country will tell you that much, which is one reason
why the framers based the language on unalienable rights.
They did not want to create a government that would end up
being the cause of another Revolution, cant have those too
often too many lives lost.







I have never claimed I want to change the constitution, I want the government and public to live up to all that is promised in the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. There are groups within the US that have beefs with other groups, but the only ones calling for outright revolution is the extreme right. They seem to believe they have the support of all of the LEO's, and Current, and Former Military. Unfortunately, they are sadly mistaken, and would be slaughtered in a short amount of time. We have seen how well this militia crap has worked with the Bundy's, hmm seems they are all in jail.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 09:18 PM
link   
what religion is this guy? what ethnicity is the posner name? anyone know?



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

You misunderstand Neo

Reinterpreting the 2nd amendment wouldn't be about access - it would be about reexamining the nature of the word right

I'm not really here to start a brawl over 2nd amendment rights - it's been done to death

What I'm trying to do is show you that we have the freedom - freedom - to change not only how we view things, but how we choose to live with those things

This is what true freedom is

Nothing is set in stone



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I'll ask you then since no one has answered thus far.

WHAT about the constitution needs changed?



I will answer with my own opinion.

There should be an amendment that would nullify the corporations are people ruling which would limit political contributions from both corporations and unions.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: dantanna
what religion is this guy? what ethnicity is the posner name? anyone know?


Based on wikipedia, he is a jew born in NYC.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: dantanna
what religion is this guy? what ethnicity is the posner name? anyone know?


IDK personally but earlier someone said he was Jewish. Makes sense. Pretty accepting people.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I'll ask you then since no one has answered thus far.

WHAT about the constitution needs changed?



I will answer with my own opinion.

There should be an amendment that would nullify the corporations are people ruling which would limit political contributions from both corporations and unions.



amen, we need to get big money out of our elections



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis




Reinterpreting the 2nd amendment wouldn't be about access - it would be about reexamining the nature of the word right


Finally we get to the truth of the matter.

REDEFINING RIGHTS.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi




There should be an amendment that would nullify the corporations are people ruling which would limit political contributions from both corporations and unions.


Well then what are you going to do for a job, and what are you going to do for a home,cars, and everything else we use on a daily bases ?



Corporate personhood is the legal notion that a corporation, separately from its associated human beings (like owners, managers, or employees), has some, but not all, of the legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by natural persons (physical humans).[1] For example, corporations have the right to enter into contracts with other parties and to sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons.


en.wikipedia.org...

Careful what you wish for you just might not like what you get.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96




Finally we get to the truth of the matter.

REDEFINING RIGHTS.


Be not afraid little neo

This is a good thing

:-)



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Academically, the US Constitution is considered outdated. It is the shortest and oldest constitution in effect.

news.bbc.co.uk...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe

I'm not sure why people believe the US Constitution is sacred and infallible like believers in the Bible lore.

I was under the impression that people here would approach such an issue intellectually.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: neo96




Finally we get to the truth of the matter.

REDEFINING RIGHTS.


Be not afraid little neo

This is a good thing

:-)



That didn't work out too well for the pushers of the 'second bill of rights'.

Another 'progressive'.

Which really isn't progressive at all.

Some people just like to keep recycling the same tired ideas.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   
How about we have an amendment that says no Corporation can donate, and individuals can only donate 2500. The we declare superpacs illegal, and incinerate them all.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Sounds like Venezuela.

Hmmm.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Spiramirabilis




Reinterpreting the 2nd amendment wouldn't be about access - it would be about reexamining the nature of the word right


Finally we get to the truth of the matter.

REDEFINING RIGHTS.


YES!!!! You finally get it. They have to be defined for those that will not accept anything other than their own, incorrect, interpretation of the Constitution. AGAIN..... the need for the SCOTUS.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Arizonaguy

It drives me a little crazy

We're human - our judges are human. We are all political creatures

You have Scalia - then you have Ginsberg - as just two examples. Both appointed by different people with different political philosophies and goals. I like to believe that the magic and honesty can only come out of the mix, but it's not a perfect system

There is no perfect system



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I was pretty specific about singling out the political contribution implications allowed by corporate personhood.

I didn't realize you were supportive of unlimited money being injected into elections by corporations and Unions.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 09:40 PM
link   
The whole "constitution is outdated" argument is one of the most ignorant arguments against the constitution there is. Do some folks really believe that when writing the constitution they weren't smart enough to realize that innovation happens? Some folks want to apply critical thinking to the topic, so let's do it.

Of course the writers of the constitution didn't know, or even could've known, what kind of advancements would be made. Maybe, just maybe, it's the whole reason they wrote a few of the amendments in an all encompassing way. It was by purpose the words were written in "vague" way. So no matter what breakthroughs, innovations, or technological advancements might be made, rights remain intact.

There's no way that the founding members could've predicted the internet for instance. That's why the first doesn't just say newspapers and letters. There's no way the founding members could've predicted assault weapons. That's why the second doesn't just say flintlock pistols and black powder rifles.

All encompassing is just that, all encompassing. The whole argument stating that the founding fathers just couldn't have known just doesn't float. It's a pathetic argument.
edit on 6/28/2016 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join