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Federal Judge: U.S. Constitution Is Outdated, Judges Should Stop Studying It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: 13
62
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 12:50 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I agree. While the Constitution is great and all, there's really no reason to adhere to it as an ironclad doctrine as if it was handed down from God. If you can't constantly defend and rationalize why certain parts of it should be there, the debate should be open to removing or changing them. The same is true for adding rights.

On that note, I'm of the opinion that creating a Bill of Rights has done more to reduce the rights of citizens than it has ever done to increase them. Whenever there's a call for something like a right to travel, or health care, or electronic privacy there is always a loud opposing voice saying that it's not in the Constitution and therefore not a right, so the people shouldn't have it. Over time, that voice has denied the public from a lot of rights and ironically enough given the government more power, despite the Constitutions focus on trying to place checks and balances on Government reach.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Nyiah

He said all the Amendments are garbage too.



They are. Not because of content, but because of what they represent... in particular the first 10.

They never should have been added, policy could have been shaped through public expectations and pressure from the states. This is one area where the Anti Federalists were 100% correct. The Bill of Rights has worked completely counter to the intentions of those who founded the country, and counter to the interests of the public.
edit on 29-6-2016 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 01:09 AM
link   
We might as well reinvent the wheel while we're at it. It may have worked for those Romans, but this is the current year.

Because something is old does not refute its use. The reasoning is nonsense.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 01:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
So you agree with GUILTY until Proven innocent sans trail by courts of law.


Looking up a criminal record before selling someone a gun is not "guilty until proven innocent".

If they are denied a firearm because they failed a background check, they were literally found guilty already.

How exactly are you supposed to use the presumption of innocence on someone who was already found guilty?
edit on 29-6-2016 by DeadFoot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 01:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
We might as well reinvent the wheel while we're at it. It may have worked for those Romans, but this is the current year.

Because something is old does not refute its use. The reasoning is nonsense.


Yea, the Romans had it spot on.

I'm taking the tires off my car tomorrow and putting in wooden ones with spokes.

And if they don't wobble and break every 3 miles, I'm taking them back.

'Murica.
edit on 29-6-2016 by DeadFoot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 01:34 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadFoot

People haven't evolved as much as automobiles have, as far as I am aware. But to further explain the expression, there is no need to change something that already works.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 01:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: DeadFoot

People haven't evolved as much as automobiles have, as far as I am aware. But to further explain the expression, there is no need to change something that already works.


So you didn't read the article.

Do tell me of your wisdom about it.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 01:57 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadFoot

I did read the article. A constitution doesn't need to change because people use newer technology or have a changing culture.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 02:00 AM
link   
I am currently fighting a dozen court battles to protect my violated rights, I have enumerated roughly 200 rights violated on over 500 occasions by our government in less than 1.5 years, and can cite the Constitution in respect of each one while articulating exactly how it was violated and how other instruments, customs, principles, precedents, etc, are being violated.

I study the Constitution, why it was created, how it works, it's history, how the courts interpreted it (and they made tons of mistakes in those interpretations), and am even branching into state constitutions.

I study the global history of law, from Sumerian to Egyptian, Greek, Roman, French, German, English, Chinese, Mongolian, medieval, the Enlightenment, the Revolutions, socialism and communism, international treaties, and the modern US law from rules of procedure to statutory, regulatory, etc etc etc....

I could tell you guys so many important things that you need to know. A few of you appear somewhat informed, but the vast majority of you certainly need to know a lot of things to get a better grip on all of this.

I have read several articles by, and an entire book of other pieces by Mr Posner. I am blown away he said this, and also reassured, because I know I'm gonna be able to make a huge difference one day soon.

I'll go from Moses to Cicero, the Talmud vs Jesus, Solon, the 12 tables, the Khans, Justinian, the glossators, the Magna Carta, Confucius vs the Legalists, Sharia, Indian, Canon, the revolutions, Marxism, Hobbes, Kant, Locke, Montisque, Madison, Jay, Hamilton, Coke, Jefferson, Rousseau, Grotius, Napoleon, Lords and Justices, to Geneva n Vienna n the League of Nations to the UN, EU, OAS, CIS, Adam Smith, Equity n Estoppel, Contracts, whatever you name it - I'm into it.

You should study EVERYTHING from fictional literature to art to culture to the sciences to religions and philosophy.

And you damn sure should be studying the Constitution.

I will soon begin a series teaching what I have learned and continue to learn. I still wonder and have thousands of new questions so it's always a work in progress.

I have a strong motive - my future depends on winning my court battles. I barely got started, I'll be fighting for years, and I'll loot the treasury legally, I'll fix the government one piece and person at a time, and I'll share my education with all of you - in due time.

The Law is read from the Light of the Heart, but to open your Heart is very difficult. It's intuitive. Your mind must be clear. Light is Knowledge.

This will take a long time, and a lot of threads, hearings in court, and backhands; but I have already plotted the course, and I fight Tyranny on the front lines, on the streets and in the courts and online.

I will answer any questions to the best of my abilities, so in the meantime ask. I will help if possible.

Modern American Law is the most complicated of all systems ever historically, as I see it, but yet it's so simple if you know some basics.

There's no way to know everything, you just gotta know how to figure out what you need to know when you need it.

Anyways, I know most are allergic to a wall of text, but dammit improve your tolerance, the future of civilization depends on it. Read books. They are mountains of text. My post is tiny.

I am here to put you all to shame, and I will, slowly but surely. I'm doing it to share power and strengthen everyone around me.

I gotta prepare for a hearing in civil on Thursday morning, I don't even know what might happen. It'll be Chaos because I seek Order, so maybe this weekend I'll try to get a thread or two up if I have time. I'm sorry that I'm so busy, because I have so many gifts to share and some of you desperately need a few tips as bad as I need it.

And Mr. Posner, I hope you find out about this, because if anyone can, I'll make you eat the words you said about not studying and educating yourself (about anything), as everything is important in it's own context and relates to everything else in one way or another.

You taught me, now I'll teach you.

Get ready for the All New Muzzleflash...



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 02:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: DeadFoot

I did read the article. A constitution doesn't need to change because people use newer technology or have a changing culture.


Oh, perfect.

I'll go buy my nuke tomorrow, then.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 02:16 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadFoot

Laws are already in place that have been interpreted and created legally so NO WMDs.
Small arms only ,the last fully automatic M16 I saw, costs about 13K.
Better stick with sporting arms,that aren't fully automatic,they get REAL upset when you get one on your own.
edit on 29-6-2016 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 02:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: DeadFoot

Laws are already in place that have been interpreted and created legally so NO WMDs.


Are they legal, though?

"Shall not be infringed", after all.

It is my right to nuclear arms; it's clear as day.




posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 02:34 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadFoot

Overthrow them.


You might not have long to wait..www.theguardian.com...=_[editby ]edit on 29-6-2016 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 02:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: yuppa

Not really. It's not very clear. That's why states have been able to impose restrictions.


No the states have imposed restrictions over stepping their bounds. they are defying constitutional law and doing so because the sheep dont pay attention.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 03:22 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I don't think Obama agrees with this guy, sorry... what about the Republicans who pushed for the Patriot Act?
edit on 29amWed, 29 Jun 2016 03:22:35 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 03:54 AM
link   


No the states have imposed restrictions over stepping their bounds. they are defying constitutional law and doing so because the sheep dont pay attention.


Or they are able to do it because most gun owners aren't near-sighted enthusiasts who feel their rights are being violated and that the whole country is being defiled when they are told they have to go somewhere other than their local Walmart to buy an Uzi.
edit on 29-6-2016 by DeadFoot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 04:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: DeadFoot

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: DeadFoot

Laws are already in place that have been interpreted and created legally so NO WMDs.


It is my right to nuclear arms; it's clear as day.


That's another stupid argument against the 2nd amendment.

Why can't I own nuclear weapons? The Second Amendment guarantees it!



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 05:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
Here is what he said:


And on another note about academia and practical law, I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries—well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments). Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today. David Strauss is right: The Supreme Court treats the Constitution like it is authorizing the court to create a common law of constitutional law, based on current concerns, not what those 18th-century guys were worrying about. In short, let's not let the dead bury the living.


I'd say he actually has a point.

www.slate.com... ed_more_practical_experience.html?wpsh_all_mob_tw_top


Of course he has a point Introvert, you're right on target. One that all of these armchair quarterbacks can't see. You have current lawmakers trying to interpret the intent of people living in the 1700's and 1800's, all the while trying to keep up with modern changes while writing amendments that they think will be relevant. If they were relevant, the law would not always be at least one step behind the people breaking it, thus making it necessary to write laws that people already broke. How f'ing retarded is that? A legal system always playing defense will never win. It would be the other way around if the legal system were up to par, and it never will be as long as you have a 200+ year old legal document as your baseline. Lawyers everywhere are quietly agreeing with what that judge said while knee deep in their gin and tonic.

Take the basic premise of the constitution, democracy, and draft laws based on current needs by people who understand current needs. NOT politicians. They're idiot savants whoring for cash. Don't try to string along the past ideals, of slave owners who wrote by candlelight and then walked home because cars weren't even thought of yet, so you can weave them into the fabric of modern society. Keep doing that and American society will keep deteriorating ( What? You people think it's getting better?) because I haven't seen one magician yet come out of Washington who is capable of THAT.

I swear to God, you people here who berate and ridicule Washington in one breath, will turn around and defend them with their "noble democratic ideals" with your next breath if it suits your own personal agenda.

Get your s**t straight.


edit on 29-6-2016 by DeepImpactX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 05:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: DeadFoot

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: DeadFoot

Laws are already in place that have been interpreted and created legally so NO WMDs.


It is my right to nuclear arms; it's clear as day.


That's another stupid argument against the 2nd amendment.

Why can't I own nuclear weapons? The Second Amendment guarantees it!


That's a very stupid article.

Firstly, he's exasperating some serious gymnastics to imply that the founding fathers intended it for one person to one person self defence.

And it's also not a straw man because the amendment is "right to bear arms shall not be infringed". Nuclear arms = arms. Against am oppressive government who has nuclear arms, why can't I? It's an analogy.

Secondly, I'm not arguing against the second amendment when my argument would be that you shouldn't be able to buy guns where kids can shop for toys, and I know many on here who screamed to the heavens about how the country was being destroyed when certain business have such restrictions.
edit on 29-6-2016 by DeadFoot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Hey - I like rights. I mean I'm not a minority without them or anything... but are we supposed to use rules conceptualized in 1700s colonial America, completely untouched, as if the red coats and Injuns were still outside wanting our heads, thousands of years into the future?

People shriek at the idea of even thinking about amending an amendment?

I'm not saying sweeping changes and TAKING MUH GUNS GAHH but it's like we can't even THINK about it without people losing their minds.

Are we that stuck in the past?

Isn't that like using 200+ year old motherboard wondering why all the cards you cram into it don't work properly?



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Hmmm...Appointed by President Ronald Reagan!...That liberal bastard!



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
62
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join