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Federal Judge: U.S. Constitution Is Outdated, Judges Should Stop Studying It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: 8
62
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: BubbaJoe

Neither the right or left would benefit in the long run.

It has survived for over 200 years, yet only now people seem to be beyond the constraints placed on government dictated by the constitution.




posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: derfreebie

originally posted by: xuenchen
Deluxe comments coming from a U.S. Federal Judge about the U.S. Constitution.

Judge Richard Posner (7th Circuit) says he sees no reason for judges to study the Constitution !!

He claims it's too old and not up with today's culture.

He sees no value in studying any of it.

Sounds like he's really out of touch if you ask me.

I bet Obama agrees 100%.

Federal Judge: U.S. Constitution Is Outdated, Judges Should Stop Studying It


According to 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner in a post published to Slate, U.S. judges should stop studying the Constitution.

“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,” Posner argued.





Priceless gem of a post, X. Bumped all the way to the 9th
if we could do him.. he deserves to be on the 9th Appeals
gang with that gaffe. MAybe a little further east if possible,
like Shanghai.
7th? Is this the same Posner that blew up one day hearing
about it-- and finally shouted
"I will not allow the Constitution in my court!"

Of course he was legally right, because rules of court (aka
'we're going to do as we damned well please') override and
are hierachally superior to anything else. At least until some-
body who didn't have to read the Citizen's Rule Book comes
in with friends and a rope. DISCLAIMER: That'd be just to
tie him into the chair and tickle him until he cheers up...

Personally I for a long time before this saw no value to the
bench by keeping Dick Poser on it. More a liability, and no typo.


Do you have a source? Am being lazy, but read his wiki, and he seems to be a pretty moderate guy.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: BubbaJoe

Neither the right or left would benefit in the long run.

It has survived for over 200 years, yet only now people seem to be beyond the constraints placed on government dictated by the constitution.


I agree, neither would benefit in the long run. My only take on this issue, is that it seems to be the right wing tea party groups pushing for a constitutional convention to protect the 2A, and states rights (1861 anybody), the left is only pushing for equality for all and gun regulation (Ain't gonna do no good), and I do realize that has a few wrinkles in it as well.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: BubbaJoe




Extreme fallacy in your logic if you are equating gun ownership with abortion. I


Is that right ?



“Any right that requires you to take extraordinary measures to access it is no right at all,”


Guess who said that.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: intrepid




It's ALL political. Your problem is that America IS getting more progressive and some can't stand that. 2 choices. Accept or go kicking and screaming.... as it is now. The result will be the same. It'll just take longer.


And yet WHO is the one going around calling the constitution 'outdated'.

Since PROGRESSIVES can't stand THAT.


No, it is the right calling for constitutional conventions.


As a 'right winger' I wonder how come I didn't get an invitation.

I'm sad now.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

So you disagree with a 45 yo law that says abortion IS a right? Because if you do that's hypocrisy of the highest level. Guns for everyone but a woman can't choose how she lives her life.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: BubbaJoe




Extreme fallacy in your logic if you are equating gun ownership with abortion. I


Is that right ?



“Any right that requires you to take extraordinary measures to access it is no right at all,”


Guess who said that.


Except you refuted my argument in no way. Extreme goes way beyond fallacy in your posts.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh . . . yes . . .

"progressive"/REGRESSIVE

all the way back to the values of Babylon and the worship of Molach/satan.

And our culture is rushing there at an accelerating rate.

As directed so tyrannically, yet skillfully by the oligarchy.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: intrepid




It's ALL political. Your problem is that America IS getting more progressive and some can't stand that. 2 choices. Accept or go kicking and screaming.... as it is now. The result will be the same. It'll just take longer.


And yet WHO is the one going around calling the constitution 'outdated'.

Since PROGRESSIVES can't stand THAT.


No, it is the right calling for constitutional conventions.


As a 'right winger' I wonder how come I didn't get an invitation.

I'm sad now.


Tea Party is calling for a constitutional convention, provide evidence to prove me wrong, this is how debate works.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Liquesence

And ?

I Want to know WHAT the problem is with that piece of paper in the 21st c entury.

WHAT do people want changed?


They wanted it interpreted in a way that reflects modern times, as was intended.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: neo96

So you disagree with a 45 yo law that says abortion IS a right? Because if you do that's hypocrisy of the highest level. Guns for everyone but a woman can't choose how she lives her life.




Maybe it's outdated like the whole Constitution.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: neo96

So you disagree with a 45 yo law that says abortion IS a right? Because if you do that's hypocrisy of the highest level. Guns for everyone but a woman can't choose how she lives her life.




That's pretty much it. The 2nd amendment *says* GUNS.

Nothing in the Constitution or its amendments says "abortion" or womens' rights, or...

:/

And that's the strict Constitutionlist argument.

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



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: intrepid

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh . . . yes . . .

"progressive"/REGRESSIVE

all the way back to the values of Babylon and the worship of Molach/satan.

And our culture is rushing there at an accelerating rate.

As directed so tyrannically, yet skillfully by the oligarchy.


You know, you might think you are being clever. Actually those of us who are not fond of the Christian religion, find your BS off topic posts extremely annoying. You have an Asian screen name, I wonder which culture you are speaking of? There are people of many different cultures here on ATS.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Culture & technology might be 100% different 20 years from now,
then what have a new constitution every generation?

This is dangerous thinking, and exactly what the founding
framers saw coming, thinking like that of this "judge".


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



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: neo96

So you disagree with a 45 yo law that says abortion IS a right? Because if you do that's hypocrisy of the highest level. Guns for everyone but a woman can't choose how she lives her life.




That's pretty much it. The 2nd amendment *says* GUNS.

Nothing in the Constitution or its amendments says "abortion" or womens' rights, or...

:/


and when the constitution was written, women were nothing but property.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: neo96

So you disagree with a 45 yo law that says abortion IS a right? Because if you do that's hypocrisy of the highest level. Guns for everyone but a woman can't choose how she lives her life.




That's pretty much it. The 2nd amendment *says* GUNS.

Nothing in the Constitution or its amendments says "abortion" or womens' rights, or...

:/


and when the constitution was written, women were nothing but property.


And they couldn't vote until an amendment TO that Constitution came along.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   
If the Constitution is inviolate why wasn't that put in there. "THIS SHALL REMAIN FOREVER"? Even if it was what does it say about the hundreds of those that came along in future history that saw the need for change? It's a document in flux. Times change. Society changes. The document does as well.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: introvert

Culture & technology might be 100% different 20 years from now,
then what have a new "constitution every generation?

This is dangerous thinking, and exactly what the founding
framers saw coming, thinking like that of this "judge".


You may be correct, but the men that wrote this document in the late 1700's couldn't have possibly visualized our culture and technology today, not even close. While I will agree they wrote an excellent document, and if it was actually adhered to, the US would be the greatest place in the world. Too often throughout our history, we have found that "All men are created equal" is not adhered to.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
If the Constitution is inviolate why wasn't that put in there. "THIS SHALL REMAIN FOREVER"? Even if it was what does it say about the hundreds of those that came along in future history that saw the need for change? It's a document in flux. Times change. Society changes. The document does as well.


I will defend our constitution, have raised my hand and signed my name to do so, it is probably one of the most perfect documents in the world. The problem lies in the interpetation, and somewhere along the lines equality has become to mean only those like you.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: intrepid
If the Constitution is inviolate why wasn't that put in there. "THIS SHALL REMAIN FOREVER"? Even if it was what does it say about the hundreds of those that came along in future history that saw the need for change? It's a document in flux. Times change. Society changes. The document does as well.


I will defend our constitution, have raised my hand and signed my name to do so, it is probably one of the most perfect documents in the world. The problem lies in the interpetation, and somewhere along the lines equality has become to mean only those like you.


Which means that if you lived pre Civil War you would have been fine with hanging runaway slaves? See what I mean about times changing and the Document changes with the times.



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join