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.
originally posted by: BubbaJoe
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.
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?
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
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And yet WHO is the one going around calling the constitution 'outdated'.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.
The ALEC-affiliated Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force (BBATF), which proffered the pledge signed by Cruz, is hoping to meet that 34-state threshold by July 4. BBATF is one player in an astroturf movement backed by the billionaire Koch brothers and embraced by right-wing state legislators.
Tea Partiers, Tenthers, and the corporate sponsors who support them have come up with a variety of ways to circumvent the federal government and bypass the federal regulatory system, including efforts to hold an Article V Convention, commonly called a “Con Con,” to amend the Constitution and the Sen. Ted Cruz(R, TX)-developed plan for use of “interstate compacts” to block federal law.
Oh, the irony!
The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.
While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.
Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people. And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.
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?
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: intrepid
The Entire Bill of Rights, and 14th already says that.
There are no specifics inferred or implied.
Persons/People.
The descriptors used.
originally posted by: intrepid
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.
If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.
Do you really want to get down to semantics? Therefore ya'll should be allowed to carry muskets. Jeez. Is logic vacant in this building?
originally posted by: burntheships
originally posted by: BubbaJoe
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.
Basic rights, unalienable rights that are NOT granted by Government,
nothing better than that. And if rights are not granted to us
by Government, then Government can not take them away.
Too often throughout our history, we have found that "All men are created equal" is not adhered to.
I propose the breakdown is somewhere in the three branches of Government.
Too much political influence, too much special interest money in the tank.
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: intrepid
The Entire Bill of Rights, and 14th already says that.
There are no specifics inferred or implied.
Persons/People.
The descriptors used.
Just for you Neo: the 2nd Amendment
Any right that requires you to take extraordinary measures to access it is no right at all,”
originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: BubbaJoe
Then you get what I'm saying about it being a living document? Not an artifact to be observed?