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Federal Judge: U.S. Constitution Is Outdated, Judges Should Stop Studying It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: 9
62
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96



And yet WHO is the one going around calling the constitution 'outdated'.

Since PROGRESSIVES can't stand THAT.


How is it that the word progressive confuses you?

:-)

Is the Constitution perfect?




posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

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

WHAT about the constitution needs changed?



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:41 PM
link   

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.


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



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:43 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?


Not necessarily changed but "defined" to guarantee this for ALL:


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.


www.archives.gov...

That's the preamble of what you are talking about. The SCOTUS is intrinsic to making sure that it remains so for ALL people.

The 50's were a great time for industrial America. Helluva time for white males too. That HAD to come to an end. Unless one desires those times again one has to accept that the document needs "defining" for those stuborn people that don't accept other. Sad but true.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:47 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:47 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.


True.

Corporate America Is Just 6 States Short of a Constitutional Convention


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.


Ted Cruz & ALEC: Seceding from the Union One Law at a Time


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.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy


Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”


Oh, the irony!

How is that ironic?

The Constitution is constantly being reexamined and interpreted - the freedom to do just that is built in

You want to call this man a traitor? Because he believes that we can question the validity of our Constitution?

Is it a religious document then? Is our law religious law?

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation

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.


edit on 6/28/2016 by Spiramirabilis because: double negatives - my favorite :-)



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:48 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'm not aware anyone here said it should be "changed" insofar as amendments, but interpreted to reflect more modern times as it was meant, to adapt to changing society.

And the SCOTUS, of course. Which interprets.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:50 PM
link   

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.


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?



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:51 PM
link   

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.


The constitution never allowed for hanging runaway slaves, so not good with that. Part of my family has been in North America since 1621, and through both public and private sources am a student of American History. I have lost family members on both sides of every war this country has fought, including WWII.

The Declaration of Independence declared that all me are created equal, that was not true in 1776, nor true in the United States in 2016, that is the only thing worth fighting for.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

from your quote...




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.


That about sums up where we currently are. Woe to us, we won't be able to recover I am afraid.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: desert

A new Constitutional Convention

with the clout of the oligarchy's propaganda powers and influences

would be

ABSOLUTELY DISASTROUS!

The lowest common denominator of satanic tyrannical oligarchic globalist liberalism would likely reign.

That is already in the script anyway--so I won't be that surprise if it goes that route.

Sigh.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid




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?


That same 'logic' would mean that we would ALL Be using paper, pencils, and books here instead of smart phones,computers, and the internets.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96



I'll ask you then since no one has answered thus far. WHAT about the constitution needs changed?


Anything that doesn't work for us now

Simple

Just for you Neo: the 2nd Amendment



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

and you can only speak your mind on pen and paper, or in the town square






posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:55 PM
link   

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.



No the actual breakdown is the bigots and haters in our country. Outside of that all men and women would be created equal.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:57 PM
link   

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.


You don't seem to be able to comprehend, when those documents were written, there were still slaves in the US, how did the document apply to all?



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: BubbaJoe

Then you get what I'm saying about it being a living document? Not an artifact to be observed?



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis




Just for you Neo: the 2nd Amendment


Likewise.



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


HRC.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 09:03 PM
link   

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?



I fully believe it is a living document, sorry if I didn't make myself clear earlier. I am in whole hearted agreement with this judge, until all are equal in the USA, I will continue my fight.



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join