No turning back. This is a new era...

Ron Paul is looked down upon not because he is not intelligent (he is a DOCTOR, for crying out loud), but maybe because the old way is officially dead. I do not agree with the Constitution being an old piece of paper or a bad idea. But the truth is, it is out-dated.

Many still believe in the Constitution, an probably even still believe in the rights and freedoms afforded to them under it. The old ways are dead, not because they were a bad idea. Hell, some really do believe that there is a Constitution promising certain rights and freedoms that cannot be taken away.

As we have seen, one thing at a time, rights and freedoms HAVE been stripped away from us.

This is a new era that I do not understand. This is a day in time when Mexicans can illegally cross the border, and trespass on a rancher's property then proceed sue him because he was too stupid (for whatever reason) to just blow their head off. Afterall, everyone that is for 2nd amendment rights knows that you cannot be sued by someone that is dead, even though families of criminals have been known to sue.
(ONLY in America, remember?)
I will not name names, but I know a police officer that has advised that if anyone EVER breaks into your house, make sure you shoot them dead, or you WILL be sued -- Either because they got hurt on your property that they attempted to steal, or because your dog thought it would be a good idea to protect his owners and home. I have a dog, and know this is a huge possibility because he is protective of me. (What am I supposed to do, put him down because I am female and he sees it as his job to keep me safe?)

This is an era where a business can run on a platform that does not allow it to sustain itself, and for this the owners are AWARDED instead of being allowed to let their business crumble like in a 'free-market-society'.

The people in charge do not believe that America can be afforded the same rights and freedoms it used to. This is unanimous, and has been voted accordingly, no matter what We The People think or do.

There are some things I do not understand. Like, for one, why America was founded on a platform that can no longer apply today?

-Is it because too many people are too Liberal, and vote consistently for more government control?
-Is it because there are SIMPLY too many people? I mean, have we as a country gotten too overpopulated?
-Is it because someone really is trying to destroy us as a country, for some reason?

We are living in a time when Common Sense is no longer necessary. We are awarded for failure, and criminals are awarded for breaking laws.

Is it time to give up because rights and freedoms are no longer feasible?
I am sick of the fight. My friends feel as I do, and we are in disbelief at the sheer stupidity we are seeing on a daily basis. Anyone else?

Maybe this currently form of government is proof EVOLUTION exists, and could not be avoided, because the old ways are just out-dated.... And no matter what we started at, this is where government evolves each time. Isn't this what historybooks reveal?

The constitution is basic, simple and clearly stated. It is not outdated. It is simply more clear and concise than most people like because it is there for the citizens and not the bureaucracy. It has been manipulated by activist judges, lawyers, special interest and politicians for 200 years.

As far as the rest goes, it comes down to greed and entitlement.
Too many people want wealth, power and control. Too many others are willing to roll over and beg for table scraps because they are lazy and that is the way they vote.

Strangely enough, the majority of citizens do not fall into either of these categories and are therefore ignored unless they vote one way or another. They vote for the lesser evil as they see it. Neither way is really what they actually want.

We need to start fresh with honesty, integrity and everybody working to carry his own weight and pay his own way.

I guess those things are outdated too huh?

Originally posted by badgerprints

We need to start fresh with honesty, integrity and everybody working to carry his own weight and pay his own way.

I guess those things are outdated too huh?

I will agree with you on needing a new start.... Maybe the crumbling of society will get rid of many 'undesirables' that have allowed the system to fail as it already has. Only time will tell.
The well off would start to have problems once they realized their credit card afforded them no advantages.
The already poor would have less to lose, and already know how to survive without comforts.
Ahh, who knows.
As for honesty, integrity and people pulling their own weight -- one look at the news lately will tell me yes, those are outdated qualities in most people.

What does this mean for us though? I think it's obvious the Constitution has been on its way out. Many of us have just been in denial of it, it seems.
Those REALLY in power seem to think only a system like Europe's can sustain itself. But... unless I am mistaken, Europe's financial system is on it's way out, too.

Thanks for the reply. This stuff is driving me into a crazy isolation, and trying to comprehend the end to everything we know is an overwhelming task.

No, the constitution is not outdated. The federal government is only supposed to exist to protect those rights.

Freedom is constantly under attack. Freedom is not free, it is paid for in the currency of blood.

The constitution is only outdated if you feel like freedom is outdated.

The qualities of honesty, integrity, and personal responsibility have been eroded. They are not lost though. People that want others to provide for them when they are perfectly capable of doing so are envious and jealous.

We all must stay vigilant and stand against tyranny. This is the never ending cycle of life.

Originally posted by badgerprints
The constitution is basic, simple and clearly stated. It is not outdated. It is simply more clear and concise than most people like because it is there for the citizens and not the bureaucracy. It has been manipulated by activist judges, lawyers, special interest and politicians for 200 years.

As far as the rest goes, it comes down to greed and entitlement.
Too many people want wealth, power and control. Too many others are willing to roll over and beg for table scraps because they are lazy and that is the way they vote.

Strangely enough, the majority of citizens do not fall into either of these categories and are therefore ignored unless they vote one way or another. They vote for the lesser evil as they see it. Neither way is really what they actually want.

We need to start fresh with honesty, integrity and everybody working to carry his own weight and pay his own way.

I guess those things are outdated too huh?

I have to agree 100% with you badger, There's nothing wrong with the constitution, Just people following the constitution!........ I hope people who are judgmental to this wonderful writ, have read it. The wisdom of our founding fathers greatly surpass the fluoride minds of our century.

The words express freedom not vice or chains, it gives morals and choice not social fascist dictatorship............. Mark my words well. The day our constitution dies is the day we all become slaves.................... I live by these words... " Give me liberty or give me death".

There is nothing wrong with the constitution. It was an agreement of limited power given by the people to the government. They weren't supposed to ignore it as a limited operating agreement. The only issue is that WE fell asleep at the wheel and allowed the government to drive us where they wanted.

If someone thinks it's outdated I'd like to know which part is outdated. Please be specific.

The way the country is and has been run for at least the past 75 years is not in line with the constitution. AT ALL.

Today, they use the general welfare clause as a way of doing anything they want, as long as they say it is "for the good of the people". Meaning, it doesn't really matter if it actually is or not, it just has to be presented that way, and it completely under minds the constitution and limited government.

Article 1, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

This is what they use. However, they assume the general welfare is anything they want as I mentioned before. However, the general welfare is mentioned in 1 other place in the constitution, the preamble, which defines the purpose of the constitution.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.

So part of the constitution is to promote the general welfare. That part would be the amendments. Which can be added too as needed. Because as per the 10th amendment, congress can only do things which are specifically listed.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

So the general welfare clause is not just some open deal that allows them to do whatever they want. And that is the general welfare abuse clause.

Take an issue like universal healthcare. I'm not in favor of it, but the proper way to introduce it would be with an amendment, not the general welfare clause which gives special people certain rights. If they instead added an amendment to the constitution that said "The people shall be provided with basic healthcare", or something to that effect, then automatically it is given to everyone equally. That is the beauty of how the constitution works. I don't think it's a good idea, and I will explain why in another post.

If half of the people in power held the constitution so dear as the general public, there would be no problems... and if pigs could fly, watch till the end

I do not think the constitution needs to be replaced, but, with the people's conscent of course, some things could be better defined for our modern age:

1. The rights of non-citizens who commit crimes in the USA
   
2. the *exact* definition of enforceable church and state sepparation
   
3. A commentary upon how far and in what way personal liberties as defined in the Bill of Rights exist in digital media
   

I feel it necessary to clarify better what I was meaning originally, because in no way was I attacking the Constitution or the idea.

Many people have admitted that times are different now than when the Constitution was written up. Yes, the Constitution is very basic and clear in what it intends, probably what allowed for that "general welfare clause". I do wonder if they took that one to a different meaning completely, to be honest.

But anyway for example, when arguing for new bills that threaten basic Freedom of Speech, many will use the fact that this is a new world. Freedom of speech needs cannot exist in its original form because there are individuals that would harm us?

When arguing against the right to remain armed, the fact that they can be used for murder and other crimes comes into question. I am not sure if the original creators of the Constitution foresaw weapons being used for evil... but that is the argument now.
People with 'children' will often say that we don't need to defend ourselves because their tax dollars pay for police to do it for them... And that firearms being legal, allows criminals to kill people.

STUPID arguments as to why the Constitution is no longer relevant in this day and age.

reply to post by LostNemesis


I think it is worth clarifying what is free speach.

For instance--someone on a web site writes he wants to assasinate a political figure.

At what point does his free speech turn into premeditation?

Having the people's involvement is key, of cours.e

I guess I wonder if my main argument was supposed to be that there are not enough people in support of the Constitution anymore.

Maybe that, within the people in power it has just been generally agreed upon that it doesn't mean anything anymore?

And even if we wanted it back, to define our rights and freedoms, there would not be enough power to turn around the current direction of this country.

Originally posted by LostNemesis
I guess I wonder if my main argument was supposed to be that there are not enough people in support of the Constitution anymore.

Maybe that, within the people in power it has just been generally agreed upon that it doesn't mean anything anymore?

And even if we wanted it back, to define our rights and freedoms, there would not be enough power to turn around the current direction of this country.

Unfortunately many Americans have not read it, or do not understand it if they do, so they assume the COnstitution says a lot of things that it doesn';t, like they assume that church vs. state separation is in ther.e

reply to post by asmeone2


I think that example given is the exact kind of excuse that can be used to take ANY basic right away. The fact that rights can be used for evil, so should not be allowed and should be taken away completely...

Your example is perfect for defining why the Constitution is outdated. It simply leaves too much room for interpretation, and can be used in bad ways if it was allowed to continue unrestricted.

Lol

Well, it can be added too with the Amendments. I would like to see an Amendment that requires every law and bill passed to show exactly where the bill and law is getting it's authority. So when it comes to if the bill is constitutional or not, the people writing the bill will have to show why it is in line with the constitution. This would also speed up the judicial process with the supreme court as the supreme court will just have to look at the claim of how the bill is constitutional and make sure it meets the claim and that it is ok.

If the claim for authority is rejected, then it also in a way stops other bills from forming under the same false authority.

As is currently, someone has to actually object to something before it is reviewed it seems.

I wish they would add an amendment like that.

reply to post by badmedia


I would like to see term limits on congressmen.

Also a descending residency requirement scale for politicians other than the POTUS... you have to live in a place for X long to be governer, senators, state politicians, ect.

reply to post by LostNemesis


it truly is a new era...




-

Maybe the problem is that while the people in some states are all for Constitutional freedoms and rights, people in other states think that the ideals just do not align well with THEIR state.

So that is the dilemma. The old ways ARE outdated in places where jokes can be offensive, and knowing your neighbors are armed immediately puts your kids in danger in your mind.

It still doesn't change the fact that the people wanting to be rid of a Constitution outnumbers the people that want those rights -- Even if maybe it's just the people in power.

reply to post by LostNemesis


It takes 35 states to force change back to the Constitution.
At least pre 1913 to rid of the major problem.

As far as laws go, each state should be like the good old days. Like a country of it own. You know, it's own flavor. Whatever, within reason that the people in that state want.
You will not make all happy, but there would be a wide variety of different places to move to. Every state is like the next anymore. The Fed has so many laws so it makes it all the same.