Originally posted by dannyfal
reply to post by trace_the_truth
and no one starred trace the truth's posting but me? that was some good research and info people. its basically the reason i started this thread, to
get my ignorant ass to learn
Thanks for the star,
I'm surprised as well that it didn't receive more, or at least another reply. I guess people just don't want to read what they don't want to hear.
You tell someone that the United States is a UNION
and they'll jump down your throats.
"We're not the EU!!!!"
It was actually an internally illegal act to replace the first constitution because the constitution itself did not allow it in the article that I
The alarmingly humorous part is (when you read the replies of the current constitutional sycophants) that it is perfectly legal
to replace the
current one... but then why in the heck
would they even add a clause like the first one had?
It didn't do any good!
. The founding fathers obviously
knew that it could be rescinded if they said it was to be perpetual (forever) or
not because.. gee, what the hell did they just do? Maybe they anticipated that it would be changed.
"Here is your democracy... IF YOU CAN KEEP IT!" - Ben Franklin paraphrased.
... and the following, this is funny, because I've read people saying that States should secede under the name of something or other, sometimes
mentioning Ron Paul and the Federal Reserve - the same people who ironically just LUUUUURVE the current constitution,
Well, what the heck do people think happened with the civil war happened?
The States that seceded the federal government of the United States also seceded... THE CURRENT CONSTITUTION!
They got rid of it, and made their own!
Granted, it had it's similarities and differences - but it was NOT THE SAME.
This is why I sometimes feel sorry for people who say, "That's unconstitutional!!!!" because they fall into two or more groups, which may be:
1) Those who are pedantic to the text. It's all they care about. They are "lawful". They are literalistic, no different from people who take the
bible literally. In a Zen sense, they aren't seeking what the master sought, but are only seeking the master.
2) Those who agree with everything in the current text because it is a manifestation of what they believe to be freedom. This is either a coincidence
or just brainwashing? Either way, it's pretty shallow.
.. but, how can "It's unconstitutional" be relevant to them if it is something they disagree with or don't believe to be inherently a part of
It's as if they think the constitution is STATIC - otherwise, they would come up with something better to say which would be relevant to any possible
manifestation of a constitution... but what?
Anyway, OP. You might like to read this thread:
It was written by a "friend" of mine a few years back. It did not exact receive critical acclaim, nor many intelligent responses. Most were very
I like you OP, because you seem to be a critical thinker. I'm aware of a few web pages out there that go into massive detail about redoing the
constitution, but I couldn't find them right now. Perhaps if I do I will PM you so you can read them.