constitution is getting old..

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by dannyfal
is that not more your opinion than what is actually written in the Declaration of Independence?

How is it opinion?




We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That's what it says.

That's EXACTLY what it says.




posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by eNumbra

What makes a person happy is what's subjective. As long as it doesn't infringe on others, I say okay.


i don't see where it says anything regarding infringing on others rights in the Declaration was all i was trying to point out

even you say "I say ok". just sounds like opinion to me. others could interpret it differently

and you seem to be pretty well educated regarding this stuff, so i'm interested in hearing what you think about thisguyrighthere's idea of shifting the power to smaller bodies of people as opposed to the fed

[edit on 8-7-2009 by dannyfal]

[edit on 8-7-2009 by dannyfal]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   

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 cited.

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 The founding fathers obviously knew that it could be rescinded if they said it was to be perpetual (forever) or not because..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 freedom?

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:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

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 defensive.

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.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by dannyfal

Originally posted by eNumbra

What makes a person happy is what's subjective. As long as it doesn't infringe on others, I say okay.


i don't see where it says anything regarding infringing on others rights in the Declaration was all i was trying to point out

even you say "I say ok". just sounds like opinion to me. others could interpret it differently
That's my fault then for not explaining that I wasn't sharing my opinion; I was explaining in a simplistic way what the Founding Fathers were stating.



and you seem to be pretty well educated regarding this stuff, so i'm interested in hearing what you think about thisguyrighthere's idea of shifting the power to smaller bodies of people as opposed to the fed


I've been for that Idea for a long time now; though I'm not sure if I'd restructure as small as he would. Honestly though, most of the state governments are just as bad as the fed, I know Jersey is. The only way to be sure a multiheaded beast is dead is to cut off ALL of its heads. So restructuring everything; from the federal level on down to at least the county level would almost be a requirement of fixing the current travesty of governance.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by eNumbra

I've been for that Idea for a long time now; though I'm not sure if I'd restructure as small as he would. Honestly though, most of the state governments are just as bad as the fed, I know Jersey is. The only way to be sure a multiheaded beast is dead is to cut off ALL of its heads. So restructuring everything; from the federal level on down to at least the county level would almost be a requirement of fixing the current travesty of governance.


haha well doesn't "restructuring" mean altering the constitution? or did u simply mean kick everyone out of office and replace them with levelheaded people. i'm sure its just the semantics of it, but now it seems like your more on our side then your old viewpoint



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by trace_the_truth

.. 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 freedom?

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?



yeah thats a good point, the constitution is dynamic with the amendments and all. i actually never really considered that amendments could be a better solution than redoing the constitution alltogether

and all that reading you gave me to do finally gives me something to do at work lol thanks



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by eNumbra
 


How does redoing the Constitution fix a government that is in no way following the Constitution?



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtinguish
 


yeah thats kinda why this thread goes to s^&* cause the topic is kind of moot if no one follows the constitution



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by dannyfal

Originally posted by eNumbra

I've been for that Idea for a long time now; though I'm not sure if I'd restructure as small as he would. Honestly though, most of the state governments are just as bad as the fed, I know Jersey is. The only way to be sure a multiheaded beast is dead is to cut off ALL of its heads. So restructuring everything; from the federal level on down to at least the county level would almost be a requirement of fixing the current travesty of governance.


haha well doesn't "restructuring" mean altering the constitution? or did u simply mean kick everyone out of office and replace them with levelheaded people. i'm sure its just the semantics of it, but now it seems like your more on our side then your old viewpoint

"Restructuring" as in restructuring the governing body. As in dismantle all of the excess that has taken hold and get back to what was originally outlined and start over.


Originally posted by Xtinguish
reply to post by eNumbra
 


How does redoing the Constitution fix a government that is in no way following the Constitution?

Where in any of my posts do I suggest such a thing?



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
This is my first post so I'm not allowed to post a new topic, but maybe my question will fit in here and I won't be in 'trouble' for posting off topic.

Obama is already in trouble however and is now at -8 in today's Rasmussen Report.

I wondered a couple of weeks ago why Hilary was Israel bashing and concluded that she was merely taking orders.

Then today I realized that Obama is giving Hilary minimal exposure; where does she go with him?

So let's imagine a scenario.

Obama wants and gets Hilary as Secretary of State so that he can handle her. Even now she's more popular than him in many states. He then not only keeps her out of the limelight, but gives her jobs like Israel bashing to destroy her Jewish support.

Now I'm going to show my ignorance -(

If Hilary resigned, could she run against him in 2012?

My personal feeling is that almost anyone will be able to defeat Obama in 2012 after he's destroyed the US both economically and militarily, but I don't know the election procedure.

Imagine Hilary and Palin fighting it out.

Thanks for any replies and enlightenment,

Mike



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by dannyfal
 





Does anybody else think the constitution needs to be "updated" for current times. I mean I personally think we should do away with it completely, but even changing it would suffice. What are we gonna do in 2000 years (if we're still around...)? Are we going to still go by these laws and rules that clearly aren't working for us anymore? Times have changed, government should adapt to as well.


I'm all for abolishing the Constitution, because it has been used as a tool for enslaving and stripping us of our rights. Usually, what people refer to as the "Constitution" are the ten provisions known as the Bill of Rights, which are somehow completely ignored by the governments of today. These ten provisions were thrown in at the last minute (much to the shegrin of the architects of the Constitution) as a concession to the Southern States that were opposed to it (it was the only way that it would've passed.) Keep the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independance. The rest of the Constitution is nothing but a contratct for the subjugation of the American people, keeping the contracts and debts with our foreign masters alive, and providing for their collection through force. The fact of the matter is that the Federalist architects of the said Constitution were very much against the Bill of Rights and only passed it as a last resort in order to get the parts of the Constitution passed that they needed to get passed. Mainly, the sections that created a powerful centralized Federal government. They planned all along to circumvent the Bill of Rights later down the line, and that is exactly what has happened. All of our Rights were abolished with the passage of the 13th and 14th amendments, during the military dictatorship known as "Reconstruction". Another reason that they had to kill Lincoln. There are several court cases that cite this very fact, just google it.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by dannyfal
Does anybody else think the constitution needs to be "updated" for current times. I mean I personally think we should do away with it completely, but even changing it would suffice. What are we gonna do in 2000 years (if we're still around...)? Are we going to still go by these laws and rules that clearly aren't working for us anymore? Times have changed, government should adapt to as well.


this thread is a joke, care to be any more vauge? i dont know how to aruge your point because you dont even make one. the only problem i see with our constitution situation is that we dont follow it



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by dannyfal
 




constitution is getting old..


To quote an old song...


Originally sung by The Beatles in 1968
You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead

-Revolution


The US Constitution is a dynamic, if not timeless document that is basically the coding for our republic. Go messing with the code, and you can screw up the entire program.

NOTE: Maybe you just need to put on some aps... like less bureaucracy and special interest groups buying their way to our senators and congress people.

...



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   
The constitution doesn't need to be updated it needs to be actually followed. They way things are done today are pretty unconstitutional.

The constitution, if you ever read it, is perfect. Sure there are a lot of things in there that are out of date but the overall workings and rules set behind the divisions of powers if followed properly would have prevented many problems we see today. Esp, the govt bullying policy on states (which they really have no right to do). "Oh you want to legalize pot (which according to the constitution would be a state's choice not the fed)" or "Oh you think they can die for their country they should be able to drink too?" Bye bye highway money! Bye bye federal money!

If anything they need to be more literal with the constitution instead of bending the rules especially with the states!



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
I would also like to add (in case anyone decides to rebut my point) that the constitution specifically states that all powers not specifically listed in the constitution are left to the states.

I'm sure all of you could name a hundred federal laws that are not specifically named in the constitution. Therefore the fed had no right to make those laws in the first place, only the states.

In fact the only actual federal law listed specifically in the constitution is treason. That's it!

Then we leave it to the judicial branch to interpret whether a federal law is constitutional or not when in reality the only federal law that is constitutional is treason!


Then when the states try to make laws that go against federal law (which is the correct way since the federal law shouldn't be there in the first place) they loose funding for necessities. The fed has more power than it is allowed.

The constitution does not need to be revised, it needs to be followed. The states need to get their powers back! We need to review how the fed make's laws and does business!

[edit on 5-8-2009 by DaMod]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by HothSnake
 


have you even read the constitution all the way through?





 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join