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.

 

CNN's Fareed Zakaria says Dump the Constitution!!

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by debunky
reply to post by Advantage
 


So amending something, (Note that some amendments actually change articles) does not change it?


changing/amending it is DUMPING it?? Are you just having fun having a pedantic circular conversation? Well, have it later with me. I have real life things to attend. In that time check out those definitions concerning "amend" and "dump".




posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Realms
 


So you have no counterarguments? Not suprising in the least.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Advantage
 


And who wants to dump the constitution in its entirety?
Not Fareed.
Watch the video. He is talking about, yes, we should alter some things, that aren't working too well.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Shouldn't we try to bring up the laws in other countries? wait, that would mean United states is really the united imperial states of america... hmmm




posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
Interesting that Fareed does not say the same thing for Islam... I wonder why that is!


Maybe for reasons like this:






edit on 23-6-2011 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)


Our Constitution is the only reason this guy has a job.

CNN what a joke. Look at Elliot Spitzer. They will give anybody a job.

Look at HLN with Nancy Disgrace. Their entire network is despicable.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Lets look at what Fareed really said, shall we?




But our constitution has been revised 27 times, some of these revisions being enormous and important, such as the abolition of slavery. Then there are areas that have evolved. For example, the power of the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, is barely mentioned in the document. This grew as a fact over history.

But there are surely some issues that still need to be debated and fixed. The electoral college, for example, is highly undemocratic, allowing for the possibility that someone could get elected as president even if he or she had a smaller share of the total national vote than his opponent.

The structure of the Senate is even more undemocratic, with Wisconsin's six million inhabitants getting the same representation in the Senate as California's 36 million people. That's not exactly one man, one vote.

And we are surely the only modern nation that could be paralyzed as we were in 2000 over an election dispute because we lack a simple national electoral system.

Read more: newsbusters.org...


Edit to add:
And I just listened to Levin "schooling" Fareed. I have to admit he makes one valid argument (That the senate is supposed to be one state one vote, not one man one vote) [Thats the only part of Fareeds argument he adresses directly]
Other than that he is basically ranting. But the part that had me laugh out loud was when he explained how the 3/5th compromise came to be: According to him the states with slavery were against counting slaves, and the ones without were for it ... So much for schooling.
edit on 23-6-2011 by debunky because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
this is incredible, and I'm surprised no one has mentioned it yet, sorry if it has but,

...Lets not operated under the rules of the constitution and then complain that it doesn't work


YOU CAN'T, NOT FOLLOW THE RULES AND THEN SAY THE RULES DON'T WORK

there is nothing wrong with this country besides the morons running it

(i know double negative)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by vlady95
 


I think he is right the constitution probally could use a bit of modernization, but they should let me and few people I pick to rewright the constitution. Thats what it comes down to who you alow to do this modernization of the constitution.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by all answers exist


YOU CAN'T, NOT FOLLOW THE RULES AND THEN SAY THE RULES DON'T WORK


(i know double negative)





you don't know nothing.
What we have here is:
The Blaze putting words into Fareeds mouth. (He never said dump the constitution)
Then editing out the part where he really says what he thinks is up for discussion.
What do you think is the purpose of the electoral college? Isn't it a relic born out of 18th century bookkeeping and communications problems?
What do you think would be the impact of a federal election law be on voter fraud? Does it make any sense to you that when I vote for the POTUS in florida I have to jump to different hoops first than when I vote in Nevada?
Do you really think these topics should be out of bounds, for discussion? If so, let me restate the question: What is the purpose of the electoral college?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
I do want two major amendments to the Constitution.

# 1) Citizens have the right to take any medications they choose, and can not be forced to take medications by the government.

# 2) Corporations will never be considered equal to citizens (persons), and will never be allowed to usurp those legal rights again.

We REALLY need these two Amendments pronto!



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
I do want two major amendments to the Constitution.

# 1) Citizens have the right to take any medications they choose, and can not be forced to take medications by the government.



YAY BROTHER LEGALIZE IT!



Originally posted by muzzleflash

# 2) Corporations will never be considered equal to citizens (persons), and will never be allowed to usurp those legal rights again.

We REALLY need these two Amendments pronto!


While I agree with you that there have to be limitations (Citizens united) the artififcial person has some advantages. I don't think that is a topic that should be regulated on a constitutional level.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by annonymous1234
 


This is blatant and direct hate speech. By you invoking his full name is shades of racism. Remember when the Baggers invoked his full name and were called out on it? Same applies to you, no exceptions.

Now get over yourself and actually post something constructive or not at all.

Instead of trying to attack you I will pray for you as you clearly need it.
edit on 23-6-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
I guess the Magna Carta (written 1215 ?) is outdated as well. It's just the cornerstone of democracy and the basis for the Constitutiton.

Irrelavent people like Fareed should monitor their meds more closely. The guy is insane.
edit on 23-6-2011 by beezzer because: (no reason given)


Actually yes, the Magna Carta is a good example of an outdated, irrelevant document. it has historical value, but legally, it has all the validity as a papal charter for a German state.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   
He wants to dump the very document that allows him to make idiotic comments?
Careful what you wish for Fareed, it just might get replaced with something else that won't allow you to get away with crap that comes out of your pie hole.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by beezzer
I guess the Magna Carta (written 1215 ?) is outdated as well. It's just the cornerstone of democracy and the basis for the Constitutiton.

Irrelavent people like Fareed should monitor their meds more closely. The guy is insane.
edit on 23-6-2011 by beezzer because: (no reason given)


Actually yes, the Magna Carta is a good example of an outdated, irrelevant document. it has historical value, but legally, it has all the validity as a papal charter for a German state.


It may turn 800 in 2015 but it is still releveant as if you get rid of that you might as well get rid out judges, lawyers, juries, prosecutors, stenographers, baliffs, court officers because the doc made sure that we all are tried fair and have an avenue to explain our side of things without being killed for daring to speak out. Kangaroo courts and military triibunal's would be the norm if we got it. Plus one other thing to never ever forget, without Magna you could be put to death for stealing a 75c candy bar but since we have hit the maximum punishment is like a $150 fine plus court fees.
edit on 24-6-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
I do want two major amendments to the Constitution.

# 1) Citizens have the right to take any medications they choose, and can not be forced to take medications by the government.

# 2) Corporations will never be considered equal to citizens (persons), and will never be allowed to usurp those legal rights again.

We REALLY need these two Amendments pronto!


1 can be added to the 1st and the other can be added to Article 7 or 8.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Jordan River
 


Jordan, stop yourself short for a moment, until the united states had a constitution for its citizens every country was just a monarch from the english, or a trible group, truethfully , america has set the stage for every one to have a bill of rights for its citizens even if it was not in a constitutional form. if you do not believe me just look at the northern countries that accepted a constitution since ours

now we have this f monkey wanting to change our constitution


again my question our supreme court has imprisioned people for throwing out flyers from a window in wwII now we have this azz clown wanting to throw out the first constitution for the citizens. where in the hell is the congress



pretty simple, throw this buzzard out, and let lady gaga in



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by annonymous1234
 


This is blatant and direct hate speech. By you invoking his full name is shades of racism. Remember when the Baggers invoked his full name and were called out on it? Same applies to you, no exceptions.

Now get over yourself and actually post something constructive or not at all.

Instead of trying to attack you I will pray for you as you clearly need it.
edit on 23-6-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)


Blatant and direct hate speech? Are you kidding me? I'm racist by calling somebody by their name? That does not make any sense. I guess the next time that somebody says my full name I should tell them that they're speaking out of hate. I guess google is also racist for providing the information on Barack Hussain Obama's full name. Oops I just did it again. I guess I'm racist. COME ON.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by annonymous1234

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by annonymous1234
 


This is blatant and direct hate speech. By you invoking his full name is shades of racism. Remember when the Baggers invoked his full name and were called out on it? Same applies to you, no exceptions.

Now get over yourself and actually post something constructive or not at all.

Instead of trying to attack you I will pray for you as you clearly need it.
edit on 23-6-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)


Blatant and direct hate speech? Are you kidding me? I'm racist by calling somebody by their name? That does not make any sense. I guess the next time that somebody says my full name I should tell them that they're speaking out of hate. I guess google is also racist for providing the information on Barack Hussain Obama's full name. Oops I just did it again. I guess I'm racist. COME ON.



wow!



haven't heard that before!!

this guy is from where? what should we call him, btw?

barrack hussein obama that is
edit on 24-6-2011 by fooks because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


Actually as recently as 1900, The UK had the death penalty for theft of value of 40 shillings or more. So the kind and goodly judges kept finding people guilty of stealing 39 shillings worth of good - which carried a penalty of internment and forced labor, often part and parcel with exile to Australia or Barbados.

I'm sure hte Magna Carta was often cited.

It's a dead document. It's been superseded by, as you noted, eight hundred years of lawmaking in dozens of countries. It mostly pertains to what a monarch cn or cannot do, and with the decline of the monarchy, it has fallen even further from validity.

Go on. Cite the Magna Carta as precedent in a US court of law. Dare ya. It doesn't work.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join