As with anything that the mentally challenged do not understand then they say it is “in the Constitution” and if they disagree then they totally ignore any constitutional value…..there are even some politicians that carry a pocket copy of the document and wipe it out whenever they try to make a lame point…..and at one point the GOp after taking control opf Congress passed a deal that the Constitution reference would be attacked to every bill……that like all things GOP went like the Do-Do……
I have even heard of one judge that said there was “no value” in studying the Constitution….that ought to get him in some sort of trouble with the Repubs…….
Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner stated Friday that he sees “no value” in studying the U.S. Constitution.
Posner, a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, alleges in an op-ed for Slate that there is “absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation” because he believes the founding document is no longer relevant to contemporary society.
“Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century,” Posner argues, adding, “the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today.”
Source: ‘Absolutely no value’ in studying Constitution, federal judge says
My thought is that we either take the Constitution as written or we change it……I will agree with this judge that it does need to be modernized to bring it into the 21st century.
But can you imagine the total bullsh*t that would transpire with a Constitutional Convention?
What would you say about this idea?
I have always been fascinated with the way Libertarians think….I will admit that some of their stuff I can get on-board with….like the non-interventionism thing……I am not so sure about their economic outlook….I seems to me that it would allow the ideology to rape the poor worker and the country…..on economics I disagree and on social I tend to agree somewhat but not totally…..
This is an interesting piece that I thought my reader would like to read……it is an elective and not meant to be a required piece……
Hardcore libertarians sometimes criticize me because of my focus on the Constitution and political action at the state level to limit federal power. They argue that the American constitutional system will never bring about liberty, and that by working through government at any level, I undermine the cause of freedom.
I am sympathetic to the idea that “where government begins, your freedom ends,” and I believe some of the hardcore libertarians philosophical objections to the Constitution have merit. But to quote Murray Rothbard, “Libertarians must come to realize that parroting ultimate principles is not enough for coping with the real world.”
Source: Decentralization: A Strategy For Liberty | Michael Maharrey
Does anyone have any thoughts about Libertarians? Please do not start with the Ayn Rand stuff…..I prefer to concentrate on the ideology and not that of a the drug addict with a big mouth….thank you.
As an opponent for most wars…I am always looking at the reasons why we go to war and why the American people turn a blind eye to it. (and yes I know all about the M-IC)…..
Now a days when the US goes to war it is not paid for by any stretch of the imagination…..the process skirts Congress and the representatives allow it to be so…..the Constitution addresses war and the Congress is suppose to authorize the action taken…..but for decades that whole process has been ignored…..and by the very people that claim the Constitution is sacred and must be followed to the letter. (I guess that means only the parts you agree with and f*ck the rest of the document)
How the United States Became a Prisoner of War and Congress Went MIA,
Let’s face it: in times of war, the Constitution tends to take a beating. With the safety or survival of the nation said to be at risk, the basic law of the land — otherwise considered sacrosanct — becomes nonbinding, subject to being waived at the whim of government authorities who are impatient, scared, panicky, or just plain pissed off.
The examples are legion. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln arbitrarily suspended the writ of habeas corpus and ignored court orders that took issue with his authority to do so. After U.S. entry into World War I, the administration of Woodrow Wilson mounted a comprehensive effort to crush dissent, shutting down anti-war publications in complete disregard of the First Amendment. Amid the hysteria triggered by Pearl Harbor, Franklin Roosevelt issued an executive order consigning to concentration camps more than 100,000 Japanese-Americans, many of them native-born citizens. Asked in 1944 to review this gross violation of due process, the Supreme Court endorsed the government’s action by a 6-3 vote.
Source: Writing a Blank Check on War for the President – The Unz Review
Thanx to the election we will hear the word “Constitution” more than any other time……the problem is most people that use the Constitution as a prop have little knowledge of what the entire document has to say….only the parts that pertain to their little rants…..few take the document in its entirety…..
I always like reading opinions on the Constitution……since there is NO one left alive that we can confer with on the actual meaning……opinions is all that is left. The one thing that is certain is everybody’s opinion is valid…..we may not like what is said but until you can produce someone that was there………. then all are valid……I do however avoid those individuals that use the issue to go on some rant not substantiated by rational thought…basically those opinions are just blah, blah, blah….
I have given my thoughts on the 2nd amendment……..
Source: Why The 2nd? – In Saner Thought
I recently read a piece about the idea of a “standing army”……interesting and maybe my reader may find it so…..also…..
The U.S. Constitution can reasonably be seen as a massive tax and mercantilist trade-promotion program. However, there’s a third leg to this stool. It was a national-security program as well – almost a proto-PATRIOT Act. Indeed, these three elements formed an integrated project: it gave the new central government independent power to raise revenue by […]
Source: The Constitution and the Standing Army – Antiwar.com Original by — Antiwar.com
I think that too many Constitution wannabes take some of the wording too literal or out of context……and that shuts down any rational analysis and makes them an invalid opinion writer……
After decades of listening to the morons on the Right and their Christian values bullsh*t……there is only one thing to say……PAY ATTENTION! (if that is possible)…
So much for the false narrative that mental midgets will have us believe…..sorry sports fans….a falsehood is still a f*cking LIE!
This post ought to bring in the mental midgets from all corners of the internet……I certainly hope so………the trolls will have a day with this post but first they will have to put down the Cheetohs and do what their Mommie tells them……….that is if I did not use too big of words for them…….(insert smiley face)………..if these words are a problem then ask a 10 year old……they will understand.
I have been watching the news in Texas…..they have this debate going on about the possibility to openly carry a hand gun in public……it is a debate the we should have but it has gone beyond reasonable to the brutish……it appears that thugs from some guns rights group is pushing its way into legislators offices and basically intimidating them into voting for the bill…..they even conned the Lt. Governor into a meeting so he could avoid a scene…..but what can you expect from a spineless politician? (This is a quick definition of what is happening if you want more info then Google will do you proud)
My take on this situation…….
If it is illegal to intimidate a witness or juror in a trial, how isd it legal that such intimidation is legal when it comes to law makers? Okay you do not like that take………Is it legal to intimidate a retailer to get him to do what you want? Then how is it legal use harsh words and maybe a gun to convince someone to see things your way? I believe that is called coercion. And the last time I checked it was against the law as well as the Constitution.
Does the term “Brown Shirts” ring a bell? In case you missed the PBS special…the Brown Shirts were thugs in 20’s and 30’s Germany that intimidated the population to get what they wanted….does it ring a bell now?
Okay another angle…..let’s say you go to a rally or protests whatever you would like to call it and most everyone there were people of color and almost all of them had weapons in plain sight…..what will be your reaction?….I mean besides running to FOX News that is…….
Hey Haters! You dildos do realize there is more to the Constitution than the 2nd amendment, right?