mtt, you astonish me. After McCain’s zillions of documented lies, after Bush lied to get us into war and hacked at the Constitution, you’re complaining about Obama? At least he knows what the vice president does! And God willing he won’t continue this monstrous travesty of an executive presidency that Bush and Cheney put together. If you’re really worried about the Constitution, aren’t you worried about what happened to the separation of powers?
And while we’re at it, nothing created by the hand of man (or woman) is perfect. The Founders made sure to put in provisions to change the Constitution. Remember you had to be a landholding white male to vote once, and blacks counted as 3/5 of whites to count population. Or do you disagree with those changes?
BUT SAYING IT IS FLAWED IS THE PROBLEM, I DO NOT CARE WHAT WAS CHANGED!!!!!!!!!!
Yes if it is not valid or if times change enough to get some changes made, that is fine, BUT IT IS STILL NOT FLAWED!!!!!!!!!! Do you understand that? Saying something like I would like to change this or that is not the same as calling it flawed. Flawed means the whole thing needs rewritten. I would not mind seeing a few changes, but by far it is NOT flawed at all.
As well Obama’s full campaign was lies, nothing like he voted in the past. As well if you read anything I have posted I have said, I do not like McCain and I only liked 1st term Bush. But no way on Obama, I have looked at his “Present” voting record.
motivemagus. As unfortunate that the constitution contained those provisions, please remember that it was the compromise they had to come up with to get the support needed to ratify the constitution. I believe that was why they also provided a way to amend it, but made the hurdle high enough to make sure that it would take a lot of work, thus keeping it from becoming the a tool to keep the powerful in power.
Of course the Constitution is flawed. The writers knew that it would have to reflect the times and put in provisions to fix the ‘flaws’ that would inevitably arise as the country evolves (there-in the beauty). Seems to me that a top student of Constitutional Law at Harvard should know what he is talking about.
That is IF the Constitution is a “living document” which it is not. Yes if there is something that needs changed we have the possibility to change it, it is tough to do, cause it is NOT a living document. It is NOT flawed, if it needs changed, it still does not make it flawed. Plain and simple. I do not care what kind of student where BELIEVES.
mtt - if you think the constitution is not a living document, you’re sadly mistaken. Note the collection of AMENDMENTS. Beyond that, there are libraries full of judicial decisions by the Supreme Court, which have had to repeatedly interpret the Constitution, because it is not complete, and it is not perfect. That is its strength, in being flexible enough to permit change and interpretation through judicial consideration.
Do you think we should scrap the amendments? I’m not sure how you defend it as perfect if it has been changed over history. Is it perfect because of its changes? Noting the inclusion and repeal of the prohibition of alcohol..was it perfect before Prohibition, perfect because of Prohibition or perfect because it was repealed?
curiosity1
Read everything I have said. Then comment. Do not pick and choose. Those judges were liberal judges who care nothing about it. So that does not matter. It was written as word. The word, if you go though a TOUGH process can be amended. NOT interpreted to something you feel it should say today.
the judicial branch wasn’t to interpret it was to enforce and balance congress. it was to be the “Sword”,Congress was to be the “People”, and the prez to be the “Commander”. All meant to be equal. by 1819 the framers realized how dangerous it was to pander to the Southern states (mm’s statement of 3/5ths) when the Missouri incident happened
mtt - I did read everything and responded concisely.
And so it fundamentally comes down to semantics and what the definition of ‘flawed’ is. Let me try this again responding specifically to your last comment before mine:
“That is IF the Constitution is a “living document” which it is not.”
– Please explain how it is not a “living document”. My argument (and others’) is that the proof of the Constitution be in a “living document” lies in its amendments. The Constitution of today is not the one originally signed. It lives and changes as needed. Whether it is easy or hard to change it is irrelevant, it is simply the ability to change which classifies it a ‘living’.
“Yes if there is something that needs changed we have the possibility to change it, it is tough to do, cause it is NOT a living document.” – Again, it is tough to do (appropriately), but HOW does that classify it as NOT living and changeable?
“It is NOT flawed, if it needs changed, it still does not make it flawed.” – So you would describe it as perfect because of its ability to be changed? If so, than again, we come back to semantics and are not necessarily disagreeing in concept. You say it’s not flawed because it can be changed, and others are saying it’s not perfect because it has been changed.
“Plain and simple. I do not care what kind of student where BELIEVES.” – That’s fine and a matter of opinion.
And now to you latest:
“Read everything I have said. Then comment. Do not pick and choose.” – Do not assume what I have or have not read.
Those judges were liberal judges who care nothing about it. – Are you saying that and Justice who makes a ruling based on the Constitution is liberal and cares nothing for it? That is flabbergasting. The implication of what you say is to do away with the judicial system entirely. EVERY judicial decision is based on the INTERPRETATION of the body of law. And the ENTIRETY of the body of law in the United States is build upon one document at its heart - the Constitution. The supreme court hears cases where laws/constitutions passed by the political entities that make up the United States have been considered to come into conflict with the fundamental law of the land. They then interpret the case, and how the Constitution (as amended) applied to the case, and make a ruling - or make an indication that there is no apparent conflict by letting a lower court’s decision stand.
“So that does not matter. It was written as word.” – What does not matter? Judicial decision? I’m not sure what you mean here.
“The word, if you go though a TOUGH process can be amended. NOT interpreted to something you feel it should say today.” – I’d love for you to tell that to Justices Scalia and Thomas. They may say that they are not Interpreting the Constitution, but the simple fact is that not all laws are explicitly enumerated by the Constitution. And so, the INTENT of the framers has to be determined based on the wording of the Constitution AND the body of Case Law which has been considered in the same vein.
Lastly - try proofreading and using a spellchecker. It would help people to understand your arguments better.
vv - “the judicial branch wasn’t to interpret it was to enforce and balance congress.” What does that mean? Enforce what? And by what means? Balance congress how?
sorry i was distracted when i was typing that in to rephrase that sentence-The Judicial branch wasn’t meant to interpret the Constitution, it was meant to enforce the parameters of the Constitution onto the federal and state legislation and executive branches to maintain the checks and balances.-my kids were causing havoc and i had to check on them several times, I should have proofread better. thank you for pointing that out.
Sorry to be so late to the conversation. I believe President-elect Obama faces the most daunting agenda upon entering office since FDR. (Lincoln had a large issue but it was only one large issue).
We can argue the wisdom of letting the Bush tax cuts expire or nationalizing just about every major industry in the nation later
For now, I just feel kind of sorry for the guy and, of course, pray for his success.
MaryWorth Premium Member over 15 years ago
It’s won’t be as hard if you get a strong cabinet to help with the books! What’s next?
HUMPHRIES over 15 years ago
Did someone think Sen Obama would be surprised?
vicariousviper over 15 years ago
Prez Obama has no idea what he is walking in to. seeing a tornado at a distance is nothing like stepping in to it.
Joe Snedaker over 15 years ago
vicariousviper
I think he knows, but he just doesn’t care. He lied and cheated his way in all the while feeling the Constitution was flawed.
Motivemagus over 15 years ago
mtt, you astonish me. After McCain’s zillions of documented lies, after Bush lied to get us into war and hacked at the Constitution, you’re complaining about Obama? At least he knows what the vice president does! And God willing he won’t continue this monstrous travesty of an executive presidency that Bush and Cheney put together. If you’re really worried about the Constitution, aren’t you worried about what happened to the separation of powers?
And while we’re at it, nothing created by the hand of man (or woman) is perfect. The Founders made sure to put in provisions to change the Constitution. Remember you had to be a landholding white male to vote once, and blacks counted as 3/5 of whites to count population. Or do you disagree with those changes?
Joe Snedaker over 15 years ago
BUT SAYING IT IS FLAWED IS THE PROBLEM, I DO NOT CARE WHAT WAS CHANGED!!!!!!!!!!
Yes if it is not valid or if times change enough to get some changes made, that is fine, BUT IT IS STILL NOT FLAWED!!!!!!!!!! Do you understand that? Saying something like I would like to change this or that is not the same as calling it flawed. Flawed means the whole thing needs rewritten. I would not mind seeing a few changes, but by far it is NOT flawed at all.
As well Obama’s full campaign was lies, nothing like he voted in the past. As well if you read anything I have posted I have said, I do not like McCain and I only liked 1st term Bush. But no way on Obama, I have looked at his “Present” voting record.
Elfriend over 15 years ago
motivemagus. As unfortunate that the constitution contained those provisions, please remember that it was the compromise they had to come up with to get the support needed to ratify the constitution. I believe that was why they also provided a way to amend it, but made the hurdle high enough to make sure that it would take a lot of work, thus keeping it from becoming the a tool to keep the powerful in power.
Elfriend over 15 years ago
I can’t understand why anyone would want to take that job. The baggage seems to get heavier with each transition.
HUMPHRIES over 15 years ago
mtt, enjoy your little world.
1MadMan over 15 years ago
Of course the Constitution is flawed. The writers knew that it would have to reflect the times and put in provisions to fix the ‘flaws’ that would inevitably arise as the country evolves (there-in the beauty). Seems to me that a top student of Constitutional Law at Harvard should know what he is talking about.
Joe Snedaker over 15 years ago
1MadMan
That is IF the Constitution is a “living document” which it is not. Yes if there is something that needs changed we have the possibility to change it, it is tough to do, cause it is NOT a living document. It is NOT flawed, if it needs changed, it still does not make it flawed. Plain and simple. I do not care what kind of student where BELIEVES.
curiosity1 over 15 years ago
mtt - if you think the constitution is not a living document, you’re sadly mistaken. Note the collection of AMENDMENTS. Beyond that, there are libraries full of judicial decisions by the Supreme Court, which have had to repeatedly interpret the Constitution, because it is not complete, and it is not perfect. That is its strength, in being flexible enough to permit change and interpretation through judicial consideration.
Do you think we should scrap the amendments? I’m not sure how you defend it as perfect if it has been changed over history. Is it perfect because of its changes? Noting the inclusion and repeal of the prohibition of alcohol..was it perfect before Prohibition, perfect because of Prohibition or perfect because it was repealed?
Joe Snedaker over 15 years ago
curiosity1 Read everything I have said. Then comment. Do not pick and choose. Those judges were liberal judges who care nothing about it. So that does not matter. It was written as word. The word, if you go though a TOUGH process can be amended. NOT interpreted to something you feel it should say today.
vicariousviper over 15 years ago
the judicial branch wasn’t to interpret it was to enforce and balance congress. it was to be the “Sword”,Congress was to be the “People”, and the prez to be the “Commander”. All meant to be equal. by 1819 the framers realized how dangerous it was to pander to the Southern states (mm’s statement of 3/5ths) when the Missouri incident happened
curiosity1 over 15 years ago
mtt - I did read everything and responded concisely.
And so it fundamentally comes down to semantics and what the definition of ‘flawed’ is. Let me try this again responding specifically to your last comment before mine:
“That is IF the Constitution is a “living document” which it is not.” – Please explain how it is not a “living document”. My argument (and others’) is that the proof of the Constitution be in a “living document” lies in its amendments. The Constitution of today is not the one originally signed. It lives and changes as needed. Whether it is easy or hard to change it is irrelevant, it is simply the ability to change which classifies it a ‘living’.
“Yes if there is something that needs changed we have the possibility to change it, it is tough to do, cause it is NOT a living document.” – Again, it is tough to do (appropriately), but HOW does that classify it as NOT living and changeable?
“It is NOT flawed, if it needs changed, it still does not make it flawed.” – So you would describe it as perfect because of its ability to be changed? If so, than again, we come back to semantics and are not necessarily disagreeing in concept. You say it’s not flawed because it can be changed, and others are saying it’s not perfect because it has been changed.
“Plain and simple. I do not care what kind of student where BELIEVES.” – That’s fine and a matter of opinion.
And now to you latest: “Read everything I have said. Then comment. Do not pick and choose.” – Do not assume what I have or have not read.
Those judges were liberal judges who care nothing about it. – Are you saying that and Justice who makes a ruling based on the Constitution is liberal and cares nothing for it? That is flabbergasting. The implication of what you say is to do away with the judicial system entirely. EVERY judicial decision is based on the INTERPRETATION of the body of law. And the ENTIRETY of the body of law in the United States is build upon one document at its heart - the Constitution. The supreme court hears cases where laws/constitutions passed by the political entities that make up the United States have been considered to come into conflict with the fundamental law of the land. They then interpret the case, and how the Constitution (as amended) applied to the case, and make a ruling - or make an indication that there is no apparent conflict by letting a lower court’s decision stand.
“So that does not matter. It was written as word.” – What does not matter? Judicial decision? I’m not sure what you mean here.
“The word, if you go though a TOUGH process can be amended. NOT interpreted to something you feel it should say today.” – I’d love for you to tell that to Justices Scalia and Thomas. They may say that they are not Interpreting the Constitution, but the simple fact is that not all laws are explicitly enumerated by the Constitution. And so, the INTENT of the framers has to be determined based on the wording of the Constitution AND the body of Case Law which has been considered in the same vein.
Lastly - try proofreading and using a spellchecker. It would help people to understand your arguments better.
Peace
curiosity1 over 15 years ago
vv - “the judicial branch wasn’t to interpret it was to enforce and balance congress.” What does that mean? Enforce what? And by what means? Balance congress how?
MaryWorth Premium Member over 15 years ago
curiosity1, do us all a favor and look up the meaning of “terse”…. I’m here to read comics & comments, not the Old Testament!
dhleaky over 15 years ago
curiosity1 says:
mtt - I did read everything and responded concisely.
Then proceed to belch 38 lines of pure drivel. DH, curio does not own a dictionary.
vicariousviper over 15 years ago
sorry i was distracted when i was typing that in to rephrase that sentence-The Judicial branch wasn’t meant to interpret the Constitution, it was meant to enforce the parameters of the Constitution onto the federal and state legislation and executive branches to maintain the checks and balances.-my kids were causing havoc and i had to check on them several times, I should have proofread better. thank you for pointing that out.
Scott Stantis creator over 15 years ago
Sorry to be so late to the conversation. I believe President-elect Obama faces the most daunting agenda upon entering office since FDR. (Lincoln had a large issue but it was only one large issue).
We can argue the wisdom of letting the Bush tax cuts expire or nationalizing just about every major industry in the nation later
For now, I just feel kind of sorry for the guy and, of course, pray for his success.