user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
God's gonna GET you for this, magdalena. And we don't need to do it ANYWAY. Give old Jesus Ashcroft the time, and we'll be looking at the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the Capitol Building instead of the Bill of Rights...
Are You INSANE??? The Constitution is the reason that America is America!
"The Constitution is nothing more than an interesting bunch of suggestions." -- The American Bar Association. Gee, I wonder why they said that... :)
Maybe because most of it is so vague that it is open to interpretation. That's not good.
Some guy on another ballot about the separation of church and state was asking when 1 clause kicked in and affected another clause. I don't GIVE a shit! Do you think religion should play any role in the affairs of the state, or not? Yes or No?
The problem is not in the writing but the interpretation by the politicians. They assume powers that were never granted to them by twisting the meaning. Most laws and policies don't comply but are upheld by the S/Court (more politicians). Every power is greatly exaggerated - "Control inter-state commerce" results in complete power to control every single factory/ employee/ employer/ supplier/ service etc...
Crazy
nothing wrong with the constiution. we just need to make sure it is enforced
Whether or not it's the best in the world is entirely besides the point. Besides, I don't really expect it to be rewritten, I'm just sick of people using it as an argument, "Because it says so in the Constitution." I appreciate it as a great historical document.
We got lucky once, we managed to get a bunch of people who cared about liberty and freedom and were clever enough to write a document to protect those liberties and freedoms. I wouldn't count on us having the same luck twice.
...especially not if we happen to be gay :-}
by mojo on Mon Aug 02, 04 8:14pm
[+]
No. As imperfect as it might be, it was drafted in a nin-partisan manner by people who actually had teh Nation's interest at heart rather than their party's.
Any rewrite would be a victim of whomsoever had the majority of power.
non-partisan
It should just say:
"Be nice, be cool, don't get heavy, that's bad"
Applerod,
That wasn't just "some guy," that was me!
I didn't see anyone saying let's combine Church and State here, so why bother refuting it? Why bother bringing me up?
And most importantly, why don't you care when some people's rights are abridged? If you do not understand the importance of the Free Exercise Clause how can you appreciate the Establishment Clause? What gives someone who hates religion any more rights than one who doesn't? For example, why should one worker in an office be allowed to hang a picture of a half-dressed fireman, while another is refused the liberty of hanging a calendar with religious quotes?
If you do not GIVE a s***, as you have said, then you do not care for liberty or freedom. Forcing everyone to abide by your way of thinking, your moral values, your world view, and your atheism is contrary to the principles for which our forefathers fought and died.
Magdalena,
It does not need to be re-written. Instead, we should start abiding by it. We would find ourselves a considerable amount freer.
Lincoln consolidated our government and created a leviathan that should never have been born.
Decentralize.
Give more rights back to the states.
Do away with wasteful spending.
Get rid of things like the NEA, NPR, etc.
Cathexis,
Well said. If I'm not careful, I might find myself agreeing with you.
:-)
What I think "We the people" need to do is 86 all of the amendments, get out the original constitution, round up the most brilliant political and legal minds currently available, (HAHAHAHAHAHA!,)
give them all a stack of note paper and some well sharpened #2 pencils and tell them to
START OVER!
Whats that whirring noise you ask?
Its the sound of our "Founding fathers" spinning in their graves.
They knew that changes would have to be made as time went on thats why they wrote it that way.
This Country now seems more like a plumbers nightmare than what the writers of the Constitution had in mind.
Too many corrupt files Etc. push the re-set button.
I brought it up to illustrate the fact that most of the Constitution is ambiguous from a legal standpoint.
As far as I know, what you choose to hang in your office is not a federal matter, unless you're in a federal building. It's more likely a matter for the business you're working in. Am I wrong?
They aren't MY rules. They are supposed to be OUR rules. And we are FORCED to abide by them. It seems that we actually agree that the federal government should have less power over people's lives. If the tables were turned, and church and state merged (as you apparently support, you still haven't answered that question), do you think that I would dislike it because I was being forced to abide by YOUR rules, personally - or because my life and the lives of those around me were being controlled by a government entity thousands of miles away?
The best thing I can think of, aside from the freedoms we enjoy, when I think of the founding fathers and the historical documents they wrote, is the right of the people to CHANGE the government, or to protest it as they see fit. I think that was a brilliant idea.
I believe magdalena's point (correct me if I'm wrong), is that some people take the Constitution as gospel - in the same manner that some people interpret the Bible *literally as God's Law. Does the right to bear arms mean that I can have a shoulder-mounted rocket launcher? Does free speech mean that I can't go outside with a balloon over my genitals? Does the pursuit of happiness (state law) mean that gays can marry?
Maybe I should propose an amendment to the Constitution that reads: "People have the right to do stuff."
So I think we can at least agree that states should have more influence in the affairs of the people within them than the Federal government. This way, you guys in Alabama can include Jesus in all the programs that you want, and we guys in California don't have to. I suppose that wouldn't make us a very "United" State - but how united are we when huge percentages are forced to abide by rules that we don't agree with?
Crazy as it sounds, I have actually espoused the notion that California should secede from the Union. I don't know, that would be a very complicated project (no doubt impractical) - but then we could live by the rules of the majority of Californians, and not the majority of Americans. Shplink!
No correction required, Applerod.
"The best thing I can think of, aside from the freedoms we enjoy, when I think of the founding fathers and the historical documents they wrote, is the right of the people to CHANGE the government, or to protest it as they see fit. I think that was a brilliant idea."
I think if we wanted to rewrite it, they would support that. I also wouldn't *really* wish to rewrite it under our current leaders.
But, yes, that is exactly why I wrote the question, Applerod. Thank you.
Very nice comments Applerod!
I don't know about California breaking away from the U.S. entirely, (even though economically, it could be done,) but I do think that California should break itself up into at least three seperate states.
There is too much diversity between various parts of the state.
Apple
You said: ...most of the Constitution is ambiguous from a legal standpoint.
I disagree. The Constitution is very cut and dry. People with agendas that run contrary to the USC (or lack enumeration) have clouded the issues and abused the document. this started with Lincoln and today persists with groups like the ACLU and SPLC distorting the document and trying to make it say things it simply does not say.
You said: As far as I know, what you choose to hang in your office is not a federal matter, unless you're in a federal building.
Why should the place of employment matter? Where in the Constitution does it say that people who work for the government are not entitled to the same rights as those at McDonald's?
You said: They aren't MY rules. They are supposed to be OUR rules. And we are FORCED to abide by them.
They are not _our_ rules. They are the rules of men and women who have twisted the USC to say what they wanted it to. The Judiciary now makes laws, something it was never supposed to do.
You said: ... we actually agree that the federal government should have less power over people's lives.
Yes, indeed. It should be shrunk back down to its Constitutional size.
Applerod,
You said: If the tables were turned, and church and state merged ... do you think that I would dislike it because I was being forced to abide by YOUR rules, personally - or because my life and the lives of those around me were being controlled by a government entity thousands of miles away?
I cannot presume to speak for you. However, The USC (US Constitution) forbids Congress from establishing a national religion. So, while the representatives in the federal government might celebrate Christmas and Easter openly (Free Exercise), they cannot pass a law that says everyone must be Catholic and go to Mass on these days. Nor can a law they create be used to punish people for failing to observe or practice a religion. So, while they may proclaim days as holidays, days for Thanksgiving, prayer and fasting, etc., (we see this done by the Framers), the laws cannot give preferential treatment or be punitive.
Applerod,
A couple of your points should be addressed in smaller posts. This is one.
You said: The best thing I can think of, aside from the freedoms we enjoy, when I think of the founding fathers and the historical documents they wrote, is the right of the people to CHANGE the government, or to protest it as they see fit. I think that was a brilliant idea.
Mr. Lincoln would disagree with you. When we (the Confederate States) tried to seced from the Union, Lincoln overstepped his bounds, interpreted the US Constitution (USC) as he thought would be beneficial to him, and he invaded the sovereign states of the Confederacy.
I believe that the right to secede is Constitutional, and I believe the founding fathers were all for secession. I use Lincoln to demonstrate the absolute danger to liberty that is inherent in the actions of those who would distort the USC for their temporal purposes.
Applerod,
You said: ... some people take the Constitution as gospel - in the same manner that some people interpret the Bible *literally as God's Law. Does the right to bear arms mean that I can have a shoulder-mounted rocket launcher?
Our state malitias certainly have these and more. Are these practical for ordinary citizens? No. Were they around during the framing of the Constitution? No. Were muskets and pistols? Yes. I think it is reasonable to expect that some weapons such as nuclear warheads be reserved to the states and federal government. Lesser weapons, incapable of mass destruction, should remain legal.
YOU SAID: Does free speech mean that I can't go outside with a balloon over my genitals?
First, going outside with a balloon over your genitals, is not speech. It is demonstration. Urinating in public is not free speech. Having sex on the subway is not free speech.
YOU SAID: Does the pursuit of happiness (state law) mean that gays can marry?
If Pursuit of Happiness is a part of your state constitution, you could try to argue that it permits gay marriage. However, I think people would have to prove gay marriage is a "Pursuit of Happiness." I think it is also an issue for the state populace to decide. I have addressed this topic in length on another poll.
Applerod,
You said: Maybe I should propose an amendment to the Constitution that reads: "People have the right to do stuff."
You certainly can try.
Applerod,
You said: This way, you guys in Alabama can include Jesus in all the programs that you want, and we guys in California don't have to.
I couldn't agree more. However, look at the reaction Roy Moore received from atheists in other states. It is certainly a case of people in California (figuratively) overruling the people in Alabama (and their Constitutional rights) without regard to the fact that something like 90% of the population wanted the monument there. I do not personally believe Justice Moore did it as a religion issue, but chose to take a stand for States' Rights and that is why the despotic Federal government pounced on him.
YOU SAID: I suppose that wouldn't make us a very "United" State
We were not a "United" State (sic) until Lincoln's war was over. Prior to that, we were "These United States." A plural union of free and sovereign states. This notion was even noted by Alexis de Tocqueville. Now, it is _The_ United States. A singular.
YOU SAID: but how united are we when huge percentages are forced to abide by rules that we don't agree with?
I would ponder it: how united _can_ we be ...
By what unconstitutional laws are you forced to abide? Just curious.
YOU SAID: ... I have actually espoused the notion that California should secede from the Union.
I agree. If we cannot get back to a truly Constitutional government, as created by the Framers, then the federal government should dissolve. I could not care less what happens to NY or CA. I am more concerned with the sovereignty of the Confederate States (which never capitulated). I support your right to secession and will help if I can. Deo Vindice!
Applerod,
You said: I don't know, that would be a very complicated project (no doubt impractical) - but then we could live by the rules of the majority of Californians, and not the majority of Americans.
I find this slightly comical. Ironic, at least. In this case you are interested in living by the law of majority, but you fight for and advocate minority tyranny. I mean, let's face it, the majority of Americans claim to be Christian, and yet you seem to support silencing the free exercise of those who happen to be government employees or on government property.
Just a bit ironic.
Applerod,
You said: If ...church and state merged (as you apparently support, you still haven't answered that question) ...
You did not ask me if I support the merging of Church and State, a topic which I have addressed on other polls where (I believe) you were present.
In short, no. Congress shall make no law etc.
I believe, like gay marriage, it is a state issue. Further, don't believe that Freedom _of_ Religion is the same as Freedom _from_ Religion. I believe it is the latter which you support, and this is unconstitutional. There is nothing in the US Constitution that states Federal or State employees must leave their theolgical beliefs at the door. The facts that Congress opened their first session after the Bill of Rights was adopted with a 2 hour prayer, that they have had a chaplain since inception, and that many of the framers were ordained ministers and clergymen will make it difficult for you argue the Framers were for the denial of Faith as a criteria for public service.
Before I respond, I need to have a clearer understanding of where you stand. I need to know who I'm talking to.
You identify yourself as a member of the Confederate States of America, right? What does that mean, *precisely? Does that mean that you abide by the rules of the Federal government, but also protest them? Or do you not even recognize the rules established by the United States?
Do you feel we'd all be better off if the South was simply allowed to secede, and there had been no Civil War? Does that mean that we would have had two ENTIRELY separate countries?
Are you inclined towards a radical change to our current system, which would separate the country in two? Or do you favor a less revolutionary approach, perhaps limiting the power of the Federal government to supercede invididual state rights when they are in conflict with one another..? And would that apply to ALL issues, including issues of national security? (What does shrinking it back to its Constitutional size mean?)
Apple:
You said: You identify yourself as a member of the Confederate States of America, right? What does that mean, *precisely?
I identify myself as a Southerner. The states of the Confederacy never surrendered to the US government. I believe that the time may well be nigh for the Confederacy to take her place among the nations once again.
YOU said: Does that mean that you abide by the rules of the Federal government, but also protest them? Or do you not even recognize the rules established by the United States?
I abide by the laws of the land. My civic duty is to do so. If there are laws that I do not like or agree with, then I am bound to work to alter or abolish them. I will continue to abide by the laws until they become a matter of conscience. For example, if a law were passed stating that adults under 5 ft. 2in. should be killed on sight, I would have to, as a matter of conscience, object to that law and face the consequences of my objections. Now, granted, that is an extreme example. On lesser laws that do not involve conscience, I will defer to the de facto laws, such as federalization, the Federal Reserve System, Federal Income taxes, etc.
Applerod,
YOU said: Do you feel we'd all be better off if the South was simply allowed to secede, and there had been no Civil War?
Without a doubt.
You said: Does that mean that we would have had two ENTIRELY separate countries?
Possibly. They may have reunited once again. What is certain is that if the two had reunited, the face of this nation would be quite different. We would not be living under the despotism we do today. States would have more rights and people would not spend more than half their wages on an overgrown government.
You said: Are you inclined towards a radical change to our current system, which would separate the country in two?
Possbily. Possibly not. I am inclined toward Liberty. If we cannot be free as one nation, then let us part ways and find our freedom elsewhere.
You said: Or do you favor a less revolutionary approach, perhaps limiting the power of the Federal government to supercede invididual state rights when they are in conflict with one another..?
I would prefer a solution such as this. I believe States have retained the rights not enumerated in the US Constitution. I also believe that judicial activism has perverted the USC to achieve their own purposes. This would have to stop.
Applerod,
You said: And would that apply to ALL issues, including issues of national security?
No. It would apply to those things not enumerated in the Constitution. Our Constitution clearly states its purpose as to provide for the common defense. Other rights relinquished by the states, are those that prohibit the States from making trade agreements, treaties, etc. with foreign countries. That is the job of the Federal government.
Apple,
You asked: What does shrinking it back to its Constitutional size mean?
It means that the federal government is too large a bureaucracy that should be pared down.
Government should be accountable to the people. It should fear the people, not the other way around.
The Federal Government should _not_ give money to NEA, NPR, or any other special interest groups. The government should not subsidize the lazy through the taxes of the responsible.
The government should be responsible for every penny spent. Rather than taxing an overburdened people more, they should simply cut spending. There should be no $3,000 hammers and $5,000 toilet seats.
The federal government should not interfere with the institutions of the various states.
The federal government was limited by a series of checks and balances both horizontally and vertically. That is, across the branches and between the states. The two rights that states had to keep the Federal government from becoming despotic, nullification and secession, have been destroyed. The states are now at the whim of the Federal government. I, personally, have no desire to smoke marijuana, but when a state such as CA or AZ votes 75% in favor of legalization, I believe the federal government has no right to trump that vote. Laws of the federal government should only regulate interstate and international conduct, traffic, trade, etc. The role of the Federal gov't is also as judge between states with disputes.
The Constitution has a lot of good ideas that don't need to be reinvented. No single document will have the answer for every question, just some basic principles. people still disagree over federalism vs. state's rights, for example, and always will. Tensions like these are like yin and yang.
|
|
