RIP 4th Amendment..

[HeyYou]

Absolutely. This is the problem, and I even speak as someone with a legal background, once the lawyers and the judges in particular get hold of the constitution and start interpreting it in a way that is very far from the intent of the Founding Fathers, discontent boils up. Judges (particularly when they themselves are also elected) and politicians all like to grandstand and think they can improve on anything their predecessors did.

 

I for one hope the American people are going to stand firm on this one, and I am pretty sure they are! As I have said before we are now looking across the Atlantic and thinking that having a written constitution ourselves might be the way to protect our rights and sovereignty, and thus we are as dismayed as Americans to see their constitution being chipped away at.

 

Edit - I was responding to the posts by HeyYou and csgators before someone else posted.

 

Simply having a constitution is absolutely zero guarantee that your 'rights' will be assured. The US is a prime example of that at this point. The hope that the american people will 'stand firm' is a pretty forlorn one..... it has been demonstrated to me time and again, that while we may complain about it for a while, in the end, the government get's their way. Our votes are irrelevant. Not to mention, that if turnout for an election as important as President..... only gets something to the tune of 35% voter turn out...... seems the majority of americans really don't care.

 

Another thing that disturbs me is, the relatively little difference between the two main parties on most of the important topics. (please note, apparently JOBS are NOT an important topic, as no one seems to be talking about that again...... it was popular for a while, and then, after the last round of elections, fizzled out. As usual.) So it doesn't really matter whom you vote for, as the main policy isn't going to change.

 

Nope. America is no longer the Land of the Free. Nor is it the Land of Opportunity. (unless you are a foreigner here.... they get some very nice tax breaks, that if you were born here, you can forget about.) We are the worlds dumping ground of consumer products, and the well to dip into when your country needs money, or arms, or simply wants to be bought off, so we can call them an "ally". We have been doing this for too long now, and it won't be much longer before the largest consumer nation in the world, runs out of money, runs out of middle class folks, and is staring hard at bankruptcy, due to giving everyone else money that we should have been using to promote growth right here at home, and taking care of our own yard. Corporate america has milked the populace for too long, bought off the government, and their short-sightedness has brought about policies that are destroying the very people they want to sell their products to. But, they made a hell of a lot of money in the short term......

 

Is any of that going to change? Not without a MAJOR upset first.... which is exactly what I see coming. No, not revolution, americans are too inherently lazy to do that. More like another economic collapse, that will make 2007 look like a walk in the park.

 

Actually we have a large and growing number of people that have no respect for the constitution. One major political party pushes the idea of a "living" constitution so that they can erode its power, that party currently holds the Senate and the White House.

 

As I see it, NEITHER of the two major parties has the best interests of the country in mind. They are both only interested in lining their pockets with PAC, and Lobbyist money. And while I do NOT approve of our current President, I didn't approve of the previous one either, and the current one was simply the lesser of two evils. (seriously, Sarah Palin as VP???? McCain? If you wanted a direct continuation of ALL of Bush's policies, that woulda been the way to go....)

 

Side Note: Just for Clarity, PAC = Political Action Committee.

[csgators]

If you wanted a direct continuation of ALL of Bush's policies, that woulda been the way to go....)

 

You mean we didn't get that? We got Bush squared. I agree that both parties are a major problem but to me the party that openly pushes to ignore or re-interpret the constitution is worse. They nominate judges specifically because they ignore the intended meaning of the constitution.

 

The only man that stands up for the constitution (Ron Paul) is ridiculed by both sides. Very depressing.

Edited May 26, 2011 by csgators

[HeyYou]

If you wanted a direct continuation of ALL of Bush's policies, that woulda been the way to go....)

 

You mean we didn't get that? We got Bush squared. I agree that both parties are a major problem but to me the party that openly pushes to ignore or re-interpret the constitution is worse. They nominate judges specifically because they ignore the intended meaning of the constitution.

 

The only man that stands up for the constitution (Ron Paul) is ridiculed by both sides. Very depressing.

 

Yeah, there is that....... I don't know enough about Ron Paul to make any judgements there...... I do seem to recall him making some rather odd pronouncements at one time though... but, that may have been someone else.

 

Quite honestly, there just isn't that much difference between the two parties, when it comes to the major issues. They just call it something a bit different.......

 

What we need, is for someone that doesn't care about re-election, isn't beholden to anyone for getting into office, (aside from the voters themselves), and has the backbone to stand up to congress, and ram thru some changes. Trouble is, there simply isn't anyone like that. No indie candidates stand a snowballs chance in hades making it to the whitehouse.... and the two major parties most certainly aren't going to put anyone like that up as a candidate......

 

So, as I see it, we are screwed, until such time as something bad enough happens, that the american people wake up, and once again decide to take an active role in the running of the country.

[marharth]

If you wanted a direct continuation of ALL of Bush's policies, that woulda been the way to go....)

 

You mean we didn't get that? We got Bush squared. I agree that both parties are a major problem but to me the party that openly pushes to ignore or re-interpret the constitution is worse. They nominate judges specifically because they ignore the intended meaning of the constitution.

 

The only man that stands up for the constitution (Ron Paul) is ridiculed by both sides. Very depressing.

Both parties are equally guilty of not giving a crap about the constitution.

 

I really don't think one outweighs another.

 

I have seen republicans quote the declaration of independence like its the constitution, I see democrats pretending that everything in the constitution means something else.

 

For example on how even it is: On the right you have certain bush policies, and on the left you have people trying to say that gun rights weren't really indented to be in the constitution.

 

Also if you don't want the constitution to change, that would mean the bill of rights and all the amendments should not exist. The constitution was intended to be changed over time.

Edited May 27, 2011 by marharth

[csgators]

If you wanted a direct continuation of ALL of Bush's policies, that woulda been the way to go....)

 

You mean we didn't get that? We got Bush squared. I agree that both parties are a major problem but to me the party that openly pushes to ignore or re-interpret the constitution is worse. They nominate judges specifically because they ignore the intended meaning of the constitution.

 

The only man that stands up for the constitution (Ron Paul) is ridiculed by both sides. Very depressing.

Both parties are equally guilty to not giving a crap about the constitution.

 

I really don't think one outweighs another, I have see republicans quote the declaration of independence like its the constitution, I see democrats pretending that everything in the constitution means something else.

 

For example on how even it is, on the right you have certain bush policies, and on the left you have people trying to say that gun rights weren't really indented to be in the constitution.

 

Also if you don't want the constitution to change, that would mean the bill of rights and all the amendments should not exist. The constitution was intended to be changed over time.

 

It was designed to be changed, through amendments. Not judicial decree. If they want to amend the constitution they are welcome to try, that is the way it should be done. Yes both parties support laws that are unconstitutional but only one promotes judges that change it through the courts.

[marharth]

If you wanted a direct continuation of ALL of Bush's policies, that woulda been the way to go....)

 

You mean we didn't get that? We got Bush squared. I agree that both parties are a major problem but to me the party that openly pushes to ignore or re-interpret the constitution is worse. They nominate judges specifically because they ignore the intended meaning of the constitution.

 

The only man that stands up for the constitution (Ron Paul) is ridiculed by both sides. Very depressing.

Both parties are equally guilty to not giving a crap about the constitution.

 

I really don't think one outweighs another, I have see republicans quote the declaration of independence like its the constitution, I see democrats pretending that everything in the constitution means something else.

 

For example on how even it is, on the right you have certain bush policies, and on the left you have people trying to say that gun rights weren't really indented to be in the constitution.

 

Also if you don't want the constitution to change, that would mean the bill of rights and all the amendments should not exist. The constitution was intended to be changed over time.

 

It was designed to be changed, through amendments. Not judicial decree. If they want to amend the constitution they are welcome to try, that is the way it should be done. Yes both parties support laws that are unconstitutional but only one promotes judges that change it through the courts.

Both parties do that.

 

Right wing judges have tried to change the meaning of natural born citizen before.

 

Its not just one side that does judicial activism.

[csgators]

If you wanted a direct continuation of ALL of Bush's policies, that woulda been the way to go....)

 

You mean we didn't get that? We got Bush squared. I agree that both parties are a major problem but to me the party that openly pushes to ignore or re-interpret the constitution is worse. They nominate judges specifically because they ignore the intended meaning of the constitution.

 

The only man that stands up for the constitution (Ron Paul) is ridiculed by both sides. Very depressing.

Both parties are equally guilty to not giving a crap about the constitution.

 

I really don't think one outweighs another, I have see republicans quote the declaration of independence like its the constitution, I see democrats pretending that everything in the constitution means something else.

 

For example on how even it is, on the right you have certain bush policies, and on the left you have people trying to say that gun rights weren't really indented to be in the constitution.

 

Also if you don't want the constitution to change, that would mean the bill of rights and all the amendments should not exist. The constitution was intended to be changed over time.

 

It was designed to be changed, through amendments. Not judicial decree. If they want to amend the constitution they are welcome to try, that is the way it should be done. Yes both parties support laws that are unconstitutional but only one promotes judges that change it through the courts.

Both parties do that.

 

Right wing judges have tried to change the meaning of natural born citizen before.

 

Its not just one side that does judicial activism.

 

Could you point me to that case?

 

You are getting into a subject that is not as clear, language wise, as some of the other amendments are. My point is, listen to the criteria that the parties use to chooses judges. The Republicans claim to choose judges that are "strict constructionists" meaning the intent of the people that created the amendment matters vs the Democrats "living, breathing, constitution" IE it means whatever they say it means regardless of original intent. If you don't like what it means than you should pass an amendment, not choose judges that will pervert that meaning to meet the fad of the day.

[marharth]

If you wanted a direct continuation of ALL of Bush's policies, that woulda been the way to go....)

 

You mean we didn't get that? We got Bush squared. I agree that both parties are a major problem but to me the party that openly pushes to ignore or re-interpret the constitution is worse. They nominate judges specifically because they ignore the intended meaning of the constitution.

 

The only man that stands up for the constitution (Ron Paul) is ridiculed by both sides. Very depressing.

Both parties are equally guilty to not giving a crap about the constitution.

 

I really don't think one outweighs another, I have see republicans quote the declaration of independence like its the constitution, I see democrats pretending that everything in the constitution means something else.

 

For example on how even it is, on the right you have certain bush policies, and on the left you have people trying to say that gun rights weren't really indented to be in the constitution.

 

Also if you don't want the constitution to change, that would mean the bill of rights and all the amendments should not exist. The constitution was intended to be changed over time.

 

It was designed to be changed, through amendments. Not judicial decree. If they want to amend the constitution they are welcome to try, that is the way it should be done. Yes both parties support laws that are unconstitutional but only one promotes judges that change it through the courts.

Both parties do that.

 

Right wing judges have tried to change the meaning of natural born citizen before.

 

Its not just one side that does judicial activism.

 

Could you point me to that case?

 

You are getting into a subject that is not as clear, language wise, as some of the other amendments are. My point is, listen to the criteria that the parties use to chooses judges. The Republicans claim to choose judges that are "strict constructionists" meaning the intent of the people that created the amendment matters vs the Democrats "living, breathing, constitution" IE it means whatever they say it means regardless of original intent. If you don't like what it means than you should pass an amendment, not choose judges that will pervert that meaning to meet the fad of the day.

The Arizona law that was going to be passed about a year ago would have changed constitutional birth requirements. Right wing judges defended it.

 

I am a bit confused now, how do you know the original intent of everything in it? You have the document of course, but you have to read it and make decisions on what it means.

 

EX: For the draft, I think it would clearly violate the 13th amendment. The supreme court ruled that it did not violate the 13th amendment. That was both a right and left wing ruling as well.

 

My point is that the constitution has to be interpreted sometimes, and if you have to make minor text adjustments every time something may be out of place, it wastes a ton of time and nothing will ever get done.

[csgators]

The Arizona law that was going to be passed about a year ago would have changed constitutional birth requirements. Right wing judges defended it.

 

I am a bit confused now, how do you know the original intent of everything in it? You have the document of course, but you have to read it and make decisions on what it means.

 

EX: For the draft, I think it would clearly violate the 13th amendment. The supreme court ruled that it did not violate the 13th amendment. That was both a right and left wing ruling as well.

 

My point is that the constitution has to be interpreted sometimes, and if you have to make minor text adjustments every time something may be out of place, it wastes a ton of time and nothing will ever get done.

 

Judges don't comment on or support something until they make a ruling, the law I think you are referring to was never signed into law so I can't imagine a sitting federal judge commenting on it. Not to mention they were not redefining natural born citizen, simply requiring proof.

 

When you're discussing any one of the original amendments you have the Federalist Papers to help clarify the meanings and with the others you can look at the debates people were having at the time it was passed and other documentation. Language changes over time but the meaning of the words at the time it was passed should be used to determine intent, otherwise you can make it say whatever you want.

 

Using the 13th as a reason for the draft to be unconstitutional goes against the intent of the 13th, which is to ban slavery or involuntary servitude. You are doing what I am warning against, reading into it what you want to read into it. Banning the draft was clearly not the intent of the amendment and in fact a draft was used to fight the war that lead to the 13th amendment.

[HeyYou]

The Arizona law that was going to be passed about a year ago would have changed constitutional birth requirements. Right wing judges defended it.

 

I am a bit confused now, how do you know the original intent of everything in it? You have the document of course, but you have to read it and make decisions on what it means.

 

EX: For the draft, I think it would clearly violate the 13th amendment. The supreme court ruled that it did not violate the 13th amendment. That was both a right and left wing ruling as well.

 

My point is that the constitution has to be interpreted sometimes, and if you have to make minor text adjustments every time something may be out of place, it wastes a ton of time and nothing will ever get done.

 

Judges don't comment on or support something until they make a ruling, the law I think you are referring to was never signed into law so I can't imagine a sitting federal judge commenting on it. Not to mention they were not redefining natural born citizen, simply requiring proof.

 

When you're discussing any one of the original amendments you have the Federalist Papers to help clarify the meanings and with the others you can look at the debates people were having at the time it was passed and other documentation. Language changes over time but the meaning of the words at the time it was passed should be used to determine intent, otherwise you can make it say whatever you want.

 

Using the 13th as a reason for the draft to be unconstitutional goes against the intent of the 13th, which is to ban slavery or involuntary servitude. You are doing what I am warning against, reading into it what you want to read into it. Banning the draft was clearly not the intent of the amendment and in fact a draft was used to fight the war that lead to the 13th amendment.

 

But, isn't the draft in fact "involuntary"? You are forced to serve, your other choice is prison....... granted, at least the soldiers got paid.... but, given their druthers, I'd bet that a majority of them would'veruther NOT gone to 'nam, or Korea........