Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have the "words have determined meanings, and I meant exactly what i said, not your interpretation of it" , conversation at least once or twice a month these days.
Scary isn't it? I have had a few times where I actually had to pull out a dictionary and logically step a coworker through an ACTUAL definition to get them to accept a point made. I mean, how F'd up is that? How can you do something like that and not say "You sir... are a flipping IDIOT!" It is one thing to get something wrong, but another to deviously defend such in the face of the facts.
I have the "words have determined meanings, and I meant exactly what i said, not your interpretation of it" , conversation at least once or twice a month these days.
It is rather unique to the liberal mindset to answer a question with, "So what you are saying" Totally flipping what you actually said or meant.
I really hate (well, not actually) to tell you this, but the Constitution wasn't written for and does not really apply to, individuals. Then or now. Nor were, with very limited exceptions (see below), the individual people to decide whatever section, clause, etc., they would or would not follow.
The Constitution was written as a means of structuring and thus limiting what the new Federal government was and was not allowed/empowered to do. Congress is explicitly prohibited it from doing certain acts and it is also explicitly required to do others. The same for the judiciary and the executive.
And as to your superfluous amendment, Article Three, and the Ninth and Eleventh Amendments have nicely taken care of that.
Perhaps studying the context of the document and its framing would be helpful to you.
To this I would like to inquire about amending the US Constitution to be: The Supreme Court will be the ultimate Jury. Any doubt on the Constitutionality from one Judge, reserves the liberty to the people and the action deemed unconstitutional...
To keep the liberty preserved to the people as much as we can.
If a person residing in the USA, does not respect or follow the US Constitution word for word,(not what they think it should say) they are in fact a Domestic Enemy. This goes for Supreme Court Justices too.
The people composing the US Constitutions and all the amendments, were not running out of ink to be as specific as they wanted to be. The reason the Constitution is as originally composed, is because everything left specifically out, is for the liberty of each individual person to decide for themselves.
Our laws have put words between the original words in the Bill of Rights, completely changing the Bill of Rights and politically appointed Supreme Court Justices have agreed the Federal Government can, without amendment.
To this, I wish to amend the US Constitution to be: The Supreme Court will be the ultimate Jury. Any doubt on the Constitutionality from one Judge, reserves the liberty to the people and the action deemed unconstitutional...
Why don't we just return to the original constitution, The Articles of Confederation , rather then our current replacement.
Sorry, but I never took a oath to uphold or follow the constitution. Did you?
Why don't we just return to the original constitution, The Articles of Confederation , rather the a replacement.
Yes. I did take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Millions of Americans throughout the history of this country have taken that oath.
The Articles of Confederation were replaced when the need to provide a more unified opposition to foreign nation's was realized.
Yes. I did take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Millions of Americans throughout the history of this country have taken that oath..
The Articles of Confederation were replaced when the need to provide a more unified opposition to foreign nation's was realized.
But related to the OP, constitutions can (and should) change as time unfolds. So his wishing to set the courts up to not progress as the world changes, and to be locked in to what was, not what is.
Yes. Regardless, you asked the question. Did you have a point?
Mine is that while you scoff, you benefit from the years of work and blood that men put into creating and sustaining the most successful republic in history, which protects the rights of the individual more than any before or after it.
The oldest existing Constitution, the framework for many others after it, that has rarely even been amended, and still does an excellent job of establishing governance and protecting well over three hundred million people, 227 years after its creation, is nothing to scoff at.
But related to the OP, constitutions can (and should) change as time unfolds. So his wishing to set the courts up to not progress as the world changes, and to be locked in to what was, not what is.
That does not seem to be what he wrote. It looks as though he is proposing the supreme Court need a unanimous vote on the constitutionality of an argument to make a ruling/interpretation.
One of the most successful features of our Constitution is that it can change. The amendment process allows for that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
