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.
We "need experts, judges and justices to tell us what the Constitution says"?? Pure hogwash.
The Constitution was written in ordinary, uncomplicated English in 1789, as were its later amendments, so that normal people could read it and know what the laws were. Enough schooling to read ordinary English was all the education they needed, to know what the Constitution said and meant.
Not until relatively recently did a plague of liberals flood in and start telling people they could NOT know what it meant, just by reading it. The liberals tried mightily to fool people into thinking they couldn't read it and know it themselves. Despite being proficient in English and with ordinary experience and common sense. Suddenly people needed "experts" to tell them what the Constitution said. Such experts had to be liberals, of course.
Such hogwash was designed to trick people into believing the Constitution didn't mean what it clearly said, so that the liberals could start gathering votes to pass their unconstitutional agenda without the resistance that normal, educated people would have given them. Some of them are still pushing this preposterous line even today: You can't understand the Constitution by reading it, you need it explained by a liberal "expert". (Since conservative experts would simply report it meant what it obviously said, and that anyone who claimed otherwise was either lying or very confused.)
Then they went further, announcing that if a state or Federal govt made a law that conflicted with the Constitution, the problem was not that the law was itself illegal (aka "unconstitutional"), but that the Constitution wasn't being "interpreted" correctly. (TRANSLATION: People weren't believing the liberals' lies about that part of the Constitution). This preposterous deceit is still being practiced in some quarters.
All this only underscores the need for judges and justices who form their opinions on what the law is, primarily by reading the Constitution, and taking later-enacted laws with a LARGE grain of salt when they conflicted with the Constitution's clear language.
This gave rise to the question I asked in another thread. If the court says one thing but the Constitution clearly says something else, should we believe the normal people who point out that the Constitution means what it says whether other laws like it or not? Or should we believe the liberals who insist the Const didn't mean what it says, or somehow doesn't count and you need liberals to tell you it says something else?
We "need experts, judges and justices to tell us what the Constitution says"?? Pure hogwash.
The Constitution was written in ordinary, uncomplicated English in 1789, as were its later amendments, so that normal people could read it and know what the laws were. Enough schooling to read ordinary English was all the education they needed, to know what the Constitution said and meant.
Not until relatively recently did a plague of liberals flood in and start telling people they could NOT know what it meant, just by reading it. The liberals tried mightily to fool people into thinking they couldn't read it and know it themselves. Despite being proficient in English and with ordinary experience and common sense. Suddenly people needed "experts" to tell them what the Constitution said. Such experts had to be liberals, of course.
Such hogwash was designed to trick people into believing the Constitution didn't mean what it clearly said, so that the liberals could start gathering votes to pass their unconstitutional agenda without the resistance that normal, educated people would have given them. Some of them are still pushing this preposterous line even today: You can't understand the Constitution by reading it, you need it explained by a liberal "expert". (Since conservative experts would simply report it meant what it obviously said, and that anyone who claimed otherwise was either lying or very confused.)
Then they went further, announcing that if a state or Federal govt made a law that conflicted with the Constitution, the problem was not that the law was itself illegal (aka "unconstitutional"), but that the Constitution wasn't being "interpreted" correctly. (TRANSLATION: People weren't believing the liberals' lies about that part of the Constitution). This preposterous deceit is still being practiced in some quarters.
All this only underscores the need for judges and justices who form their opinions on what the law is, primarily by reading the Constitution, and taking later-enacted laws with a LARGE grain of salt when they conflicted with the Constitution's clear language.
This gave rise to the question I asked in another thread. If the court says one thing but the Constitution clearly says something else, should we believe the normal people who point out that the Constitution means what it says whether other laws like it or not? Or should we believe the liberals who insist the Const didn't mean what it says, or somehow doesn't count and you need liberals to tell you it says something else?
The founders made it easy for everyone to understand. A few small % of Colonist had any education. It had to be easy to read and understand for the people.
As time past, people with bad intentions, have changed the meaning of words, to push an agenda. Through legislation, adding text to the Constitution where it does not exist. Activist Judges have used mental gymnastics to make it sound constitutional. But when we read it, we come to the conclusion, they were insane to even come close to being Constitutional.
We "need experts, judges and justices to tell us what the Constitution says"?? Pure hogwash.
The Constitution was written in ordinary, uncomplicated English in 1789, as were its later amendments, so that normal people could read it and know what the laws were. Enough schooling to read ordinary English was all the education they needed, to know what the Constitution said and meant.
Not until relatively recently did a plague of liberals flood in and start telling people they could NOT know what it meant, just by reading it. The liberals tried mightily to fool people into thinking they couldn't read it and know it themselves. Despite being proficient in English and with ordinary experience and common sense. Suddenly people needed "experts" to tell them what the Constitution said. Such experts had to be liberals, of course.
Such hogwash was designed to trick people into believing the Constitution didn't mean what it clearly said, so that the liberals could start gathering votes to pass their unconstitutional agenda without the resistance that normal, educated people would have given them. Some of them are still pushing this preposterous line even today: You can't understand the Constitution by reading it, you need it explained by a liberal "expert". (Since conservative experts would simply report it meant what it obviously said, and that anyone who claimed otherwise was either lying or very confused.)
Then they went further, announcing that if a state or Federal govt made a law that conflicted with the Constitution, the problem was not that the law was itself illegal (aka "unconstitutional"), but that the Constitution wasn't being "interpreted" correctly. (TRANSLATION: People weren't believing the liberals' lies about that part of the Constitution). This preposterous deceit is still being practiced in some quarters.
All this only underscores the need for judges and justices who form their opinions on what the law is, primarily by reading the Constitution, and taking later-enacted laws with a LARGE grain of salt when they conflicted with the Constitution's clear language.
This gave rise to the question I asked in another thread. If the court says one thing but the Constitution clearly says something else, should we believe the normal people who point out that the Constitution means what it says whether other laws like it or not? Or should we believe the liberals who insist the Const didn't mean what it says, or somehow doesn't count and you need liberals to tell you it says something else?
According to you people we need to be a socialist/communist country b/c its fashionable in undeveloped minds. What is the impact of that on the court system ?
The founders made it easy for everyone to understand. A few small % of Colonist had any education. It had to be easy to read and understand for the people.
As time past, people with bad intentions, have changed the meaning of words, to push an agenda. Through legislation, adding text to the Constitution where it does not exist. Activist Judges have used mental gymnastics to make it sound constitutional. But when we read it, we come to the conclusion, they were insane to even come close to being Constitutional.
Ok so lets just ignore the fact that the world and everything in it changes and evolves in ways anyone alive 200+ years ago could imagine.
Ok so lets just ignore the fact that the world and everything in it changes and evolves in ways anyone alive 200+ years ago could imagine.
The Constitution was designed to be timeless, its just that we have a govt that wants to be tyrannical, so they have to do some 'mental gymnastics' in order to justify that to the american people,
NO infringement on guns is a great example, if we adhered to that, it would impact Govts ability to exert its authority, as it would prevent them from becoming tyrannical, so it must be changed/altered.
The Constitution was designed to be timeless, its just that we have a govt that wants to be tyrannical, so they have to do some 'mental gymnastics' in order to justify that to the american people,
NO infringement on guns is a great example, if we adhered to that, it would impact Govts ability to exert its authority, as it would prevent them from becoming tyrannical, so it must be changed/altered.
It was designed to be broad enough so as to require interpretation as the world changed by the courts. Simple enough.
Despite what you may think, most of the population has no overwhelming feelings about the 2nd amendment other that not wanting crazy people shooting up schools and businesses or some ******* walking around the mall carrying an assault rifle.
It was designed to be broad enough so as to require interpretation as the world changed by the courts. Simple enough.
Despite what you may think, most of the population has no overwhelming feelings about the 2nd amendment other that not wanting crazy people shooting up schools and businesses or some ******* walking around the mall carrying an assault rifle.
What about the First Amendment? Conservatives are so insistent that the "founders intent" was that freedom of religion should only cover the right sects of Christianity and should NOT cover atheism or non-Christian faiths. Yet, we must interpret the Second Amendment 100% literally.
It was designed to be broad enough so as to require interpretation as the world changed by the courts. Simple enough.
Despite what you may think, most of the population has no overwhelming feelings about the 2nd amendment other that not wanting crazy people shooting up schools and businesses or some ******* walking around the mall carrying an assault rifle.
I would be more concerned with the people still having the ability to remove a govt from power if it ever became necessary, slowly and slowly over the years, that ability has been chipped away at, to the point right now, if the people attempted such a thing, law enforcement and/or the US military would squash them in 10 minutes!
Govt needs to fear the people, and what they may do, to a certain extent, to prevent tyranny...Govt has no fear of the people anymore, thats why they were able to create unconstitutional laws, like the drug war...they know there is nothing the public can do to stop them.
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.
