Actually, 4 questions. (Clarification made so as to not piss off Llpoh.)
Well, the “Constitution” article I submitted isn’t getting a lot of traction …. 6 responses, and only Harry P. liked it. But, that’s OK, really. Submitting articles is usually a “hit or miss” endeavor. Nevertheless, it does lead to today’s four questions. Let’s keep the answers brief.
–1) Have you read the Constitution in its entirety? (Simply ‘yes’ or ‘no’ …. and be honest!)
–2) If the answer is “No”, whenever you comment about it, aren’t you just engaging in speculation and bullshit? (Simply ‘yes’ or ‘no’ …. no need to justify your answer.)
–3) If there is a Fourth Turning coming to America, would it make sense to write a new and better Constitution? (Other countries have done so.)
–4) Whether you have read it or not, in one or two sentences maximum, what does the Constitution mean to you? (Note: The question does NOT ask you to explain what the Constitution is ABOUT.)
1 Yes
2 N/A
3 No
4 It means a legitimate standard of both freedom and liberty based on a standard of individual responsibility never seen in the world before. A standard that produced the greatest nation of liberty and opportunity in the history of the known universe.
Yes
N/A
No
It is a contract between the Founders and their posterity. Like a will. You don’t change a will after the fact. The only way to alter it is to have 2/3 of the states ratify a change HELD BY PLEBISCITE of the Founders Posterity, i.e the folks who are specifically mentioned in the contract.
No
No (due to “entirety” as listed”
Yes – All countries in history have had great upheavals
A standard for the gov’t to abide by and protection for its citizens. A ‘Living Constitution’ as espoused by the Dems allows for dictatorship.
1 Yes
2 N/A
3 If there is a Fourth Turning on the way, we will likely have a new form of governance regardless. Whether the composition of a new foundational document is the product of durress, perhaps after the old one has been largely suspended to deal with existential crises, and indeed whether there is even a United States (50 of them) is another question entirely. We have amended the existing document, and there is no reason to think that a wholesale replacement now would be any better than the one we have and ignore. If the people are willing to put up with autocratic tyranny now, they will be willing to put up with it under a new document.
4 It means limits on the ability of the government to rule the people. It means (and is ignored) that most government interaction should occur at the State level, which may be more intrusive than the Feds are authorized to enact.
Stucky- We have been over this before.
(1) Yes
(2) N/A
(3) No
(4) Uphold the Constitution as it is written. It is the best we can hope for on this prison planet .
“Stucky- We have been over this before.” ——– Bea Lever
Oh. I didn’t know that. So solly.
Me.
1) No.
2) Yes.
3) Assuming a Fourth Turning is basically a “do over”, then “yes”. Why not write a new Constitution? Is the old one so perfect? If it was so perfect the Supreme Court wouldn’t have needed 200 years of gutting it and RE-interpreting it.
4) The Constitution to me is like the Bible to Christians — it is THE document which defines our “faith”. It is a beautiful concept. But, like the Bible, it was written a long time ago, and can use some updating to reflect new realities. (Go ahead and vote me down you fuckers. I can take it.)
Yes (depending on which version to one is referring)
N/A
No (I suppose you mean a Constitutional convention ?)
“It” means that some people made a non-contract on my behalf , without my consent and without my proxy and without my knowledge. “It” was not signed by me and I was not of “legal” age. “It” was not entered into willingly. It is an “offer I cannot refuse”.
Yes
Yes
No ,don’t want liberals progressives anywhere near the constitution.
The constitution is a legal ,objective document detailing what the government cannot do to its citizens. It is supposedly the document our government is to obey in relation to us.
No
No
No
It’s the guiding principles upon which our country was formed. It should be the underlying basis for how the executive, legislative, judicial and citizenry should act.
Yes.
N/A
It does not need re-written but the 12th, 16th, and 17th amendments need removed. The 12th created this tyranny of the majority. The 16th enabled the banksters and politicians to grow the beast beyond our ability to keep it tame. The 17th removed the individual state’s representation and powers as the senate became just another house of representatives.
The constitution is a wonderful contract that takes into account economics, human rights, and history, which is intended to do what the preamble states…In order to form a more perfect union(not a country), establish justice,ensure domestic tranquility, provide the common defense, promote the general welfare(not to be confused with today’s welfare), and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity(meaning citizens only)…
Yes (I make a point of reading it every few months, its not even a long or hard read)
No
Almost surely not (if it was actually followed we’d be in good shape and anything people in power today would come up with would be much further from ideal).
To me its a concise layout of limits and responsibilities (in an imperfect world) of a proper and pragmatic govt can/should do if it doesn’t want to become tyrannical and overthrown.
Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
We should go full “chimpout” when usurpers like Oreo wipe their backside on that document. It is OUR fault as WE THE PEOPLE have not been good guardians.
Grog,
Which version?
1. Yes
2. n/a
3. No, we don’t need a new Constitution, we need to follow the one we have.
4. A contract to limit the federal government to specific stated functions, all the other powers are for the citizens of each state to decide for themselves. IOW, leave us the fuck alone.
1. Yes
2. N/A
3. Yes, it needs to be updated, but only to make language more clear in some respects.
No interpretation necessary. In the past they used more flowery language than today, and today’s scumbags use that same language to creatively interpret our rights. That shit needs to stop. Deliberate obfuscation of facts is one of the biggest crises facing our society today.
4. Same as you guys. It is not a contract granting citizens rights, but instead limiting government involvement.
Yes, but it was in High School civics, 41 years ago.
N/A
No
The Constitution is the rule of Law, we can’t argue with it, if we want to change it then an act of Congress is required, not a phone and a pen.
[img
[/img]
@Anon
Pick one. The one when the 18th amendment was enforced? I could mention other such events. So, yes, which version ? Somebody wrote: “Uphold the Constitution as it is written.” Does that mean as it is today or before the so called Civil War or after the 14th, just when? So, no more amendments are allowed?
1) yes
2)yes
3) no
4) Bea is right. Be careful what you wish for. The constitution we have is fine if we have common sense and figure out what the definition of is is.
Rob in Nova Scotia from another thread. It was a good band and a good song, to bad it is over.
1) No
2) No
3) No
4) As a Canadian, you have a document I could only WISH to have!!! You guys don’t know how lucky you are to have it. Don’t let your government screw with it!!!!
“No interpretation necessary. In the past they used more flowery language than today …” —-TPC
I’m not talking about flowery language.
— I’m talking about a country of a few million vs 320 million.
— A mostly homogenous country vs an amazing “melting pot”.
— A country where neegrows were manageable vs the feral animals most are today.
— A country back then without mooslim-fuks.
— A basically agrarian economy vs an industrial one.
— A technologically backward country vs one where the government can literally eavesdrop on every single phone conversation.
In other words, in every conceivable way — from culture to demographics to technology — the framers of the Constitution could not possibly be aware of the issues America would face 200+ years from their original writings. Therefore, why pretend that a 200+ year old document has all the answers?
Stucky,
How about reading that “200+ year old document” before making any statement about what it does and does not have answers to.
From my point of view, every single problem we face to day is the result of ignoring what it says -out of deliberation or ignorance of it- not shortcomings it contains.
It even contains the process of changing, removing, or adding to it through the amendment process, something that indicates the founders very definitely considered future developments as they wrote it.
“How about reading that “200+ year old document” before making any statement about what it does and does not have answers to.” ———— Anonymous
That’s probably an EXCELLENT idea.
Notice that in my case, I answered “No” to question 1 AND “Yes” to number 2. In other words, I admit having not read it … AND that, as such, my opinions about it are bullshit or speculation.
Other people admit to not having read it …. yet they think opining about it is not speculation or bullshit. I don’t understand that logic.
Read the “founding documents” quite a few times. Have a booklet in my briefcase, always.
Looks to me that the feds have ignored the limitations imposed; have re-interpreted many word meanings with the help of SCOTUS, and way too many people are ignorant of the meaning of the words as used by the writers.
Few people seem to aware of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, which explains the purpose. Certainly, almost zero in government.
I go along with the idea that it’s permanently contractual, but for the specific method for changes to the contract.
1. Yes
2. NA
3. Fuck That, much blood has been spilled already, ready for more?
4. I like and think often in terms of contract, but it is more than that, inalienable is above contract.
““No interpretation necessary. In the past they used more flowery language than today …” —-TPC
I’m not talking about flowery language.
— I’m talking about a country of a few million vs 320 million.
— A mostly homogenous country vs an amazing “melting pot”.
— A country where neegrows were manageable vs the feral animals most are today.
— A country back then without mooslim-fuks.
— A basically agrarian economy vs an industrial one.
— A technologically backward country vs one where the government can literally eavesdrop on every single phone conversation.
In other words, in every conceivable way — from culture to demographics to technology — the framers of the Constitution could not possibly be aware of the issues America would face 200+ years from their original writings. Therefore, why pretend that a 200+ year old document has all the answers?
”
I think its possible to tweak the existing document, while getting rid of “excess” words and phrases that really only give scumbags a loophole when they need one.
I happen to agree that it needs an update, but one that explicitly reigns in the government in very clear terms.
No
Yes
Depends
I have brought up the point of “what benefits does the system of Nation States provide the average citizen of anywhere?” several times without a single response…that by all rationale supersedes this argument as at least one function of the Constitution is to establish the United States as a Sovereign Nation. Personally, I believe that as the current Fourth Turning heats up we will see a fracturing process rather than a continuation of the globalization process (aka New World Order). So, does it make sense to re-write the Constitution of the United States if it is fractured into several new States or dozens to hundreds of small communities? It is a non-sequitor. I think this fracturing process MUST take place…because if the current US Empire maintains its current power structures it will drive the world to WWIII and that would most likely turn nuclear and then we REALLY won’t need a Constitution. A USSR-style breakup of the union is really the best option and could happen rather quickly with states seceding in rapid procession. This leads to several constitutions at minimum.
On an entirely separate line of thought…the Constitution is simply a document. The power of it comes from widespread belief in the ideas contained within it. (The scene between Josie Wales and Ten Bears says this as well as anything I can think of – “The Iron must come from men.”) Most people cannot separate an ideal world, from their own perceived world, from the real world.
In an ideal world we would need no constitutions or contracts or courts because everyone would act morally in all instances. Everyone can dismiss this idea, of course, but many people still believe in a mostly-ideal world where “governments just follow the damn Constitution.”
The perceived world is always a solipsistic one: the US Constitution is the best one ever written. Do you think the average citizen of other countries would just naturally agree? Many here will immediately respond “well they’ve never lived under it. God Bless America.” Well, that begs question “Have we?”
The real world is the one where the Powerful are above the written law…so what real good does even the finest and most nobly written Constitution do? Well, taken for granted that there will always be very powerful people, who rise to power by being the most ruthless…the US Constitution worked quite well for quite a while. It has withstood many assaults for two-and-a-half centuries, but I suspect it’s ultimate end is just over the horizon. Does it make sense to write a new one? Yes, but I very seriously doubt it will be for the same land mass and the same group of people who currently live in the Unites States of America…and this is not an entirely bad thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9EBYw5VN2E
How the hell can you make the words “shall not be infringed” any more clear?
DRUD- The USD is simply a piece of paper but you believe it is worth working for and that it has value. Do you believe the Constitution has value over other pieces of paper that govern populations? Would you trade with another country? If so, which country/countries ?
For those of you who haven’t bothered reading it (unless you are a lawyer, judge, or politician in which case you are not expected to read it):
http://info.hillsdale.edu/constitution_101_enroll?utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=con101
Learn something and revise your attitudes in accord to what you learn.
1) Yes
2) N/A
3) No need. It is a sound, enduring framework for governing a republic formed by the union of differing states. It has a very sound mechanism for revision already embedded within it. It is highly unlikely that any number of shit-throwing monkeys could improve on it.
I believe it would be a bold, positive change for a new Constitutional Party to emerge from the ashes of the Republican Party and work forcefully toward dismantling a great deal of the Federal power structure.
Iluv has it right, but just to be sure we could amend it by adding, “and we really mean it”.
The limits on government power written in the constitution are all that stands in front of the runaway train of “progressive” ideology, or more accurately thirst for power and theft, that is taking all western democracies to economic ruin and loss of freedoms.
Yes – but I’ve read the bible a few times and I am not an expert on it either.
NA
IMHO – No. I would simply repeal some of the newer amendments.
I’m with Fiatman on this one… ain’t my country but wish our waste of paper looked more like yours. When it comes right down to it though the paper is only worth as much the people it is meant to protect. When society lacks virtue the document quickly loses it’s meaning…
1.) Yes. Both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
2.) Ignoring the “comment” aspect for now and applying it to daily business – I am not an attorney. But I could have been good one. I write all my own contracts to save money and all three of my law firms are impressed. Personal/family, Business & Copyright & Trademark/ Intellectual Property. They all scratch their heads at me in respectful disbelief. In my business, we quote clients up front. But this is too “low brow” for fancy law firms anymore I guess. In any case, I got tired of calling an attorney on the phone and then getting a $550 bill one to two months later. I have kids in college and I don’t want to pay that crap. So now I just write it up and let them review it. It saves money and still, holds them accountable. This is not hard to do if you use previous “paid for templates” as well as online resource that are available now.
3.) No. Let’s stick with what we have. It has worked well for a long time absent the modern illegitimacy of our current system.
4.) To me, the Constitution means freedom. Some Anarchists may disagree. But, I believe, in its true application, law provides independence from governmental oppression as well as lawless neighbors and administers justice (and remedy) within the court system(s) when required.
Too bad, in the advent of this Fourth Turning, it’s all been rendered moot for now.
This is the problem…
I am holding out for a return to the Articles of Confederation.
Great responses. I loved reading them all.
I am surprised at the response to changing the Constitution. Literally no one is for it …. except a few who are OK with minor changes.
Works the same way with religion. “What? Change the Bible to reflect modern findings? Are you NUTS??? This is God’s Word you’re talking about!!”
Well …. the Constitution didn’t come from God!
Stuck @ 5:37 pm – “The Constitution didn’t come from God!”
Actually, not that I would ever want to challenge the great Heir StuckMeister – but – if you read the actual language… it kind of did?
Too beautiful and concise to have been written by man alone. Just sayin’?
Yes
NA
Yes
The constitution should be slightly altered so that liberal fucktards cannot test its meaning.
For instance, the First Amendment could be clarified : “people have the right to say whaler the fuck the want, no exceptions.”
Second: “People have the right to own any type of gun, and ammo, no exception. ”
Etc.
The ability of the loony oft to create smoke and mirrors needs to be snuffed out.
1.Yes, a few thousand times
3. No
4. It is a document that protects our rights and the rights of our children, written by some of the greatest men that ever walked the Earth. That’s what it means to me.
I would als d away with executive orders. And the electoral college.
CO2 you make a great point but I have money that John Roberts could come up with something.
1. Yes and Bill of Rights
2. n/a
3. No. Go back to Articles of Confederation
4, I think Constitution was take over of country, which led to what we have now.
I brought up a moral point regarding theft, this you did not answer. Do you think stealing is wrong or do you not?