MedicTJ Posted January 31, 2013 #251 Share Posted January 31, 2013 There's no need to get rid of the Constitution. There IS however, a need to prevent a president from abusing it. That is the ONLY amendment that needs to be made. The system is supposed to be all about checks and balances....and it's far from that. The president should have absolutely no unilateral power unless it's in an extreme emergency and the country's well-being is in immediate danger. The president has more power now than ever and it needs to be stopped. We elect 537 people for a reason. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted January 31, 2013 #252 Share Posted January 31, 2013 There's no need to get rid of the Constitution. There IS however, a need to prevent a president from abusing it. That is the ONLY amendment that needs to be made. The system is supposed to be all about checks and balances....and it's far from that. The president should have absolutely no unilateral power unless it's in an extreme emergency and the country's well-being is in immediate danger. The president has more power now than ever and it needs to be stopped. We elect 537 people for a reason. You're absolutely right but the problem is worse than just a President abusing it when we've got 530 ignoramuses ignoring Article 1. Last year we had Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich still in the government. As of this month, they're both gone. I don't know who we've got left. People, just like you and me. It's time for We the People to pick up our rule of law and stand up for it, despite the stereotypical insults that Statists won't stop throwing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Sam Posted January 31, 2013 #253 Share Posted January 31, 2013 except when we change it. It is not absolute. not written in stone. It is absolute, we can't change it. It is not meant to change, only added too. Changing or taking away is infringing upon the rights of the citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiloh17 Posted January 31, 2013 #254 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Depends on who's in charge. Republicans write a new constitution you get: War in the middle east, anti abortion, no drugs, guns, etc.. Democratswrite it you get: Peace in the middle east, abortions, medical marijuana, no guns etc.. Just sayin.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted January 31, 2013 #255 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Depends on who's in charge. Republicans write a new constitution you get: War in the middle east, anti abortion, no drugs, guns, etc.. Democratswrite it you get: Peace in the middle east, abortions, medical marijuana, no guns etc.. Just sayin.. That is a little too easy, both Republicans and Democrats cannot change the reality on the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinxdom Posted January 31, 2013 #256 Share Posted January 31, 2013 So, you deduce that if I abide by the rule of the majority I am against something. Good to know your comprehension capabilities, makes it easier not to react towards your unqualified comments. The rule of the majority is folly. You follow what is right. The majority isn't always right case and point... gang rape. If you always follow the majority, you stand for nothing. If I new Constitution was to be written I wouldn't trust any politician or businessman we have currently to do so. It would have to be somebody from the people. One who has not broken our trust and who will abide by our consent. I'd do it but I'd be assassinated before the week is out. Honestly the federal government isn't as strong as most people think it is. The federal government is weak and it shows and it is doing everything it can to protect that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted January 31, 2013 #257 Share Posted January 31, 2013 It is absolute, we can't change it. It is not meant to change, only added too. Changing or taking away is infringing upon the rights of the citizens. Not if the qualified majority of the citizens and/or the qualified majority of their representatives decide otherwise. That is why there is democratic participation. And it is the right of the citizens to demand that any and all of the Constitution may be changed and if they are a qualified majority to get it. Now, if you don't participate in the democratic process you may be disenfranchised, but that is your own fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted January 31, 2013 #258 Share Posted January 31, 2013 The rule of the majority is folly. You follow what is right. The majority isn't always right case and point... gang rape. If you always follow the majority, you stand for nothing. If I new Constitution was to be written I wouldn't trust any politician or businessman we have currently to do so. It would have to be somebody from the people. One who has not broken our trust and who will abide by our consent. I'd do it but I'd be assassinated before the week is out. Honestly the federal government isn't as strong as most people think it is. The federal government is weak and it shows and it is doing everything it can to protect that. What part of the law don't you get? And I doubt there is a majority for gang rape. That is something that can only occur to somebody who rather have a strong dictator to tell those who want a participation in the government: "See, not to bad, you really ain't loosing nothing by giving up your voice". Democracy may be the worst system you can imagine, it is still better than anything else that has been tried to this day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinxdom Posted January 31, 2013 #259 Share Posted January 31, 2013 What part of the law don't you get? And I doubt there is a majority for gang rape. That is something that can only occur to somebody who rather have a strong dictator to tell those who want a participation in the government: "See, not to bad, you really ain't loosing nothing by giving up your voice". Democracy may be the worst system you can imagine, it is still better than anything else that has been tried to this day. What part of do what is right don't you get? I don't care if a law states that I have to kill you on penalty of my life, I wouldn't do it simply because I was told to. Not many people would. i want a democracy. Not a Republic. With a democracy I can influence what happens and be kept in check. If I was in power, I would go out of my way to screw anybody I wouldn't like simply out of principle. In a Democracy I couldn't do that. You were right about the gang-rape thing though it wouldn't happen in a democracy because people know it's wrong. it's more like our current republic. Where the minority would decide what's best (My bad) What is scary though is that people think we have an actual democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
preacherman76 Posted January 31, 2013 #260 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Not if the qualified majority of the citizens and/or the qualified majority of their representatives decide otherwise. That is why there is democratic participation. And it is the right of the citizens to demand that any and all of the Constitution may be changed and if they are a qualified majority to get it. Now, if you don't participate in the democratic process you may be disenfranchised, but that is your own fault. Maine participated in the democratic process when they elected Ron Paul in a landslide to become the republican front runner. But that didnt jive with the establishment, so they just changed the numbers. Was that the voters fault to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted January 31, 2013 #261 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Maine participated in the democratic process when they elected Ron Paul in a landslide to become the republican front runner. But that didnt jive with the establishment, so they just changed the numbers. Was that the voters fault to? Nobody changed any numbers, that is a conspiracy theory. And while Ron Paul was very popular within the internet community his chances with the public at large would not have been much better (or worse) than those of any Republican hopeful running. The few that could have given Obama the boot did not even consider running. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted January 31, 2013 #262 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Maybe what is needed is an amendment saying anyone who posts on message boards has already had their say and therefor is disenfranchised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted January 31, 2013 #263 Share Posted January 31, 2013 (edited) Nobody changed any numbers, that is a conspiracy theory. And while Ron Paul was very popular within the internet community his chances with the public at large would not have been much better (or worse) than those of any Republican hopeful running. The few that could have given Obama the boot did not even consider running. I think it's possibly because Ron Paul's messages were serious and to the point. That bores people and is not typical of most politicians. Obama~ yay yay hope and change yes we can! People~ yay that sounds great! Romney~ on day one I'll do this or that or whatever this crowd likes! (Romney had at least a dozen major day one actions) People~ yay that sounds great! Paul~ we need to go after the federal reserve. It's important. People~ mmm, what's that? Booorring.... By people I mean the low info voters on all sides. Edited January 31, 2013 by -Mr_Fess- 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted January 31, 2013 #264 Share Posted January 31, 2013 (edited) I think it's possibly because Ron Paul's messages were serious and to the point. That bores people and is not typical of most politicians. Obama~ yay yay hope and change yes we can! People~ yay that sounds great! Romney~ on day one I'll do this or that or whatever this crowd likes! (Romney had at least a dozen major day one actions) People~ yay that sounds great! Paul~ we need to go after the federal reserve. It's important. People~ mmm, what's that? Booorring.... By people I mean the low info voters on all sides. well, they say, people deserve their government, that is true.we have rotten politicians (they always were), but ppl in general rotten even more.just remember train incedent not long ago, everyone was taking pictures of a guy the was throw off the platform, but no one even attempted to pull him out. pretty much enough said. with ppl like that around me, i don't care much about politicians Edited January 31, 2013 by aztek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted February 1, 2013 #265 Share Posted February 1, 2013 What is scary though is that people think we have an actual democracy. Jinxdom, it's a democracy replete with sleazy politics, voter fraud, rigged elections and no real choice. Democracy is so overrated. Who has an actual democracy? We have everything to meet the definition of the word, and it still stinks. It's not the minority that should decide what to do, as much as is possible it's the individual, provided that individual doesn't infringe on another individual. I think it's possibly because Ron Paul's messages were serious and to the point. That bores people and is not typical of most politicians. Obama~ yay yay hope and change yes we can! People~ yay that sounds great! Romney~ on day one I'll do this or that or whatever this crowd likes! (Romney had at least a dozen major day one actions) People~ yay that sounds great! Paul~ we need to go after the federal reserve. It's important. People~ mmm, what's that? Booorring.... By people I mean the low info voters on all sides. It's also all the mantras the media parrots. Ron Paul wants your little girl to get kidnapped and raped! That was a good one. Or Ron Paul had a racist newsletter 25 years ago! Or Ron Paul wants to take away your food stamps and let you go hungry! Take away your medicare and leave you dying in the street! Uneducated voters aren't just bored away from Ron Paul, they're scared away. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinxdom Posted February 1, 2013 #266 Share Posted February 1, 2013 You want to know why I want a democracy? For people to understand that their life is their responsibility. Sovereignty and money isn't something that should be automatically given and protected. It needs to be earned like everything else. Not extorted or stolen. Right now we have a notion that puts their lives in other people's hands and just hopes things will work out ok and when it fails the put the blame on others when in truth the blame is on ourselves. A democracy does not protect people from that truth. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsteroidX Posted February 1, 2013 #267 Share Posted February 1, 2013 If you want a democracy Jinxdom your gonna have to move somewhere else. We do not live in a democracy anymore. The right to vote does not alone make it one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinxdom Posted February 1, 2013 #268 Share Posted February 1, 2013 If you want a democracy Jinxdom your gonna have to move somewhere else. We do not live in a democracy anymore. The right to vote does not alone make it one. That is a cold hard truth(I can't hate you for being honest) but I don't need a democracy like most people do. If people want to change this country for the better correctly and admit to when they are wrong if they fail, I will gladly work with them to do so. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsteroidX Posted February 1, 2013 #269 Share Posted February 1, 2013 That is a cold hard truth(I can't hate you for being honest) but I don't need a democracy like most people do. If people want to change this country for the better correctly and admit to when they are wrong if they fail, I will gladly work with them to do so. Were talking the same language 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjadude Posted February 1, 2013 #270 Share Posted February 1, 2013 It is absolute, we can't change it. It is not meant to change, only added too. You are either trolling or seriously ignorant about the constitution. I can't believe someone would say such an outlandish thing. Twenty-seven amendments have been ratified since the original signing of the Constitution, the first ten of which are known collectively as the Bill of Rights. The procedure for amending the United States Constitution is governed by Article V of the original text. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsteroidX Posted February 1, 2013 #271 Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) "hits ignore button" your link doesnt make what he said irrelevant. And thank you for supporting the Bill of Rights as our unalienable rights. Meaning they come from God not the Government and therefore cannot be changed. 10th Limits the powers of the federal government to those delegated to it by the Constitution After that it went downhill. Edited February 1, 2013 by AsteroidX 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjadude Posted February 1, 2013 #272 Share Posted February 1, 2013 your link doesnt make what he said irrelevant. on what planet is the USconstitution unchangable?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinxdom Posted February 1, 2013 #273 Share Posted February 1, 2013 on what planet is the USconstitution unchangable?! One that isn't insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsteroidX Posted February 1, 2013 #274 Share Posted February 1, 2013 One coulod argue the 10th does as it says Limits...not expands the powers of the Federal Government. Any change to the Constitution should come from the people to the state level then the Federal level. But Washington would disagree with me as they dont see the Constitution as a valid document much the same as yourself. Article [X] The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. [Article XI] The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolguy Posted February 1, 2013 #275 Share Posted February 1, 2013 It figures a left wing news channel would say this they would replace it with Obama's law .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now