The Constitution And Amendments

[MikeyK]

I'm so sick of hearing conservatives like Michelle Bachmann going on and on about the constitution. One minute she tells us it is perfect and our founding fathers got it right and the next she is telling us she was to add a marriage amendment and a balanced budget amendment. Either the founding fathers got it right or they didn't.

Shouldn't constitutional conservatives want to end the amendment process? It seems to trample all over the constitution as it was written by our founding fathers.

 

[squallumz]

i heard the constitution was written on hemp.

lets smoke it, yo.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

She's a fucking whack job, and needs a big steaming hot cup of SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!


But the Second Amendment is perfect, and stays....

 

[MikeyK]

She's a fucking whack job, and needs a big steaming hot cup of SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!


But the Second Amendment is perfect, and stays....

It is just weird that so many conservatives love the constitution but most are too dumb to realize that the things they love so much, like the 1st and 2nd amendment, were never in the constitution as the founding fathers wrote it.

They are also arrogant enough to want to continue to amend it as they see fit.

And don't forget that the 2nd amendment may at some point in the future be revoked through the amendment process. We already have examples of amendments canceling out others. Prohibition.

 

[No_Man]

As a "constitutional conservative," I was initially going to chime in on this. But all you've done is construct a giant straw man argument, and there's no point trying to debate against a figment of your imagination. Cite an example of this supposed hypocrisy by Michelle Bachmann and I'll be happy to respond to that example.

 

[MikeyK]

As a "constitutional conservative," I was initially going to chime in on this. But all you've done is construct a giant straw man argument, and there's no point trying to debate against a figment of your imagination. Cite an example of this supposed hypocrisy by Michelle Bachmann and I'll be happy to respond to that example.

Michelle Bachmann has be quoted many times saying we need to follow the constitution as it was written by our founding fathers. But she is also quoted as saying she wants to make two amendments of her own. The marriage amendment and the balance budget amendment.

How am I wrong? She wants to change the constitution.

And as a constitutional conservative do you recognize the amendments at all? You are aware the amendments came later right? And a good number were not enacted by our founding fathers. Do you recognize them?

 

[Hypergalaxy]

You cant expect to understand or reason with crazy... Unless you are crazy as well

 

[Mr. Daystar]

It is just weird that so many conservatives love the constitution but most are too dumb to realize that the things they love so much, like the 1st and 2nd amendment, were never in the constitution as the founding fathers wrote it.

They are also arrogant enough to want to continue to amend it as they see fit.

And don't forget that the 2nd amendment may at some point in the future be revoked through the amendment process. We already have examples of amendments canceling out others. Prohibition.

.......When they pry them from my cold, dead hands.

 

[luis1972]

"Democracy, is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Freedom, is a well armed lamb contesting that vote."
~Benjamin Franklin 1759

 

[STDiva]

"Democracy, is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Freedom, is a well armed lamb contesting that vote."
~Benjamin Franklin 1759

Did he actually say that?

 

[adeptblue]

Michelle Bachmann has be quoted many times saying we need to follow the constitution as it was written by our founding fathers. But she is also quoted as saying she wants to make two amendments of her own. The marriage amendment and the balance budget amendment.

How am I wrong? She wants to change the constitution.

And as a constitutional conservative do you recognize the amendments at all? You are aware the amendments came later right? And a good number were not enacted by our founding fathers. Do you recognize them?

The process for amending the constitution was built into the original constitution (Article V). I'm not sure what you point is.

 

[MikeyK]

The process for amending the constitution was built into the original constitution (Article V). I'm not sure what you point is.

My point is that the constitution is a flawed document. Always has been. It has been changing since it was written.

 

[adeptblue]

My point is that the constitution is a flawed document. Always has been. It has been changing since it was written.

Of course it is. They teach that in elementary school.

 

[Mayhem]

My point is that the constitution is a flawed document. Always has been. It has been changing since it was written.

Dude, you need to chill. Your continuous need to be pissed about something is taking years off your life.

The Constitution was specifically made to be added to. Y'know, this is why we have a Congress. What Bachmann is probably getting to is the Bill of Rights. Let us all keep in mind that the woman is bat-shit crazee and apparently has a staff and speech writers that are as nutz as she is. But the rest of us can be Constitutional "Preservationists" and not be as thoroughly wacko as she is.

Bachmann is just mouthing words and playing to crowds. I sincerely doubt that she even knows what she's talking about, most of the time.

 

[CunningStunts]

It is just weird that so many conservatives love the constitution but most are too dumb to realize that the things they love so much, like the 1st and 2nd amendment, were never in the constitution as the founding fathers wrote it.

Um, the Bill of Rights was technically part of the Constitution and contained the first 10 amendments.

And I agree that too many politicians want it both ways these days... either you believe that government exists to protect your freedoms as an individual, or you believe the people serve the government. End of debate. Unfortunately both major parties these days believe the latter and that we are sheep, not individuals, who work for them and not the other way around. :2 cents:

 

[No_Man]

Michelle Bachmann has be quoted many times saying we need to follow the constitution as it was written by our founding fathers. But she is also quoted as saying she wants to make two amendments of her own. The marriage amendment and the balance budget amendment.

How am I wrong? She wants to change the constitution.

And as a constitutional conservative do you recognize the amendments at all? You are aware the amendments came later right? And a good number were not enacted by our founding fathers. Do you recognize them?

Of course I recognize the amendments. As adeptblue stated, the process for amending the constitution is itself constitutional and, in fact, one of the constitutions greatest strengths.

Personally, I think you misinterpret what all these conservative "whack jobs" are saying. Arguing for the primacy of the constitution in U.S. law and government does not in any way require me to consider it a perfect document. Only that it is the standing law of the land and MUST be obeyed unless and until an amendment is made to it. Otherwise, we have no law and order of any kind in this country.

So when someone looks at me and says, "The government should take over providing healthcare." I'm going to say, "The constitution doesn't allow it." But by saying that, I'm not making a judgment on whether it would be better or worse to have the government provide healthcare, or whether there should or should not be an amendment that allows the government to provide healthcare. Only that the constitution, as it is currently written, does not allow it and, if you want to move ahead with a government run healthcare system, you must first change the constitution to allow it, then move forward with implementing it.

It's about order of operations. Most liberals want the government to do what they feel is best and then, after it's done, change the law to fit what they did. That results in a government that moves quickly, but without boundaries or respect for the authority of the people. Meanwhile, most conservatives want the government to change the law to fit around the issue at hand and then act within the powers granted by that law. That results in a government that moves slowly, but with clear boundaries and great respect for the authority of the people.

 

[CunningStunts]

Another point to consider for those tho think the Constitution is "outdated" and/or irrelevant... That document was the second in the history of mankind (the first being the Magna Carta) to limit the power of government. The US Constitution was written to act as a shield AGAINST government power over the people the government is supposed to protect. It's a guarantee of the rights of individuals against oppression.

Unfortunately, during the last century, there was an erosion of the rule of law and the basic principles of the Constitution that divided the government powers and limited it's reach, all in the name of expediency and of course "helping" the people. This has led to an enormous collection of power in the hands of the Executive branch at the Federal level, erroding the power of the other branches of the Federal government, rights and powers of the states, and our rights and individuals. :2 cents:

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Did he actually say that?

Yes...and Thomas Jefferson said, "I prefer dangerous freedom, over peaceful slavery". Which is one of the reasons we have a Constitution, and many of the Amendments some people think are useless, or invalid.

 

[CunningStunts]

Yes...and Thomas Jefferson said, "I prefer dangerous freedom, over peaceful slavery". Which is one of the reasons we have a Constitution, and many of the Amendments some people think are useless, or invalid.

Jefferson was the man.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Ben Franklin


Unfortunately, too many sheeple these days see "security" or "safety" provided by the government as reassuring, not understanding that not only are they giving up power over their own lives to an uncaring, unfeeling entity, but that "security" is a complete illusion.

 

[MikeyK]

Of course I recognize the amendments. As adeptblue stated, the process for amending the constitution is itself constitutional and, in fact, one of the constitutions greatest strengths.

Personally, I think you misinterpret what all these conservative "whack jobs" are saying. Arguing for the primacy of the constitution in U.S. law and government does not in any way require me to consider it a perfect document. Only that it is the standing law of the land and MUST be obeyed unless and until an amendment is made to it. Otherwise, we have no law and order of any kind in this country.

So when someone looks at me and says, "The government should take over providing healthcare." I'm going to say, "The constitution doesn't allow it." But by saying that, I'm not making a judgment on whether it would be better or worse to have the government provide healthcare, or whether there should or should not be an amendment that allows the government to provide healthcare. Only that the constitution, as it is currently written, does not allow it and, if you want to move ahead with a government run healthcare system, you must first change the constitution to allow it, then move forward with implementing it.

It's about order of operations. Most liberals want the government to do what they feel is best and then, after it's done, change the law to fit what they did. That results in a government that moves quickly, but without boundaries or respect for the authority of the people. Meanwhile, most conservatives want the government to change the law to fit around the issue at hand and then act within the powers granted by that law. That results in a government that moves slowly, but with clear boundaries and great respect for the authority of the people.

People would cry like bitches if someone tried to add health care to the constitution or write an amendment taking away the right to arms. You would probably be one of the people claiming a health care amendment was unconstitutional.