Constitution is outdated

[NOVA66]

Needs to be updated.

 

[NatMorton]

That's what amendments are for.

 

[noonereal]

Lol

Talk about stating the obvious.

Watch, all the Trumpists will protest and say its fine. Why? Because it is so outdated that if they get 5 nuts on the court they can continue to live like its 1860.

They are bound and determined to buck nature and not progress.

 

[noonereal]

That's what amendments are for.

How has that been working out?

 

[Acadia]

That's what amendments are for.

That would require our representatives in Congress to actually do their jobs.

Someone watches a ludicrous interview on MSNBC and thinks "Hey, that sounds like a great idea! Let's destroy America!".

 

[NatMorton]

How has that been working out?

Very well considering we're the world's oldest, continuous democracy. And even better now that the court is moving away from judicial activism.

 

[Schism]

As I've said many times, the left is coming for the Founders, then the Founders Documents.

 

[noonereal]

Very well considering we're the world's oldest, continuous democracy. And even better now that the court is moving away from judicial activism.

Overturning previous ruling in favor of agenda is not judicial activism?

 

[bongsaway]

That would require our representatives in Congress to actually do their jobs.

Someone watches a ludicrous interview on MSNBC and thinks "Hey, that sounds like a great idea! Let's destroy America!".

I didn't know trump supporters watched msnbc?

 

[bongsaway]

Very well considering we're the world's oldest, continuous democracy. And even better now that the court is moving away from judicial activism.

Ha ha ha ha ha, good one.

 

[Felis Leo]

Needs to be updated.

Updated how, NOVA66?

 

[Acadia]

Overturning previous ruling in favor of agenda is not judicial activism?

Have you read ANY of the ruling?

 

[it's just me]

Lol

Talk about stating the obvious.

Watch, all the Trumpists will protest and say its fine. Why? Because it is so outdated that if they get 5 nuts on the court they can continue to live like its 1860.

They are bound and determined to buck nature and not progress.

The GOP won this round and true to form, the regressives want to change the rules.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Overturning previous ruling in favor of agenda is not judicial activism?

That is not true. It is simply your confirmation bias speaking,

1. You are opining that this was done to suit a "political agenda." One can reasonably argue that the original decisions in Roe and Casey were doing just that, making up law in order to suit a political agenda. After all there really is nothing in the Constitution about abortion, or the right thereto.

2. Meanwhile, as I've pointed out elsewhere, hundreds of precedents have been overturned upon subsequent review by SCOTUS.

The meltdown has been epic

The drama queening and hyperbole have off the charts. Not just here but all over social media. ‘The justices lied!!!!!’ ‘They’re gonna take away everything!!!!’ Is the truth hyperbole? They have made getting an abortion almost impossible and in his written decision Thomas wrote they were coming...

debatepolitics.com

More directly:

Table of Supreme Court Decisions Overruled by Subsequent Decisions | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

A table of Supreme Court decisions in which the Court overturned a prior ruling. The table contains only cases where the Court explicitly stated that it is overruling a prior decision or issued a decision that is the functional equivalent of an express overruling.

constitution.congress.gov

 

[eohrnberger]

That would require our representatives in Congress to actually do their jobs.

Since when have the political elites done their 'jobs'?
The political elites have been failing the nation and the electorate for some 30 years or more, more concerned about padding their wallets than what is in the best interests of the nation or it's electorate. It's now, finally, that more and more of the electorate are realizing it.

Someone watches a ludicrous interview on MSNBC and thinks "Hey, that sounds like a great idea! Let's destroy America!".

Destroy nations. That's what leftists do. Check history if you have any doubts about this assertion.

Very well considering we're the world's oldest, continuous democracy. And even better now that the court is moving away from judicial activism.

Agreed, but it is the left loves them their judicial activism in the courts, falsely believing that it is their liberal privilege to dictate such, and have threatened to pack SCOTUS to politically get the idiotic public policy cram downs they want, have they not?

As I've said many times, the left is coming for the Founders, then the Founders Documents.

From statues first, then the Founders, and then the Founders Documents, all in pursuit of the absolute political power they so crave, and should be roundly denied.

 

[noonereal]

That is not true.

1. You are opining that this was done to suit a "political agenda." One can reasonably argue that the original decisions in Roe and Casey were doing just that, making up law in order to suit a political agenda. After all there really is nothing in the Constitution about abortion, or the right thereto.

2. Meanwhile, as I've pointed out elsewhere, hundreds of precedents have been overturned upon subsequent review by SCOTUS.

The meltdown has been epic

The drama queening and hyperbole have off the charts. Not just here but all over social media. ‘The justices lied!!!!!’ ‘They’re gonna take away everything!!!!’ Is the truth hyperbole? They have made getting an abortion almost impossible and in his written decision Thomas wrote they were coming...

debatepolitics.com

Roe was a GOP court that only got one GOP vote against.

Now look at all the other rulings last week. Its a social assault on American by political extremists.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Needs to be updated.

Why?
"Outdated" how?
"Updated" how?

 

[Bodi]

Very well considering we're the world's oldest, continuous democracy.

Except for England, the Isle of Mann, Iceland, Scandinavia, Portugal, Native American Nations, etc.

 

[it's just me]

Except for England, the Isle of Mann, Iceland, Scandinavia, Portugal, Native American Nations, etc.

England is a "Constitutional Monarchy".

 

[Bodi]

England is a "Constitutional Monarchy".

I know. So are we. The USA is technically a Democratic Republic if you want to play games... but I am right. They are basic democracies.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Except for England, the Isle of Mann, Iceland, Scandinavia, Portugal, Native American Nations, etc.

Portugal was a Monarchy until the 1930's, did not become a Democracy until 1974. At least according to this Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Portugal

Scandinavia? That's lumping Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and perhaps Finland?

Sweden was pretty much feudal until it became a Constitutional Monarchy. It still is.

So is England. As for Native American Tribes? That depends on the tribe/people. Monarchies abounded in Central and South America. Among the North American tribes there were various forms of Tribal leader organizations.

Meanwhile, I agree. The USA is not a "Democracy." It is a Republic with Democratic principles.

 

[DarkWizard12]

if the idea is that it's too slow, i can agree to that. the world is faster today than it was back then, and government seems to be the only thing that hasn't gotten faster.

 

[Deuce]

As I've said many times, the left is coming for the Founders, then the Founders Documents.

We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

 

[Mustachio]

Very well considering we're the world's oldest, continuous democracy. And even better now that the court is moving away from judicial activism.

So I think I have a pretty good idea of your I thinking On legal matters and I was wondering what you thought about this argument:

It was an unconstitutional and tyrannical judgment by the Trump administration to implement the stay in Mexico policy because The constitution does not contain any mention whatsoever of Mexico. Congress refused to address it so the court should have immediately prohibited the administration and all other administrations from implementing any policies related to Mexico until we have a constitutional amendment specifically regarding Mexico

Now what is the difference between what I just said and your arguments regarding the EPA and most other rulings you've agreed with?

 

[Schism]

We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

^^ There it is: hatred for our Constitution.