• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Overturn the Constitution?

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
41,628
Reaction score
48,041
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'm watching this latest tantrum by Democrats on the house floor and they are demanding a closing of "loopholes" even though the method they are supporting is Unconstitutional. They are claiming that their proposals are supported by 90% of the public. So I ask, if 90% of the public chooses to negate the Constitution should we just accept their proposal?

Since I'm currently on tapatalk I can't add the poll but it's a simple yes or no with an explanation.
 
Last edited:

Celebrity

DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
5,257
Reaction score
761
Location
VT, USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If 90% of the public opposed the Constitution, that would mean we have done something wrong. The Constitution might be an obstacle to process, though it is designed to be amended. The real obstacle to progress is due process. Any decision that's unconstitutional would have to be ruled so in a court of law. Otherwise, it's not unconstitutional. I guess the law's innocent until proven guilty, too.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm watching this latest tantrum by Democrats on the house floor and they are demanding a closing of "loopholes" even though the method they are supporting is Unconstitutional. They are claiming that their proposals are supported by 90% of the public. So I ask, if 90% of the public chooses to negate the Constitution should we just accept their proposal?

Since I'm currently on tapatalk I can't add the poll but it's a simple yes or no with an explanation.

No. The Democrats want to ignore the Constitution, yet many Republicans are advocating the same when it comes to government surveillance.

These people took an oath to uphold, protect, and defend the United States Constitution, and I would love to see a class action lawsuit filed in federal court to force them to uphold that oath, and stop this attack on the Constitution they took an oath to protect from these very actions that they are proposing.

But, if we're going to go down this road, then let's do it right - no more free speech, no more religious freedom, no more trials (just lock 'em up), no more civil rights protections (you're not in the majority, then your screwed), no more rights at all, just government. Hell, why do we need to allow these evil corporations to exist? No more private businesses, just government. I could keep going, but I'm getting pissed off, so...
 

Casper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
26,734
Reaction score
11,514
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm watching this latest tantrum by Democrats on the house floor and they are demanding a closing of "loopholes" even though the method they are supporting is Unconstitutional. They are claiming that their proposals are supported by 90% of the public. So I ask, if 90% of the public chooses to negate the Constitution should we just accept their proposal?

Since I'm currently on tapatalk I can't add the poll but it's a simple yes or no with an explanation.

IF? We are not a Democracy so it is not up to a public votes, and polls are useless and not the way to draw up laws or change government. Throw out the Constitution and I for one feel no legal obligation to follow any laws or mandates from the government from that point on, since after all they are no longer a legitimate government. Meaning we would be at War.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm watching this latest tantrum by Democrats on the house floor and they are demanding a closing of "loopholes" even though the method they are supporting is Unconstitutional. They are claiming that their proposals are supported by 90% of the public. So I ask, if 90% of the public chooses to negate the Constitution should we just accept their proposal?

Since I'm currently on tapatalk I can't add the poll but it's a simple yes or no with an explanation.

If 90 percent want something that requires changing the Constitution, the Constitution can be changed. If it isn't then the law would be unconstitutional and the legislators in contempt of the Constitution as well as contemptible in wanting to do so.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
IF? We are not a Democracy so it is not up to a public votes, and polls are useless and not the way to draw up laws or change government. Throw out the Constitution and I for one feel no legal obligation to follow any laws or mandates from the government from that point on, since after all they are no longer a legitimate government. Meaning we would be at War.

We the people are already at war with our government as seen by the shameful show of hatred for the Constitution being displayed live in CSPAN I live and in color right now... it's just not a hot war with blood spilled - YET.
 

Aberration

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
8,554
Reaction score
1,924
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If there was actually 90% public support, they should have no problem passing an Amendment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Tanngrisnir

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2016
Messages
34,150
Reaction score
15,597
Location
No longer Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We the people are already at war with our government as seen by the shameful show of hatred for the Constitution being displayed live in CSPAN I live and in color right now... it's just not a hot war with blood spilled - YET.

LOL! Oh, the manufactured faux-outrage.

If THAT'S your criteria, we've been at war with the gov't since cons began wiping their collective asses with the USC with the War on Drugs and the destruction of the 4th Amendment.

Your fantasies about a domestic hot war duly noted.
 

Casper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
26,734
Reaction score
11,514
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
We the people are already at war with our government as seen by the shameful show of hatred for the Constitution being displayed live in CSPAN I live and in color right now... it's just not a hot war with blood spilled - YET.

Wait for it, it will get here sooner than any of us really want, but I see no possibility of it being avoided, things have gone too far down hill for us to change direction.
 

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,744
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I'm watching this latest tantrum by Democrats on the house floor and they are demanding a closing of "loopholes" even though the method they are supporting is Unconstitutional. They are claiming that their proposals are supported by 90% of the public. So I ask, if 90% of the public chooses to negate the Constitution should we just accept their proposal?

Since I'm currently on tapatalk I can't add the poll but it's a simple yes or no with an explanation.

Of course not, they need to do the work to change the COnstitution. Till then they can stuff it, and that had better be what they get told.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Wait for it, it will get here sooner than any of us really want, but I see no possibility of it being avoided, things have gone too far down hill for us to change direction.

Frightening. Both parties politicians are pushing us toward this.
 

Casper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
26,734
Reaction score
11,514
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Frightening. Both parties politicians are pushing us toward this.

There has been little difference between the two big parties for years now. We The People allowed and supported it so we are going to get exactly what we as a People deserve. Sometimes it takes something dramatic to wake the people up, hang on, it is going to be a bumpy ride for all of us.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
73,293
Reaction score
41,809
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
If 90% really supported this unconstitutional nonsense then any congress critter that voted no would lose their next re-electon bid. I suspect that will not happen so **** that 90% public apprroval claim nonsense. BTW, what ever happened to Kate's Law which was also said to be quite popular?
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
58,777
Reaction score
45,608
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
If 90% of the public opposed the Constitution, that would mean we have done something wrong. The Constitution might be an obstacle to process, though it is designed to be amended. The real obstacle to progress is due process. Any decision that's unconstitutional would have to be ruled so in a court of law. Otherwise, it's not unconstitutional. I guess the law's innocent until proven guilty, too.
You know I had to read this post twice, and it took a while even after that, but I like it and yes I very much agree! :thumbs:
 

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
67,054
Reaction score
20,520
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So I ask, if 90% of the public chooses to negate the Constitution should we just accept their proposal?

of course not thats not how things work

There was FACTUALLY a similar percentage opposed to interracial marriage, didn't matter because that's not how rights work.
 

Celebrity

DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
5,257
Reaction score
761
Location
VT, USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You know I had to read this post twice, and it took a while even after that, but I like it and yes I very much agree! :thumbs:

:thanks:

Let's cut it down to size.
 

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,241
Reaction score
19,931
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
The constitutionality of what they're proposing is not black and white.
 

SocialD

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Messages
2,467
Reaction score
716
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The constitutionality of what they're proposing is not black and white.

Do you happen to have a link to the actual text of what is being proposed by chance? I know its being kicked around but I hadn't read what it was.
 

QuadpolarNutjob

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 31, 2015
Messages
1,522
Reaction score
582
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
i could do without the constitution provided that means we also get rid of the federal government.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The constitutionality of what they're proposing is not black and white.

Actually, it is. Extremely black and white - right and wrong. And, they are wrong, they are proposing UnConstitutional actions.

Please look at the following:

The US Constitution applies to all people within the boarders of the United States and it's possessions, not just citizens, and not just those that are not a potential threat. If a person is too dangerous to fly or requires watching by the FBI and is too dangerous to be allowed to purchase a firearm, then they are too dangerous to be allowed to walk around free, and the government should then be required to establish "Probable Cause" (as required by the 4th Amendment) before they gather any evidence but only while done under the limitations of a Search Warrant issued by a Competent Court (as protected by the 4th Amendment), then before any rights can be, violated, limited, or revoked by the government (including those of the Freedom of Movement as recognized by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment and recognized even before the 14th Amendment was enacted, by Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), and later by Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), and given the fact that the power to regulate Freedom of Movement is reserved to the states by the Privileges and Immunities Clause and not a power of the Federal Government, as codified consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883)), then require the government to inform the accused of what the charges are that are being brought by the government (not some secret list that we don't even know if we've been put on it) and what evidence the accusations are based upon (as required by the 6th Amendment), then allow the accused to retain legal counsel (as required by the 6th Amendment), and allow the accused to call witnesses to testify as to their innocence (as required by the 6th Amendment) then, and only then, must the government present their case before a Grand Jury (as required by the 5th Amendment) to seek an Indictment (as required by the 5th Amendment) to ensure that the accused is provided Due Process of Law (as required by both the 5th and 14th Amendments) just as any other person being accused of a crime by the government would be afforded Equal Protection Under the Law (as required and protected by the 14th Amendment). To do less will decimate not only the rights protected by the 2nd Amendment, but the rights protected by 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments. And could even be argued as Cruel and Unusual Punishment in violation of the 8th Amendment.

You see, it isn't that we want people on the terrorist watch list to buy guns, what we want is the government to respect and protect the fundamental rights of the people that are defined and protected by the US Constitution. These politicians took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution - that's all we're asking, for them to keep the oath they took when they were sworn into office.

It's really that simple.

If people are too dangerous to fly, then why are they not too dangerous to walk among us? Why does the mode of transportation matter when they can kill us with a bomb on the sidewalk easier than they can get one through TSA at the airport?
 
Last edited:

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
41,628
Reaction score
48,041
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
of course not thats not how things work

There was FACTUALLY a similar percentage opposed to interracial marriage, didn't matter because that's not how rights work.

In the particular circumstance we're discussing the Democrats have opposed proposals which afforded some level of due process because they wanted an outright prohibition on certain firearms transfers. They also are asking for a federal rule regarding transfers which happen entirely intrastate. That too is beyond the scope of the Constitution and a violation of the 10th Amendment. In a nutshell, they are seeking to pass laws which directly violate fundamental Constitutional protections.
 

Aberration

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
8,554
Reaction score
1,924
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
LOL! Oh, the manufactured faux-outrage.

If THAT'S your criteria, we've been at war with the gov't since cons began wiping their collective asses with the USC with the War on Drugs and the destruction of the 4th Amendment.

Your fantasies about a domestic hot war duly noted.

You jest, but I would agree. The War on Drugs is a war in the people.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
67,054
Reaction score
20,520
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
In the particular circumstance we're discussing the Democrats have opposed proposals which afforded some level of due process because they wanted an outright prohibition on certain firearms transfers. They also are asking for a federal rule regarding transfers which happen entirely intrastate. That too is beyond the scope of the Constitution and a violation of the 10th Amendment. In a nutshell, they are seeking to pass laws which directly violate fundamental Constitutional protections.

Not sure why you quoted me as this doesnt impact anything i said.
Also fyi its SOME democrats.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I'm watching this latest tantrum by Democrats on the house floor and they are demanding a closing of "loopholes" even though the method they are supporting is Unconstitutional. They are claiming that their proposals are supported by 90% of the public. So I ask, if 90% of the public chooses to negate the Constitution should we just accept their proposal?

Since I'm currently on tapatalk I can't add the poll but it's a simple yes or no with an explanation.
Given the many and varied questionable "interpretations" by the Supreme Court over the years/decades/centuries I sometimes feel that the Constitution has already been overturned.
 

matchlight

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Messages
9,869
Reaction score
3,495
Location
Los Angeles area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If 90% of the public opposed the Constitution, that would mean we have done something wrong. The Constitution might be an obstacle to process, though it is designed to be amended. The real obstacle to progress is due process. Any decision that's unconstitutional would have to be ruled so in a court of law. Otherwise, it's not unconstitutional. I guess the law's innocent until proven guilty, too.

The Constitution's guarantee of due process of law is an "obstacle to progress," in your view?
 
Top Bottom