Should the gop change its name to the 'constitutionalists'?

[bongsaway]

Let's take the issue of abortion. The right would love to kill Roe v Wade saying it is not a constitutionally protected right. Fair enough, it's not mentioned in the constitution as are many many other laws that are not mentioned in the constitution, yet they exist.

In the year 2021 I have to wonder why so many republicans are supposedly dedicated to a document that was written almost two hundred and fifty years ago as if it still applies to today's america when much of it doesn't?

 

[Blue Dog]

Just my opinion here, but consecutive ideology embraces parts of the past that worked for a stable society.

Now, we can debate ad nauseum the veracity of such a philosophy, but it could explain why those keep to the spirit of the Constitution.

 

[bongsaway]

Just my opinion here, but consecutive ideology embraces parts of the past that worked for a stable society.

Now, we can debate ad nauseum the veracity of such a philosophy, but it could explain why those keep to the spirit of the Constitution.

We are not a stable society at the moment, so what spirit is being protected?

 

[Mycroft]

Let's take the issue of abortion. The right would love to kill Roe v Wade saying it is not a constitutionally protected right. Fair enough, it's not mentioned in the constitution as are many many other laws that are not mentioned in the constitution, yet they exist.

In the year 2021 I have to wonder why so many republicans are supposedly dedicated to a document that was written almost two hundred and fifty years ago as if it still applies to today's america when much of it doesn't?

It appears you don't understand the purpose of the Constitution...or what it means to be "unconstitutional"...or, even, WHY Roe v Wade is considers by some to be unconstitutional.

I can go into this further, if you want, but you'll have to ask me nicely. Frankly, I think I would be wasting my time.

Anyway, to answer your baiting thread title: It's up to the GOP, isn't it? Just like it would be up to the Democrats if you were to ask if they should change their name to The Socialists.

 

[Blue Dog]

We are not a stable society at the moment, so what spirit is being protected?

That’s why I said the point was debatable. It’s a perception more than a reality. Republicans embracing the document along the lines outlined in your OP are seeking an non-existent idealism.

 

[Craig234]

Bongsaway, what do you mean, 'fair enough'? That shows a very bad lack of understanding of the English language and the constitution. When the constitution explicitly protects 'other rights' not explicitly listed, do you not understand what those words mean? Your opinion is why the constitution nearly didn't get passed.

It's one thing that right-wingers make wrong and ignorant arguments to get their way with people who fall for them, it's another for you to fall for them.

The constitution has mostly become just another weapon of corruption in the hands of Republicans, who appeal to the respect people for have for it in trying to use it to get their way with lies and misrepresentations. It's like when a con man claims Doctors agree with their con job. You trust doctors, right?

The issue is one that the founding fathers never really were able to address: how to protect rights under a written constitution. Clearly a monarch wasn't the way to do it; the monarch could take away rights, which was always a conflict even with monarchs, as William the Conqueror began the new rule of England in 1066 with a promise to follow existing laws and monarch's ability to take away rights has been cut back ever since.

The founding fathers grappled that they couldn't figure out how to protect rights in the constitution. First they thought, if they say that the government had no powers not listed - like the power to restrict abortion - that that would protect them. But many of them rightly realized how that wouldn't really protect them and demanded listing some to be extra clear.

But others recognized that listing some to be clear about them would likely make it so it seemed like only those were protected and that they couldn't list everything they couldn't come up with, so they explicitly protected unlisted rights in the 9th and 10th amendments in the Bill of Rights. Republicans and your argument prove how that didn't really solve the issue.

Another thing that makes the constitutional issue difficult is two parts. One is that ethereal nature of the 'unstated' right of abortion and where you draw the line between where the government can and cannot restrict rights when it comes to unstated rights, and other is how arbitrary Roe's attempt to 'split the baby' so to speak by making viability or trimesters a constitutional dividing line weakens it as clearly demanded by the constitution.

And so the issue is what the founding fathers didn't want: where rights are nothing but political battles. Win the political fight, you can take away the right. It shows the limits of any form of government to 'protect rights'. The country could pass an amendment explicitly protecting abortion; but then the next right that's not listed would be in question. Is the constitution supposed to list every right?

If you think that's the answer, what you have on your side is that they are clearer if still generally unclear when listed, but that then the 9th and 10th are ignored, and you guarantee unlisted rights can be taken away. There is no 'clean' answer to this, because we don't know how to protect 'unstated' rights really.

 

[Drowning Man]

Let's take the issue of abortion. The right would love to kill Roe v Wade saying it is not a constitutionally protected right. Fair enough, it's not mentioned in the constitution as are many many other laws that are not mentioned in the constitution, yet they exist.

In the year 2021 I have to wonder why so many republicans are supposedly dedicated to a document that was written almost two hundred and fifty years ago as if it still applies to today's america when much of it doesn't?

Talk about rights like a young black man's right on the street to be free of searches and seizures and free of having to answer questions from the local police...and you get a very non-Constitutionalist answer.

Talk about rights like being able to say, "**** the police!", kneeling at a football game, etc...and you get a very non-Constitutional answer.

Talk about rights like being able to peaceably assemble in protest of the cops...and you get a very non-Constitutional answer.

Nah...they don't own the title of "Constitutionalist" any more than they own "libertarian" or "patriot".

 

[Luckyone]

Let's take the issue of abortion. The right would love to kill Roe v Wade saying it is not a constitutionally protected right. Fair enough, it's not mentioned in the constitution as are many many other laws that are not mentioned in the constitution, yet they exist.

In the year 2021 I have to wonder why so many republicans are supposedly dedicated to a document that was written almost two hundred and fifty years ago as if it still applies to today's america when much of it doesn't?

The GOP, Constitutionalists?

No, no, no. Perhaps "Opportunists" would be a better title for the party given that they use whatever works for them when they need it. They apply the Constitution with Roe v Wade and the throw the Constitution down the toilet when it comes to the Democrat-led House wanting to impose their Constitutional rights to investigate the President and his cohorts.

The Constitution is not a guideline for the GOP, but a tool to achieve their goals when it applies and an obstacle-to-push-away when in the way to their success

 

[bongsaway]

It appears you don't understand the purpose of the Constitution...or what it means to be "unconstitutional"...or, even, WHY Roe v Wade is considers by some to be unconstitutional.

I can go into this further, if you want, but you'll have to ask me nicely. Frankly, I think I would be wasting my time.

Anyway, to answer your baiting thread title: It's up to the GOP, isn't it? Just like it would be up to the Democrats if you were to ask if they should change their name to The Socialists.

I thought I mentioned the reason r v w is unconstitutional is because abortion is not in the constitution, no?

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Have you ever seen three fifths of a person, I haven't. Does this statement in the constitution line up with the all men are created equal idea?

And one last thing since we are elevating the constitution to some god-like level, how many states existed when the constitution was ratified and yet we still hold this document sacred like it's written in stone. The one thing the founding fathers did do is make it nearly impossible to change any bad or totally outdated idea in the constitution.

 

[BirdinHand]

I don't think the OP knows what it means to be a "constitutionalist".

 

[CaughtInThe]

Just my opinion here, but consecutive ideology embraces parts of the past that worked for a stable society.

it makes sense to me. tons of conservatives where raised in the church and they were taught to embrace parts of the bible and ignore other parts so that is inbred.

now, the people that embrace parts of the bible for their own evil are a different story.

 

[MamboDervish]

Let's take the issue of abortion. The right would love to kill Roe v Wade saying it is not a constitutionally protected right. Fair enough, it's not mentioned in the constitution as are many many other laws that are not mentioned in the constitution, yet they exist.

In the year 2021 I have to wonder why so many republicans are supposedly dedicated to a document that was written almost two hundred and fifty years ago as if it still applies to today's america when much of it doesn't?

I’m not aware of any facet of the Republican Party that I would characterize as “constitutionalist”. They cherry pick some elements of the Constitution, just like they cherry pick everything else, including the bible, and often pit some of it against itself. Like selectively favoring the 2nd Amendment over the 1st In their interpretations.

 

[Mycroft]

I thought I mentioned the reason r v w is unconstitutional is because abortion is not in the constitution, no?

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Have you ever seen three fifths of a person, I haven't. Does this statement in the constitution line up with the all men are created equal idea?

And one last thing since we are elevating the constitution to some god-like level, how many states existed when the constitution was ratified and yet we still hold this document sacred like it's written in stone. The one thing the founding fathers did do is make it nearly impossible to change any bad or totally outdated idea in the constitution.

Is this supposed to be your way of asking nicely?

Try again.

 

[Craig234]

Have you ever seen three fifths of a person, I haven't. Does this statement in the constitution line up with the all men are created equal idea?

And one last thing since we are elevating the constitution to some god-like level, how many states existed when the constitution was ratified and yet we still hold this document sacred like it's written in stone. The one thing the founding fathers did do is make it nearly impossible to change any bad or totally outdated idea in the constitution.

Bongs, your right is in the right place, but your arguments are in error. Counting slaves as three-fifths of a person was clearly an arbitrary political power battle and compromise not following any principle, but it also did not say they are three-fifths of a person like they don't have all their body parts. You don't need to misrepresent the three-fifths clause to show the document did not respect equality of men, allowing slavery already did that.

And you left out other inequalities, like 'women' or children and so on. Now those things have been addressed in terms of slavery being outlawed, equality of genders even if not explicitly stated, practically enforced, and the due process clause prohibiting racial discrimination in theory - so no longer issues with the constitution?

It's not a good argument to suggest the constitution just be ignored because it's an old document IMO. It is the law and I don't think you'll do well asking people to just ignore it. Instead, point out how the Republicans misinterpret it to suit their partisan agenda. How it can mean anything 5 people on the Supreme Court say it means.

How Republicans misuse the constitution as a weapon for their corruption. The argument about how hard it is to change isn't wrong, but weaker when the original constitution and Bill of Rights have been amended 17 times. Should it be easy to take away anything desired in the constitution?

 

[code1211]

Let's take the issue of abortion. The right would love to kill Roe v Wade saying it is not a constitutionally protected right. Fair enough, it's not mentioned in the constitution as are many many other laws that are not mentioned in the constitution, yet they exist.

In the year 2021 I have to wonder why so many republicans are supposedly dedicated to a document that was written almost two hundred and fifty years ago as if it still applies to today's america when much of it doesn't?

The issue that a Constitutionalist would have with Roe v Wade is that this is OBVIOUSLY a States' Rights issue.

Making this into a consideration regarding morality is the lie that the hysterical pro abortion crowd seems to like to present.

That this crowd does not understand the issues involved says nothing about the Constitutional topic or the folks that do understand the Constitutional topic.

The Tenth Amendment:

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.[6]

 

[j brown's body]

"Fascists" would be more appropriate.

The Supreme court has ruled numerous times that a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion. The Mississippi case brings no new argument to contradict this. It is based solely on the fact that the judges are more right-wing today than they were before. This is a horrible way to make law.

 

[danielpalos]

Let's take the issue of abortion. The right would love to kill Roe v Wade saying it is not a constitutionally protected right. Fair enough, it's not mentioned in the constitution as are many many other laws that are not mentioned in the constitution, yet they exist.

In the year 2021 I have to wonder why so many republicans are supposedly dedicated to a document that was written almost two hundred and fifty years ago as if it still applies to today's america when much of it doesn't?

Rebels without a Cause is more accurate.

 

[independentusa]

Let's take the issue of abortion. The right would love to kill Roe v Wade saying it is not a constitutionally protected right. Fair enough, it's not mentioned in the constitution as are many many other laws that are not mentioned in the constitution, yet they exist.

In the year 2021 I have to wonder why so many republicans are supposedly dedicated to a document that was written almost two hundred and fifty years ago as if it still applies to today's america when much of it doesn't?

Thee GOP is a party that only leans on the constitution when it goes along with their policies. They totally agree with the present interpretation of the 2nd Amendment for that reason. Many constitutional scholars think that Citizen's United is not supported by the Constitution, but the GOP agrees with the present decision as it goes along with their fund raising that was in the past controlled by laws. They are against the decision on Roe as it does not agree with their political agenda. So, NO, the GOp should not be called constitutionalists.

 

[less right]

The issue that a Constitutionalist would have with Roe v Wade is that this is OBVIOUSLY a States' Rights issue.

Making this into a consideration regarding morality is the lie that the hysterical pro abortion crowd seems to like to present.

That this crowd does not understand the issues involved says nothing about the Constitutional topic or the folks that do understand the Constitutional topic.

The Tenth Amendment:

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.[6]

First off it's the anti-abortion crowd trying to make a morality argument about killing "babies".

And rights reserved 'to the people' means it doesn't matter where you live and makes it anything than other than "obvious" that it's a States Rights issue.

With that you've managed to nail jello to the wall.

 

[bongsaway]

Is this supposed to be your way of asking nicely?

Try again.

No I wasn't asking you nicely. I copied that from the constitution to point out that all men aren't created equal and in turn it was written for wealthy white folks no matter how much you or anyone else tries to deny that fact. If it was meant for all men what's with the three fifths stuff?

I'm sorry mycroft but I don't put the same value you do on our constitution. I think it is an outdated document that is in need of some serious updating.

 

[dockside]

Bongsaway, what do you mean, 'fair enough'? That shows a very bad lack of understanding of the English language and the constitution. When the constitution explicitly protects 'other rights' not explicitly listed, do you not understand what those words mean? Your opinion is why the constitution nearly didn't get passed.

It's one thing that right-wingers make wrong and ignorant arguments to get their way with people who fall for them, it's another for you to fall for them.

The constitution has mostly become just another weapon of corruption in the hands of Republicans, who appeal to the respect people for have for it in trying to use it to get their way with lies and misrepresentations. It's like when a con man claims Doctors agree with their con job. You trust doctors, right?

The issue is one that the founding fathers never really were able to address: how to protect rights under a written constitution. Clearly a monarch wasn't the way to do it; the monarch could take away rights, which was always a conflict even with monarchs, as William the Conqueror began the new rule of England in 1066 with a promise to follow existing laws and monarch's ability to take away rights has been cut back ever since.

The founding fathers grappled that they couldn't figure out how to protect rights in the constitution. First they thought, if they say that the government had no powers not listed - like the power to restrict abortion - that that would protect them. But many of them rightly realized how that wouldn't really protect them and demanded listing some to be extra clear.

But others recognized that listing some to be clear about them would likely make it so it seemed like only those were protected and that they couldn't list everything they couldn't come up with, so they explicitly protected unlisted rights in the 9th and 10th amendments in the Bill of Rights. Republicans and your argument prove how that didn't really solve the issue.

Another thing that makes the constitutional issue difficult is two parts. One is that ethereal nature of the 'unstated' right of abortion and where you draw the line between where the government can and cannot restrict rights when it comes to unstated rights, and other is how arbitrary Roe's attempt to 'split the baby' so to speak by making viability or trimesters a constitutional dividing line weakens it as clearly demanded by the constitution.

And so the issue is what the founding fathers didn't want: where rights are nothing but political battles. Win the political fight, you can take away the right. It shows the limits of any form of government to 'protect rights'. The country could pass an amendment explicitly protecting abortion; but then the next right that's not listed would be in question. Is the constitution supposed to list every right?

If you think that's the answer, what you have on your side is that they are clearer if still generally unclear when listed, but that then the 9th and 10th are ignored, and you guarantee unlisted rights can be taken away. There is no 'clean' answer to this, because we don't know how to protect 'unstated' rights really.

Roe v Wade was not a case of right of abortion, it was the right to privacy that was earlier the basis of two decisions from Connecticut which outlawed the prescribing and/or use of birth control.

 

[bongsaway]

Bongs, your right is in the right place, but your arguments are in error. Counting slaves as three-fifths of a person was clearly an arbitrary political power battle and compromise not following any principle, but it also did not say they are three-fifths of a person like they don't have all their body parts. You don't need to misrepresent the three-fifths clause to show the document did not respect equality of men, allowing slavery already did that.

And you left out other inequalities, like 'women' or children and so on. Now those things have been addressed in terms of slavery being outlawed, equality of genders even if not explicitly stated, practically enforced, and the due process clause prohibiting racial discrimination in theory - so no longer issues with the constitution?

It's not a good argument to suggest the constitution just be ignored because it's an old document IMO. It is the law and I don't think you'll do well asking people to just ignore it. Instead, point out how the Republicans misinterpret it to suit their partisan agenda. How it can mean anything 5 people on the Supreme Court say it means.

How Republicans misuse the constitution as a weapon for their corruption. The argument about how hard it is to change isn't wrong, but weaker when the original constitution and Bill of Rights have been amended 17 times. Should it be easy to take away anything desired in the constitution?

I am not suggesting we ignore the constitution, I'm suggesting we update it to represent the twenty first century instead of the eighteenth. I use slavery as the prime example of all men being created equal but as you mentioned there were several other things to point out all men are not created equal. So, with the very opening of some of our sacred documents it's clear somebody is lying to somebody. Let's face it only wealthy landowning scholarly types voted, nobody else. With that in mind, I find it difficult to take these documents seriously. They do have good points but also a lot of bad.

 

[Mycroft]

No I wasn't asking you nicely. I copied that from the constitution to point out that all men aren't created equal and in turn it was written for wealthy white folks no matter how much you or anyone else tries to deny that fact. If it was meant for all men what's with the three fifths stuff?

I'm sorry mycroft but I don't put the same value you do on our constitution. I think it is an outdated document that is in need of some serious updating.

shrug...

Okay. Unfortunately, when you want to talk about how things are, you'll have to refer to the Constitution...as it is...even if you don't like it. You can't make shit up.

 

[Craig234]

Roe v Wade was not a case of right of abortion, it was the right to privacy that was earlier the basis of two decisions from Connecticut which outlawed the prescribing and/or use of birth control.

Well, ya, but I don't think that addresses my post.

 

[Craig234]

I am not suggesting we ignore the constitution, I'm suggesting we update it to represent the twenty first century instead of the eighteenth. I use slavery as the prime example of all men being created equal but as you mentioned there were several other things to point out all men are not created equal. So, with the very opening of some of our sacred documents it's clear somebody is lying to somebody. Let's face it only wealthy landowning scholarly types voted, nobody else. With that in mind, I find it difficult to take these documents seriously. They do have good points but also a lot of bad.

Well, specifics are needed about what to update. When they wrote, all men are created equal, they were dealing with one revolutionary idea - the king and nobles were treated as quite superior to peasants, and they were radically recognizing at least white male property owners as more equal than they had been in monarchies. They were not thinking of and did not view slaves or women or "merciless Indian savages" as equal.

The "Great Emancipator" Lincoln said it clearly a century later when he said he opposed any idea of equality of races:

I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermingling with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior. I am as much as any other man in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

And yet, soon after, the US changed our constitution to, on paper, create just that equality under the law. No more slavery except for criminals, and no laws treating races unequally. Sure, culturally, great discrimination remained, but it was done under a pretense of "separate but equal" rather than 'officially' treating races unequally. It was progress.

A lot of what you criticize in the original document has been 'corrected'. Your point is now quite unclear. Are you criticizing the branches of government? The right to free speech? The freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures? The natural born or age requirements to be elected? Etc. I don't think the constitution is the problem. Plutocracy is. Including that plutocracy 're-writes' and destroys important parts of the constitution.