Do you think we should have periodic rewritings, or a timed-out constitution?
Maybe after lunch.
Or none of the above.... don't forget all of the options.
I was asking do you think we should have either one of those, yes or no? Why don't you think we should have either?
The time is now 1:06 pm.... :mrgreen:
I'd be happy if even the constitution was reratified as it is, it's more I think its something that should be done just to keep us aware of whats in it, and to get us to truly debate the ups and downs of the document.what do you feel needs to be changed in the constitution as-is?
Do you think we should have periodic rewritings, or a timed-out constitution?
Were you going to address my position on the topic or go off on a tangent?
LOL...I eat a late lunch... on second thought, I have a date tonight, so maybe tomorrow.
I'd be happy if even the constitution was reratified as it is, it's more I think its something that should be done just to keep us aware of whats in it, and to get us to truly debate the ups and downs of the document.
Please re-post so I can respond.I did respond, you must have missed it.
So you -are- wanting to go off on a tangent.That his opinion doesn't matter because he wasn't in Philidelphia?
That his opinion doesn't matter because he wasn't in Philidelphia? Sure, but I ask that you answer mine. I think limiting our framework to what a few people decided a few hundred years ago is limiting, and gives us no room to change with new technology. I also posit that they didn't all always agree on what things meant, there were some parts that they ratified after much debate and disagreement, and other parts they didn't debate at all so there's not a lot of documentation to go off of. We need to also remember that some things they'd have no answer for because it didn't exist back then. I mean, labor laws didn't exist back then because there was no real industry, for instance.
So you -are- wanting to go off on a tangent.
Enjoy.
When you want to discuss my position regarding original intent, let me know.
The constitution doesn't cover labor laws, therefore the US government hasn't the right to pass labor laws under the laws this nation was founded on.... along with a lot of other things the government does illegally.
Has it escaped your notice that the US is also the freest country in the world and has the best standard of living? I wonder if the two go hand in hand.
And how could the constitution cover something that effectively wasn't an issue back then?
If laws needed to be passed by the federal gov't that went beyond the restrictions under the constitution, then an amendment should have been passed to allow them.
Good luck. When was the last time an amendment about anything important passed?
Dude, I posted more in that post that I thought was responding to your position. Did you not read it or something?
And how could the constitution cover something that effectively wasn't an issue back then?
Important to you, or important to me? The amendment process is designed to ensure that most agree so changes can't be made arbitrarily on a whim.
I asked earlier what you thought needed to be fixed with the constitution as-is...what do you feel needs to be changed right now?
And how could the constitution cover something that effectively wasn't an issue back then?
Actually the US is not at the top of the list by either of those measures...but regardless, there are lots of free/prosperous countries with constitutions that are much easier to amend. Hell, Israel and the UK don't even have constitutions at all.
This is patenetly false.I think limiting our framework to what a few people decided a few hundred years ago is limiting, and gives us no room to change with new technology.
They may not have all agreed on the all of particul;ars, but that doesnt invalidate my argument - they DID have a particular logic and reasoning that created the working context for the document.I also posit that they didn't all always agree on what things meant, there were some parts that they ratified after much debate and disagreement, and other parts they didn't debate at all so there's not a lot of documentation to go off of.
Not sure you how think this (and all kinds of other things) are not covered by the Constitition -- there's clearly the power to regulate interstate commerce, and, beyond that, the recognition that any additional necessary power belong to the states.We need to also remember that some things they'd have no answer for because it didn't exist back then. I mean, labor laws didn't exist back then because there was no real industry, for instance.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?