• 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!

The Constitution Is A JOKE!

NolanVoyd said:
NOPE.

I lead you to the facts but I am not going to read them to you or hold your hand.

I gave you two links.

If I were a guest in somone else's country I would read up and learn.

But that's just me.
Click to expand...

The "facts" that exist only in your mind.
 
NolanVoyd said:
Pay attention.

I linked them.
Click to expand...

Y A W N

And let me guess, your link(s) are somewhere back in the thread and it's up to me to look for them as your time is way too valuable to repeat yourself
Never let anyone accuse you of being original.
 
NolanVoyd said:
You commented on them when I posted them you just didn't bother to read them


I'm not into childish games. Run along now.
Click to expand...


Like I said, don't let anyone accuse you of being original

I do find your posts to be amusing however.
 
plantpower said:
In the Constitution is says that you have the right to bear arms. To "bear" them, that means the right to carry them. But the supreme court took that right away. We are also supposed to have freedom of speech in this country. Though the supreme court decided that private entities such as forum like this where people communicate with each other don't have to allow people freedom of speech. But if freedom of speech doesn't apply everywhere, it may as well apply nowhere. Also, do you have the freedom to get married in this country? No. You have to pay for a marriage license. Do you have the right to fish or hunt? No. You have to pay for a fishing or hunting license. Do you have the right to drive? No. You have to pay for a drivers license. (Among other things) Do you have the right to own property? No. You have to pay taxes on any property you have. There are probably other things. But that is all that is coming to mind right now.

Though when it comes to taxes, one of the principles our country was founded on was "No taxation without representation." But the average person has no representation in government. Politicians are bought and paid for by the wealthy. Which means that it isn't a democracy either. To be a true democracy, those in government would have to be placed in office by lottery. Also, do you have the right to smoke? Basically, no. Unless you can pay for them. Or you have waste time to roll your own. That is due to taxes. The government taxes the hell out of cigarettes. But it is a punitive tax meant to force people to quit smoking. Though a punitive should not be illegal. The cigarette tax is just another means of taxing the poor more than anybody else. A long time ago in England they used to have a tax on windows. Though this wasn't meant to keep people from having windows. (But for many or possibly most, that is the effect it had) How screwed up is a tax on daylight!
Click to expand...


What a useless boring rant from someone clearly ignorant of the facts.

You DO have freedom of speech....you got this garbage posted!
 
Fearandloathing said:
What a useless boring rant from someone clearly ignorant of the facts.

You DO have freedom of speech....you got this garbage posted!
Click to expand...

And no-one has ever claimed that you have the right to carry a gun on private property, against the property owner's wishes.
 
The rights laid out in the Constitution are what we call negative rights. That is the government itself cannot take them away from the citizens. This does not protect us from private companies that disallow certain speech in their platform. And you have a 'right' to property in a sense that the government cannot prevent you from buying it. That doesn't exempt from any other legal requirements that have been voted and passed into law (the same is true with guns). None of these were meant to be unconditional rights. And in fact when the founding fathers comprised the Constitution they meant that only the Federal Government abided by these rules. In other words, they thought states could establish their own Church if they wanted to however the Federal Government could not (violated the establishment clause).
 
Parker_Chess said:
The rights laid out in the Constitution are what we call negative rights. That is the government itself cannot take them away from the citizens. This does not protect us from private companies that disallow certain speech in their platform. And you have a 'right' to property in a sense that the government cannot prevent you from buying it. That doesn't exempt from any other legal requirements that have been voted and passed into law (the same is true with guns). None of these were meant to be unconditional rights. And in fact when the founding fathers comprised the Constitution they meant that only the Federal Government abided by these rules. In other words, they thought states could establish their own Church if they wanted to however the Federal Government could not (violated the establishment clause).
Click to expand...

If a clause in the Constitution, granting citizens a right, is repealed, then that removes that 'right"

eg: if the 2nd Amendment was repealed, then citizens would have no right to a gun
Doubly so if the amendment repealing the 2nd, also gave Congress to authority to ban guns.
 
Teatime said:
Point of Order: You actually do not have a Constitutional right to vote for President. The popular vote means absolutly nothing, legally. Each State decides how they want to determine their electoral votes, so a State can elect to not let the public vote decide (and imo, we should not, we should remove the drama and showmanship from elections entirely) Additionally, in most States, the individual electoral delegate is not bound to vote the way their state wants and can cast their vote any way that individual desires.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm sure that will go over big with voters.
 
Rich2018 said:
The "facts" that exist only in your mind.
Click to expand...

The facts exist whether or not you can understand them... give it more time, you might yet figure them out. 🤭
 
timmytims said:
The ultra rich .keep pulling bricks out of our wall that was put in place for our protection against the ultra rich .( the constitution was created as a wall of defense against ever being ruled over by a tyrant .
Click to expand...

that wall will keep crumbling at an Alarming rate.

you will be ruled by the wealthy, eventually they will take their Velvet gloves off and game over.


.
 
Bodi said:
The facts exist whether or not you can understand them... give it more time, you might yet figure them out. 🤭
Click to expand...

No, I'm not sure that I'll ever figure out your mind and the "facts" that it creates

But rest assured that you have a monopoly on them :)
 
Rich2018 said:
No, I'm not sure that I'll ever figure out your mind and the "facts" that it creates

But rest assured that you have a monopoly on them :)
Click to expand...

That is a fact.
 
Yes, because of the Constitution, American society has been the most exceptional in world history, but there is at least one more super project that we need to fulfill. We need a reliable government charter system for the oppressed, or otherwise, developing societies. The United States State Department cannot relieve the global problem that leads to the immigration problem that we endure. The State Department only knows the American system, which works uniquely, because it is a product of its evolution of adjustments. Very much like a jalopy automobile, it works; however, it cannot be duplicated, because it has an obsolete chassis and customized parts to accommodate the unique evolution of the original model and the operator accustomed to the peculiarities of the parts and performance.

Just because the Constitution is better than any other does not mean there are no consequences for its imperfections. We are at that juncture in the advanced evolution of the American Experiment. Miscalculations, or inadequacies, that did not seem to matter, now matter. We are enduring the consequences of the overrun of an erroneous self-government experiment. Domestic tranquility has been forfeited and the improperly formulated political parties have appropriated the people’s sense of justice.

We need a reliable government charter system that can be translated and replicated for all languages, formatted to properly integrate and balance all levels of government powers, and scalable for three municipal population dimensions: small, standard, and large. We need a reliable chartering system, because not perfect is not good enough, anymore.


A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom.

Thomas Paine
Common Sense, 1776​
Click to expand...
 
plantpower said:
In the Constitution is says that you have the right to bear arms. To "bear" them, that means the right to carry them. But the supreme court took that right away. We are also supposed to have freedom of speech in this country. Though the supreme court decided that private entities such as forum like this where people communicate with each other don't have to allow people freedom of speech. But if freedom of speech doesn't apply everywhere, it may as well apply nowhere. Also, do you have the freedom to get married in this country? No. You have to pay for a marriage license. Do you have the right to fish or hunt? No. You have to pay for a fishing or hunting license. Do you have the right to drive? No. You have to pay for a drivers license. (Among other things) Do you have the right to own property? No. You have to pay taxes on any property you have. There are probably other things. But that is all that is coming to mind right now.

Though when it comes to taxes, one of the principles our country was founded on was "No taxation without representation." But the average person has no representation in government. Politicians are bought and paid for by the wealthy. Which means that it isn't a democracy either. To be a true democracy, those in government would have to be placed in office by lottery. Also, do you have the right to smoke? Basically, no. Unless you can pay for them. Or you have waste time to roll your own. That is due to taxes. The government taxes the hell out of cigarettes. But it is a punitive tax meant to force people to quit smoking. Though a punitive should not be illegal. The cigarette tax is just another means of taxing the poor more than anybody else. A long time ago in England they used to have a tax on windows. Though this wasn't meant to keep people from having windows. (But for many or possibly most, that is the effect it had) How screwed up is a tax on daylight!
Click to expand...


You're debating yourself; asking questions then answering them with your own opinions.

Exactly when did the Supreme court overturn the 2nd amendment? Did they put restrictions on the meaning of "bear", yes they did indeed AFTER a few hundred innocent lives were lost unnecessarily.

Or are you arguing against any form of alteration in the constitution? Careful there since the 2nd amendment is an alteration....

Are you arguing against any form of restrictions? Careful there because, well speed limits are a restriction.

I will leave you with a suggestion to get your hands on a grade ten US history text book. I mean, you're being schooled by a Canadian, dude.
 
Mach said:
It's a great prototype, and was the catalyst and starting point for most of the free and prosperous democracies around the world.
Yes, it has some glaring weakness that we historically have dealt with using tradition and good behavior.
Now that for some, tradition and good behavior are no longer valuable, they are free to exploit those weaknesses.

Yes, it's a problem, and it could be our undoing as a nation, but it's not a joke given what they had to work with, and it's really well for what it is.

It's technically possibly to fix it, but with a 2/3 vote requirement, and only a two party system where one party is trying desperately to abuse power...it's difficult.
Why would they vote against themselves?
Click to expand...


As a journalist I spent about a third of my working life covering the debate over Canada's constitution, signed into law in 1967.

It is an amazing document (according to legal experts) that set the sage for the new era of "inclusion politics of our current age". It is an imperfect document that does well in connecting five distinctly different European societies while allowing direct participation from 'first nations", a breakthrough development few Canadians even realize. Considering it spans 15 time zones, those first nations, three official languages AND personal rights, we can overlook a few weaknesses like the "opting out clause" where any province can simply say "we don't do that" and not have to honor any personal rights.

It faces now the same fate as the US constitution - any realistic idea that it can ever be altered under the current terms is a pipe dream
 
Fearandloathing said:
As a journalist I spent about a third of my working life covering the debate over Canada's constitution, signed into law in 1967.

It is an amazing document (according to legal experts) that set the sage for the new era of "inclusion politics of our current age". It is an imperfect document that does well in connecting five distinctly different European societies while allowing direct participation from 'first nations", a breakthrough development few Canadians even realize. Considering it spans 15 time zones, those first nations, three official languages AND personal rights, we can overlook a few weaknesses like the "opting out clause" where any province can simply say "we don't do that" and not have to honor any personal rights.

It faces now the same fate as the US constitution - any realistic idea that it can ever be altered under the current terms is a pipe dream
Click to expand...

Out of interest, did the adoption of your constitution require a plebiscite ?
 
plantpower said:
In the Constitution is says that you have the right to bear arms. To "bear" them, that means the right to carry them. But the supreme court took that right away. We are also supposed to have freedom of speech in this country. Though the supreme court decided that private entities such as forum like this where people communicate with each other don't have to allow people freedom of speech. But if freedom of speech doesn't apply everywhere, it may as well apply nowhere. Also, do you have the freedom to get married in this country? No. You have to pay for a marriage license. Do you have the right to fish or hunt? No. You have to pay for a fishing or hunting license. Do you have the right to drive? No. You have to pay for a drivers license. (Among other things) Do you have the right to own property? No. You have to pay taxes on any property you have. There are probably other things. But that is all that is coming to mind right now.

Though when it comes to taxes, one of the principles our country was founded on was "No taxation without representation." But the average person has no representation in government. Politicians are bought and paid for by the wealthy. Which means that it isn't a democracy either. To be a true democracy, those in government would have to be placed in office by lottery. Also, do you have the right to smoke? Basically, no. Unless you can pay for them. Or you have waste time to roll your own. That is due to taxes. The government taxes the hell out of cigarettes. But it is a punitive tax meant to force people to quit smoking. Though a punitive should not be illegal. The cigarette tax is just another means of taxing the poor more than anybody else. A long time ago in England they used to have a tax on windows. Though this wasn't meant to keep people from having windows. (But for many or possibly most, that is the effect it had) How screwed up is a tax on daylight!
Click to expand...
Finally, in 1929 the Permanent Apportionment Act became law. It permanently set the maximum number of representatives at 435. In addition, the law determined a procedure for automatically reapportioning House seats after each census


The constitution ant the joke, the system has been taken over long before trump.
 
Master of kitusne said:
Finally, in 1929 the Permanent Apportionment Act became law. It permanently set the maximum number of representatives at 435. In addition, the law determined a procedure for automatically reapportioning House seats after each census


The constitution ant the joke, the system has been taken over long before trump.
Click to expand...

If it's been overtaken, it by population growth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom