Laws shouldn't just be updated willy-nilly. Of course not. But no one thinks they should never be updated.

So this pretend "the constitution is the guiding light of our civilization, and must never be touched" is horse dung.

(10-21-2016 12:13 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Laws shouldn't just be updated willy-nilly. Of course not. But no one thinks they should never be updated.

So this pretend "the constitution is the guiding light of our civilization, and must never be touched" is horse dung.

Here is the problem you have. NOBODY is saying that. We are all aware of, and fully endorse changing the Constitution through amendments if the need should arise. It has been done before, it will be done again. Your problem is that you don't like the way it has to be changed because it doesn't suit your purposes. You want it changed in an easier manner, or rather 'interpreted' as you see fit. THAT'S NOT HOW THIS WORKS

(10-21-2016 12:13 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Laws shouldn't just be updated willy-nilly. Of course not. But no one thinks they should never be updated.

So this pretend "the constitution is the guiding light of our civilization, and must never be touched" is horse dung.

"Laws" are updated and changed willy-nilly, ended, enacted, interpreted, whatever else by the TENS of thousands, every single year. What planet do you even live on?

We're talking about rights here. As in, Constitutional rights. As in "endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights".

These truths should be self-evident, but apparently in certain, *ahem, circles, I guess they are not.

Wow.

(10-21-2016 11:22 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(10-21-2016 11:17 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Right. We update every other law on the books, to stay current with the changing world.

Can't touch the constitution. The thoughts of men from hundreds of years ago are forever infallible, for that one.


You just say that because you think that will best preserve the your current set of sensibilities that you've arrived at in your life, and want to force upon the rest of us.

It has been "touched" multiple times via amendments. It takes some work.......and the Amendments require the agreement of more than 50% +1 of the people - but it can and has been changed.

I suppose you view this method as too hard or too encumbering. It isn't supposed to be able to be changed based on the latest fad of the times......

Correct me if I'm wrong because I'm old like Killary and forgetful. But didn't Oblunder pass obamacare because the supreme court said it was a tax and not a law? Or words like that.

(10-21-2016 12:55 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Correct me if I'm wrong because I'm old like Killary and forgetful. But didn't Oblunder pass obamacare because the supreme court said it was a tax and not a law? Or words like that.

It survived the Supreme Court, despite the fact that they recognized it as a "tax" bill, even though it originated in the Senate. (Officially, all tax bills are supposed to originate in the House of R.)

It's one reason Roberts got raked over the coals after he made the statement about it being a tax, and that it was within the perview of the US Senate.

200,

"It has been done before, it will be done again."


Except you - and everyone - knows that is a bald-faced lie.

There will never, ever be another amendment to the constitution. It's physically impossible to achieve.

(10-21-2016 01:39 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  200,

"It has been done before, it will be done again."


Except you - and everyone - knows that is a bald-faced lie.

There will never, ever be another amendment to the constitution. It's physically impossible to achieve.

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be done physically.

Right, so you agree.

OK, then you'll have to revise your entire argument from that point on. Go

(10-21-2016 12:13 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Laws shouldn't just be updated willy-nilly. Of course not. But no one thinks they should never be updated.

So this pretend "the constitution is the guiding light of our civilization, and must never be touched" is horse dung.

Executive powers are great for me, but not for thee.

Respect for the Constitution is what protects us from situational ethics, double-standards, and rule by whim and fad.

Minimize its role at your own peril.

I'll take that risk

(10-19-2016 03:24 PM)miko33 Wrote:  This will mean that after the election I'll have to take several hot showers. But I have to face what I've been thinking for awhile now but didn't have the heart to verbalize or write it out.

With great sadness, I'm with her.

Of course you are.

(10-21-2016 01:39 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  200,

"It has been done before, it will be done again."


Except you - and everyone - knows that is a bald-faced lie.

There will never, ever be another amendment to the constitution. It's physically impossible to achieve.

If that is true?...It is because the American public have fully accepted being slaves on a comfortable plantation. They lack the will and motivation to fight. They are too involved with the modern trappings of technology to notice their enslavement.

I hope you are totally incorrect. I can see several things that are worth mounting a grass roots effort to change. Term limits would be a the top of my list.

(10-21-2016 01:39 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  200,

"It has been done before, it will be done again."


Except you - and everyone - knows that is a bald-faced lie.

There will never, ever be another amendment to the constitution. It's physically impossible to achieve.

Last one was in 1992. Not impossible to happen again.

(10-21-2016 10:48 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(10-21-2016 10:05 AM)Paul M Wrote:  We know the types Hillary will nominate for the court. We have Trumps word he will nominate a different type. But that's all we have. His word. And being he's a lying pos, I don't put a lot of faith in his word. But I always held the hope he would at least keep his word on his picks. If he won. Doesn't appear it's going to matter at this point. Start planning the fights against Hillary's picks.

Right. He's going to nominate the next Sotamayor. You are on crack.

And since I said that... nowhere.

(10-21-2016 01:51 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Right, so you agree.

OK, then you'll have to revise your entire argument from that point on. Go

I'm not agreeing with you. I'm making fun of your poor choice of words

(10-21-2016 09:57 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I am so glad you started this thread. It's a good opportunity for the righties on this forum to save some face and jump ship before it sinks.

Welcome aboard.

Yea, about that sinking ship.....