A Complete Waste of Space

a little while back, you expressed shock and disbelief when I described the Constitution as a flexible document. Why? I hope we are into semantics there, as I generally feel you DO apply thought to things. It takes very little thought to figure this one out, IMO. The Constitution itself is fairly brief, and somewhat vague, past some basic principles. It can thus be interpreted and amended as time goes on to adapt to changes in conditions. I think the founders had enough forsight to realize that the USA was not going to remain an agrarian, mostly subsistance, coastal nation forever, and didn't wish to provide a rigid structure.
That they intended it to be flexible should be obvious from the process they took: They adopted the Constitution and immediately amended it, several times. Thus, they not only gave the precedent for flexibility, but encouraged the process to keep it flexible. How can you object to that idea?

Ah, you're sounding more and more like a progressive than the last time I, we were all on a forum together. Before I rant off, politically I'm a Constitutionalist. not a R or a D or whatever- bush did that to me, and obama cemented that clarity.
I occasionally encounter those, such as yourself who claim The Constitution to be; "brief, vague, encourage its change and adaptation", what you really seek is justification for its violation.
And when someone calls you on it, you're insulted, you name call, you create threads in forum defying someone to explain why they are so simple minded as to think the Constitution is some thing that lives, breaths and is just sort of some idea to work with...you rally other like minded to make changes, just a wee little itty bitty change here and there. Social engineering is the scary word, progressive is the New York Times softer word.

How insulting to think the very men who put it all on the line when it was created thought "they intended it to be flexible should be obvious from the process they took"
slick the way you, and your kind- like obama, pelosi recently, of thinking is serious threat to its very intended purpose.
It was precisely THAT THOUGHT PROCESS THEY TOOK that they sought NOT to have it changed, EVER. Good Lord slick, point out one thing in its creation that does not apply, universally, in its entirety today.
bill of rights will no doubt be your next argument. But you said the Constitution.
Take for instance The 17th Amen. fucking removed an important check against federal government growth.
The Constitution is a written contract between We The People and government. To remain lawful a contract must maintain its original intent.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The phrase "to form a more perfect Union" has been construed as referring to the shift to the Constitution from the Articles of Confederation. In this transition, the "Union" was made "more perfect" by the creation of a federal government with enough power to act directly upon citizens, rather than a government with narrowly limited power that could act on citizens (taxes) only indirectly through the states. Although the Preamble speaks of perfecting the "Union," and the country is called the "United States of America," the Supreme Court has interpreted the institution created as a government over the people, not an agreement between the States.

and there in lies the methodology of chipping away at our rights.

here, watch this, i make my child watch it, and I was blown away this year when, at 9, the scouts had representatives from the armed forces talking about Veterns day and the fourth of july- A Navy officer asked "any one know what freedom is" and my kid spouted out a couple of sentences that stunned all those Vets, the guy said after about 5 seconds "who's your dad", fekker pointed me out, they guy looked at me and did a thumbs up.
EVERYONE SHOULD WATCH THIS!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

Its simple slick- it is NOT a flexible document. Amendments exist to further clarify that, NOT fucking change it!
i.e.:

Ratified in 1791, the Tenth Amendment: The Constitution specifies the parameters of authority that may be exercised by the three branches of the federal government: executive, legislative, and judicial. The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers that are not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, except for those powers that states are constitutionally forbidden from exercising.
For example, nowhere in the federal Constitution is Congress given authority to regulate local matters concerning the health, safety, and morality of state residents

Many federalists, such as JAMES MADISON, argued that the Tenth Amendment was unnecessary because the powers of the federal government are carefully enumerated and limited in the Constitution. Because the Constitution does not give Congress, the president, or the federal judiciary the prerogative to regulate wholly local matters, Madison concluded that no such power existed and no such power would ever be exercised. However, British oppression had made the Founding Fathers fearful of unchecked centralized power. The Tenth Amendment was enacted to limit federal power. Although it appears clear on its face, the Tenth Amendment has not been consistently applied.

And yet, better re-state the obvious in an amendment in case some fuckstick doesn't understand the original contract.


I really dont have the patience to go on, i know it will not affect your thinking, I and those who think like me, will simply continue to fight to prevent the modern day threats from getting more power and shifting away from the premise that government must be limited-as set forth in that document. Many have finally realized that when "their" party gets into power and makes permanent changes the very real threat that when "their" party loses, the newly elected can use those laws to fuck the very people that cheered it on.

When they came for the gypsies, we didn't care.

What, that cant happen here? Why not? How many examples of erosion of all the amendments do you want before you stop and think. What if next election the nation swings so far to the right, that its suddenly a crime to express differing opinions.
Want you tube links of Obama (the very first president to call out, by name- citizens and news agency's who disagree with him) or you tube links of our leaders in the last year saying (essentially) screw the law, we're going to do "this".

Awesome...Fuckin Awesome...So well written Dawg, that even Slick, lacks the vocabulary to express his admiration.....

Old Pudfark sez: " 40 year old Scotch is meant for prose like that....the best, I've seen so far.... "

It's sad that Slick just doesn't get it. The Federalist Papers exist to explain why the Constitution and Bill of Rights exist the way they do. They're written in english that is still easy to understand today. And Slick either hasn't read them or he's too stupid to understand the written word. Plus he believes everything the libs tell him.

kind of funny.....I ask for a clarification from Dawg, and got one. Still, the barnacles to my ass cling to the insults and stupidity. Thanks, for the laughs, lightweights.

Now, to Dawg. I accept much of what you state, especially about the Federalist papers clarifications, but differ over a few points. That I differ, does not mean that I feel you HAVE to be wrong, and I am correct. Just, that I differ, or in some instances, still don't get your rationale. To wit:

1. nothing you wrote above did anything whatsoever to suggest that Amendments could not, and have not
changed the focus of the original words. In fact, it could be argued that the 17th amendment changes
wholesale one entire section regarding Senate representation and State's rights.

2. Ah, the Bill of Rights. It's actually a series of Amendments, demonstrating that the original can be changed,
improved upon, whatever. Amendments adjust the rules of the Constitution to deal with conditions that
have changed. For instance, later Amendments completely changed the definition of eligible voters.
As with all later Amendments, there were sound reasons why they were adopted, and why those that
instituted them felt they were necessary and immutable. Still, like all amendments, every last one of
the original 10 could be overturned by a newer Amendment. Thems the rules, like it or not. The prohibition
Amendment is a glaring example of how even social behavior can be addressed via Amendment, and
the Constitution itself says essentially nothing about such matters.

3. You stated above, "point out one thing in it's creation that does not apply universally, in it's entirety
today". I stated above, the election rules for Senate.

4. About the point that I stated about generalized format, let's look at the description of the duties of
Government....let's look at Article 1, section 8, shall we?

Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; — And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


Now, are you telling me that those can't be construed either very broadly or very narrowly, to fit damned
near any situation? Come on, man. Toss in similar broad language in the parts on Exectutive and Judicial
authority and you have a governmental structure that can evolve as conditions dictate. Perhaps, Dawg, that is the semantic issue, I originally stated. I probably should have stated that the Constitution provides a framework for a very changeable type of governence, so long as that governence stays within a few boundries of principle. Just think of the phrase 'provide for......the General Welfare of the United States'
for a moment. Hardcore left wingers run wild with that one, hardcore right wingers seem not to realize that is even on the page of Article 1. Both are wrong, IMO.


Finally, you seem to indicate(and this is commonly shared by all States-rights types) that the Constitution was a refinement of the Articles of Confederation. I would hold that it was a wholesale replacement, thus 'creating a more perfect union', and that union was far more centrally controlled than the Confederation of States.

oh, and Dawg......I don't know how you read me in years past, but I have always been a Progressive, albeit a pragmatic one. I am Progressive in the Teddy Roosevelt/Franklin Roosevelt sense. I think the Government has a role to play in the general welfare of the weakest and most vulnerable members of the population. I think that Government has a role to play in the regulation of commerce such that wealth and power cannot run roughshod over the average citizen. I am not for wholesale handouts, I am not for frivolous spending nor overreaching nanny-state nitpicking. Nothing about those beliefs is one bit different than it was in 2002 when I first started posting herein. I do see that our society has worked best, for the most people when taxes were sharply indexed towards higher taxes on higher incomes(in 1955, when I was born, top Federal Tax rate was 90%), commerce and finance were firmly regulated by agencies that actually enforced the regulations, and when the government was agressive in spending money(even to the point of peacetime deficits) to develop key nationwide infrastructure. Please, show me otherwise.

callmeslick wrote: Please, show me otherwise.

Impossible, you are too wise to learn, or be shown anything.
You realize the contradictions and fallacy's of your manifesto style reply?

'course not.... carry on barnacle ass encrusted trust fund boy

Dawg wrote:Impossible, you are too wise to learn, or be shown anything.

nice dodge. In other words, you are coming up empty, or don't feel up to it. At least, be honest.

You realize the contradictions and fallacy's of your manifesto style reply?

feel free to point them out, and I'll gladly discuss why I wrote them, and the thinking behind it. Writing the above really accomplishes little.

'course not.... carry on barnacle ass encrusted trust fund boy

really, too wordy to be considered a catchy phrase. At any rate, a pretty cheesy ad hominem style response to a serious question, with a detailed reply, from my end. One could expect better of you, Dawg......

Shit. This thread had serious potential.
When I first read it I thought that this thread could develope into one of the all time great CW0S debates.
But then Dawg farted it all away with his last post.

Man, this one could have been GOOD!

callmeslick wrote:oh, and Dawg......I don't know how you read me in years past, but I have always been a Progressive, albeit a pragmatic one. I am Progressive in the Teddy Roosevelt/Franklin Roosevelt sense. I think the Government has a role to play in the general welfare of the weakest and most vulnerable members of the population. I think that Government has a role to play in the regulation of commerce such that wealth and power cannot run roughshod over the average citizen. I am not for wholesale handouts, I am not for frivolous spending nor overreaching nanny-state nitpicking. Nothing about those beliefs is one bit different than it was in 2002 when I first started posting herein. I do see that our society has worked best, for the most people when taxes were sharply indexed towards higher taxes on higher incomes(in 1955, when I was born, top Federal Tax rate was 90%), commerce and finance were firmly regulated by agencies that actually enforced the regulations, and when the government was agressive in spending money(even to the point of peacetime deficits) to develop key nationwide infrastructure. Please, show me otherwise.

I wonder how many folks in that 90% category paid 90% ? Damn Few. With the "loopholes" and exemptions, I'd bet they paid less than 10%. So, you can say all you want to about taxing the rich, the truth is? With all the wiggle room built in, they still are not going to pay. So, why not a flat tax? With no wiggle room. Because, the rich don't want it. Nothing else is more fair, than a flat tax. Why is it that our government is the biggest "charity" in this country? Why are the citizens being forced to contribute to it, by the stroke of a pen? Forced to contribute, is not charity. What is pragmatic and "progressive" about this?

Old Pudfark sez: " Complexity is the grease for Corruption "