Hey Fucksticks!

[pigsteak]

what does "burn" mean? he is cool?

[Andrew]

I really don't know, I just said it to be cool.

[Andrew]

I really don't know, I just said it to be cool.

[michaelarmand]

Charlie - perhaps it is you not appreciating my humor?

And seriously tommy - go read the constitution. There is no other document like it in the world - no county where so much power rests in the hands of the people. You think it is irrelevant? America didn't become a superpower nation until post WWII, and we didn't win the cold war defeating the soviets economically until 20 years ago. Was the constitution irrelevant then?

And I am not at all opposed to ammending the constitution, there is process for that. But it requires the will of the people to do so. You think the majority want the feds running car companies, banks, and the health care system????

[toad857]

reading this thread = into the rabbit hole

[Crankmas]

screw you guys, I'm going home

[L K Day]

My whole point is, the constitution was written by some smart folks escaping tyranny. Their primary intent was to limit the power of the federal government. We have completely lost sight of this.

"The constitution is old and it no longer applies to these modern times."

tbwilsonky

Sadly, this is a notion subscribed to by far too many of our current political class, whether they're from the right or the left. Next November we need to remind the bums that there are many of us that still hold the constitution dear. And, tbwilsonky, slavery is clearly unconstitutional and always has been. If our country had had the courage to fully govern by the constitution we wouldn't have waited until the 1860s for the end of slavery, or until the 1900s for women to get the vote. The ideas expressed in the constitution are far more prescient, and relevant to today, than you give them credit for being.

[tbwilsonky]

You think it is irrelevant?

i'm not suggesting it's irrelevant, nor am i suggesting it is not without merit. i'm just saying it is a situated document. and to make claims about how we might proceed in the present based on interpretations of a 200 year old document does not lend itself to any sort of creative flexibility. should we throw it out? of course not. would we be better off if the document hadn't been methodically undermined since it's singing? probably. maybe. i don't know. all i'm suggesting is there are problems which exceed the considerations contained in the constitution.

America didn't become a superpower nation until post WWII, and we didn't win the cold war defeating the soviets economically until 20 years ago. Was the constitution irrelevant then?

what do either of these have to do with the relevancy of the constitution? the US became a superpower after WW2 because the productive capacity of Europe was shot, Bretton Woods stabilized currency exchange rates, and we had a ton of post-war industrial potential. was the fucking Marshall Plan in the Bill of Rights and nobody told me? and what on earth does the constitution have to do with a failed soviet economy (you know, the one which was 'defeated' by our economy because as we all know economies are basically like foot races)

if you're going to make an - if, then - claim you might ought make sure the components have something to do with one another.

[tbwilsonky]

The ideas expressed in the constitution are far more prescient, and relevant to today, than you give them credit for being.

i agree. it is prescient and is still relevant. what i don't agree in is a dogmatic surrender to a text without critically situating said text in its historical milieu.

-t

[caribe]

2) "escaping tyranny": i find it hilarious that people don't trust the vile self-serving ethos of modern government officials, but believe the first set of politicians in this country were altruistic saints. nope.

Brilliant!!! Very good sir!! I have the same point of view when retards blabber on about the founding fathers.