Constitutional Ignorance - All Time High

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Aazadan


Do you happen to work for the government, a bank or are currently holding public office of any sort?

I do work for the government but not in politics. One day in the future I would like to hold public office, but I need a better resume first.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Knowing the words of the constitution is meaningless because any document can be interpreted in different ways. Just look at virtually any holy book for example. The same thing is at work with our constitution.

Really! meaningless.

The constitution is a foundation from which our country was built, yes to be interpreted but not ignored, discarded, mocked, and forgotten.

Please don't bring holy books into the argument, because they are paradigms for circular argumentation. One passage is used to prove another. And in holy books stories are used to sway opinion and stir emotions.

originally posted by: Aazadan
No one actually makes laws that they believe are against the constitution, it's all a matter of interpretation. As a result this proposal does nothing.

I disagree 100%.

Patriot Act

The newest ruling by the Pennslyvania Supreme Court, that police officers now do not need a warrant to search someone's vehicle, is a blatant disregard for the 4th amendment.

www.wfmz.com...

Which btw will be overturned by the Supreme Court shortly.

The list goes on but people don't need to be college grads to figure this out, just take away the blinders of ignorance.

Peace,

RT

a reply to: chrismarco


The proposed law also must implement a process for removal from office of any elected representative who passes a law that violates the constitution.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Knowing the words of the constitution is meaningless because any document can be interpreted in different ways. Just look at virtually any holy book for example. The same thing is at work with our constitution.

No one actually makes laws that they believe are against the constitution, it's all a matter of interpretation. As a result this proposal does nothing.

Oh I heavily disagree with that whole theory as its so self serving to those who use it for benefit, power and corruption.

The wording is plain as well as the meaning and a 10th grader can understand the punctuation. I'm sorry but those who claim ambiguity do so from an agenda, certainly not common sense English language use.

It was attempted to make a comparison with religious interpretation and just as I scoff at those who pull verbiage out of context in the constitution I really despise those who quote text from bibles out of context to support things not meant.

The only interpreting going on is by those with agendas not fitting the constitution

IF politicians, and the 'people' actually read this Amendment ALONE

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

www.archives.gov...
99% of this snip that goes on would not.

Both think it is open to 'interpretation' , and it is not.

Our rights have become what government, and those shills on Capital Hill tell us they are.

And they are the biggest threat to the American people.

They sure do love to sell themselves as our 'saviors'.

All they do is try to put us all in chains.

originally posted by: Realtruth
Really! meaningless.

The constitution is a foundation from which our country was built, yes to be interpreted but not ignored, discarded, mocked, and forgotten.

The words themselves only matter in the context of legal challenges. What is much more important is knowing the intent.

Everyone has the right to life, does that mean abortions should be illegal? How about the death penalty? These are issues that stem from following the letter of the document. In reality we know those same people that said everyone has the right to life were in favor of the death penalty in some cases so clearly the right to life is not absolute.

originally posted by: Aazadan
I disagree 100%.

Patriot Act

And one of the things Bush is most known for doing is telling his lawyers what he wanted to do and ordering them to find a legal way to allow it. His successor who happens to have been a constitutional lawyer and ran on a campaign of repealing the thing left it in place. The courts have also upheld it ruling that safety trumps liberty, in a wider context this would be the duty of the government to provide for the common defense is coming into conflict with the 4th amendment and only one of those can win.

The newest ruling by the Pennslyvania Supreme Court, that police officers now do not need a warrant to search someone's vehicle, is a blatant disregard for the 4th amendment.

Again, these aren't stupid people. They're going in with an agenda to interpret things in a certain way, and because the original laws were vaguely written it's totally possible. This is what comes from just knowing the words, what they're willfully ignoring is intent.

originally posted by: Phoenix
The wording is plain as well as the meaning and a 10th grader can understand the punctuation. I'm sorry but those who claim ambiguity do so from an agenda, certainly not common sense English language use.

It was attempted to make a comparison with religious interpretation and just as I scoff at those who pull verbiage out of context in the constitution I really despise those who quote text from bibles out of context to support things not meant.

The only interpreting going on is by those with agendas not fitting the constitution

Here's a neat fact, everyone feels their interpretation is completely obvious and that everyone else is full of it. What you're arguing here is that your personal interpretation is the only one that matters.

I just posted an example of constitutional ignorance by a government worker, and one that should know them well.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Here is the video. Surreal at best. Pinch me please!