Okay, so I do realize that this forum is "US Political Madness", but...

Originally posted by Flatfish

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

According to your philosophy, the founding fathers themselves were "attackers" of the Constitution. PLEASE!!!

The document was constructed to meet the needs of the times and the fact that Article V was even included, shows that the founding fathers had the foresight to know that it would need to be amended in order to remain current and viable to meet the needs of a changing society.

Is there anything that you people don't fear?

I have no problem with Article V and it is the proper way to amend the constitution.

What does your whole post have anything to do with the term "living document" I think you understand fully and are being ingenious to suggest Article V as a reply to my post.

The term "living document" is where judges interpret the constitution as they see fit, bypassing Article V...

Silly rabbit.....

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I have no problem with Article V and it is the proper way to amend the constitution.

What does your whole post have anything to do with the term "living document" I think you understand fully and are being ingenious to suggest Article V as a reply to my post.

The term "living document" is where judges interpret the constitution as they see fit, bypassing Article V...

Silly rabbit.....

Silly me.... And to think that this whole time I thought the phenomena you're referring to was called "Judicial Activism."

If anyone is guilty of subverting the U.S. Constitution, it would be the activist supreme court judges appointed by Republican Presidents. You know, the same ones that handed down the "Citizen's United" decision and the same ones that just ruled against the "Voting Rights Act of 1965."

Actually, I think that you're just making up a definition for the term "living document." One that amply meets your need to justify your fears.

The fact that Article V was incorporated into the Constitution explicitly implies that the document was originally designed to be amended as the need arises and to do so should not be viewed an attack on the document. That's what makes it a "living document" and not some phony definition of the term.

Originally posted by beezzer

I haven't said that progressives are a new phenomenom. Gun control, free speech zones, NSA, NDAA, TSA, Patriot Act, all have progressives fingerprints on them.

Anything that limits freedoms, I'm blaming on progressives.

In as much that a public restroom has progressive DNA all over it...along with every other type of human being...

And I don't see Right Wing orgs taking stances publicly like this?

ACLU Files Lawsuit Challenging NSA's Patriot Act Phone Surveillance
www.aclu.org...

I could be wrong, but I assume the Right-Wing has tip-toed around the NSA issue because so many Establishment GOP and "Hawks" support the NSA and they want to avoid further divisions?

Lets look at the recent bill to limit NSA Data Collection?

It was voted down...WHO Voted it down? Voted against limiting the NSA Data Collection?

134 GOP
83 Dems

Who voted FOR limiting the NSA's Data Collection?
111 Democrats
94 GOP

politics.nytimes.com...

There was an unusual coalition of Democrats and Tea Party Republicans who voted for the amendment -- to cut off funding. The vote also shows the power of the purse strings. Without money from Congress, there would be no NSA surveillance program.

www.marketplace.org...

Specifically

His coalition of 94 Republicans and 111 Democrats ultimately failed in a 205-217 vote in favor of the Amash amendment.

johnhrabe.com...

Seeing as the Dems might be the minority in Congress, but constitute the MAJORITY of supporters of reigning in the NSA, despite their being a Democrat in the White House...

Originally posted by Flatfish

If anyone is guilty of subverting the U.S. Constitution, it would be the activist supreme court judges appointed by Republican Presidents. You know, the same ones that handed down the "Citizen's United" decision and the same ones that just ruled against the "Voting Rights Act of 1965."

Its funny how in the 60s the Democrats were the Republicans of today and the Republicans were the Democrats of today... Funny how things swap around....over and over.

I think you understand my point with Article V and how it differentiats from a Judge ruling or are you just arguing for argue sake?

reply to post by Xtrozero


My 2 cents...I think Scalia is an Orignalist with the constitution...as he famously says .."The constitution is Dead! Dead! Dead!"...but i also think he is a Conservative Judicial Activist in his selective application of his Originalist view....Much like religious extremists literally interpret the bible or the koran...but only selected passages to suit thier idealogical agenda.

My 2 cents anyways.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Flatfish

If anyone is guilty of subverting the U.S. Constitution, it would be the activist supreme court judges appointed by Republican Presidents. You know, the same ones that handed down the "Citizen's United" decision and the same ones that just ruled against the "Voting Rights Act of 1965."

Its funny how in the 60s the Democrats were the Republicans of today and the Republicans were the Democrats of today... Funny how things swap around....over and over.

I think you understand my point with Article V and how it differentiats from a Judge ruling or are you just arguing for argue sake?

Actually, there's nothing funny about it. Indeed, the Democrats were the ruling party of the south in times gone by. They were the party of the Confederacy that fought tooth & nail to preserve slavery and maintain white dominance.

The reversal of roles didn't happen until L.B.J., who happened to be a Democrat from Texas, signed the Civil Rights Act into law in 1964. These southern Democrats couldn't stomach having equal rights being awarded to black citizens by a Democrat, so they changed their affiliation and became the Republican party that we all know today. You know, the one that's anti-black, anti-immigrant, anti-women, anti-LGBT, anti-voting rights, anti-everything other than white male dominance.

If I were you, I wouldn't be looking for another flip anytime soon.

reply to post by Indigo5


That's one thing the dems have going for them over the GOP.

T'is also why I'm not a republican.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Indigo5

 

That's one thing the dems have going for them over the GOP.

T'is also why I'm not a republican.

Government ..By the people...For the people...An Allegience to the "people" of this country should trump "party" allegiance every day of the week and twice on Sunday. I am with you if you believe that...tho we might disagree on a great many other issues.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Kali74

 

Progressives want to rewrite the Constitution.

Liberals (classical liberals) want to uphold it.

What's wrong with "rewriting" the Constitution?

Isn't that what is designed to do?

Originally posted by AlienScience

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Kali74

 

Progressives want to rewrite the Constitution.

Liberals (classical liberals) want to uphold it.

What's wrong with "rewriting" the Constitution?

Isn't that what is designed to do?

Yes it was designed to allow amending. That's what I think of when I hear the words "living document." Regardless of what any Supreme Court judge thinks.

reply to post by Flatfish


Good job at addressing that guy's questions - one per. This is how I see things as well. The job of running this country, with it's densely packed and conflicting agendas and points of view, can't be done in a way that the simpleminded or those who insist that all problems have easy answers would like to believe it can be done. It's a complicated and difficult job where there are no 100% right answers.

I honestly believe that Obama has his intentions properly focused, and I honestly believe that the crash of 2008, as the Bush Era was closing, and the sudden eruption of Tea Party "grassroots" militancy, coupled with the bizarre machinations of the GOP-led House that started in the late winter of 2011 and has led to the present incapacitation of the entire US Congress to accomplish much of anything since, is powerful evidence that the political right is being manipulated by the global corporate plutocracy (the enormous banking industry, defense industry, and energy industry cartels acting in common cause) to act against the best interests of our nation as a sovereign whole.

I think that the evidence - especially since the election of Obama in November of 2008 - has become clear and compelling. While this international business cabal has had its hand on the shoulder of both political parties for decades, the shift to full control of the political right began in earnest as soon as Obama won his first term. Now, it's become commonplace to see the leaders of the GOP forget to even try to disguise their commitment to Obama's failure and to stalling the prosperity potential of the majority of American citizens. It's as if they can't even see how obvious they're being anymore, and that's probably the most troubling aspect of what's developed since 2010.

In a previous post, I was ask the following question by Krazysh0t;

Originally posted by Krazysh0t
Do you believe the administration is telling the truth right now when they say that Syria has definitely attacked their citizens with chemical weapons? You know despite the fact that UN inspectors JUST got there and this would be the absolute worst time for someone to do such a thing, or the fact that Assad is currently winning the war and wouldn't need to utilize such a tactic.

And this was my answer;

Originally posted by Flatfish
No. Mainly because of the "fact" that the Obama administration hasn't said those things, you just made that crap up and that's exactly how your side perpetuates the ignorance among your minions.

In his address to the nation today, Secretary of State John Kerry just got through stating that even if the inspectors had been allowed into the affected areas to test for chemical weapons, those test would not prove who fired them. He went on to say that the overwhelming "opinion" is that the Syrian government forces were the culprit, but he never said that anyone "definitely" did anything.

At that time, my answer was absolutely true. Now that the Obama administration is indeed stating that they have proof that the order to fire chemical weapons came directly from the Syrian military, all that has changed. Due to this recent change in the administration's stance, I felt that in all fairness Krazysh0t's question deserved a new answer, so here it is;

Yesterday, when President Obama came out and stated that we had proof that the orders to fire the chemical weapons came from the Syrian military and that he would soon present that proof to the american people, I thought to myself, "I wonder if this proof came from the NSA's ability to listen to everyone?" Later on in the day, I discovered that the source of the so-called "intelligence" was Israel and that's when IMO, this new "intelligence" lost all it's credibility.

Personally, I trust the state of Israel about as far as I can throw a full grown elephant. They have a history of committing "false flag" attacks against America in order to get us to fight their wars and I have no reason to believe they wouldn't do it again.

President Obama may well believe the intelligence coming out of Israel, but I don't. I have genuine doubts as to it's validity and if I were POTUS, I wouldn't be attacking anyone on Israel's word alone. This is going to take some verifying through other agencies and even then, I doubt the truth can be proven.

All I know is, what I'm seeing coming from Syria is unacceptable and I'm glad I'm not POTUS having to make this decision. On the other hand, if we ever do get "definitive proof" of who is responsible for firing these weapons, IMO they should be given the same treatment as was afforded to Osama Bin Laden.

Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by Flatfish

 

Good job at addressing that guy's questions - one per. This is how I see things as well. The job of running this country, with it's densely packed and conflicting agendas and points of view, can't be done in a way that the simpleminded or those who insist that all problems have easy answers would like to believe it can be done. It's a complicated and difficult job where there are no 100% right answers.

I honestly believe that Obama has his intentions properly focused, and I honestly believe that the crash of 2008, as the Bush Era was closing, and the sudden eruption of Tea Party "grassroots" militancy, coupled with the bizarre machinations of the GOP-led House that started in the late winter of 2011 and has led to the present incapacitation of the entire US Congress to accomplish much of anything since, is powerful evidence that the political right is being manipulated by the global corporate plutocracy (the enormous banking industry, defense industry, and energy industry cartels acting in common cause) to act against the best interests of our nation as a sovereign whole.

I think that the evidence - especially since the election of Obama in November of 2008 - has become clear and compelling. While this international business cabal has had its hand on the shoulder of both political parties for decades, the shift to full control of the political right began in earnest as soon as Obama won his first term. Now, it's become commonplace to see the leaders of the GOP forget to even try to disguise their commitment to Obama's failure and to stalling the prosperity potential of the majority of American citizens. It's as if they can't even see how obvious they're being anymore, and that's probably the most troubling aspect of what's developed since 2010.

I couldn't agree with you more, especially the last sentence of your post. The fact that they can't even see what they're doing and/or hear the words coming out of their mouths is undoubtably the scariest part of this entire scenario.

Originally posted by Flatfish

Originally posted by TheLaughingGod
reply to post by Flatfish

 

Having the whole administration saturated with corporate interests isn't corruption?
Have you seen the venn diagrams? There's one JUST for Monsanto.

What administration hasn't been saturated with corporate interest?

And that's the problem, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that corporations are the be all and end all of our problems.
I think they're merely one of the hydras heads.

Originally posted by TheLaughingGod

Originally posted by Flatfish

Originally posted by TheLaughingGod
reply to post by Flatfish

 

Having the whole administration saturated with corporate interests isn't corruption?
Have you seen the venn diagrams? There's one JUST for Monsanto.

What administration hasn't been saturated with corporate interest?

And that's the problem, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that corporations are the be all and end all of our problems.
I think they're merely one of the hydras heads.

Actually, IMO it's "corporate mentality" that's destroying our nation. When I say that, I'm talking about the fiduciary responsibility that corporations have to their shareholders which pretty much dictates that all their decisions be in focused purely on attaining maximum profits, even if it means violating their moral principles. For instance; When they decide to manufacture their products in child labor camps located in foreign countries because it will produce the biggest profit margin for their shareholders. Then when something goes wrong in one of the sweat shops being utilized by their corp., they act like Erkel...."Did I do That??????"

Those type of decisions are the product of pure greed in action, they are in no way good for America and their not good for the world either.