Overturn the Constitution?

There might be a good reason to overturn the Constitution. If a majority of people believe in the idea of a "living Constitution" in which no one knows what in the hell the law is until the Supreme Court decides than it is time to re-write the thing. Basic laws should be in writing and the meaning of those writings should be clear to all so there is agreement.

Lutherf said:

I see your confusion here. You think I'm saying that the sit in was Unconstitutional. That isn't the case. The sit in is childish nonsense and may violate house rules but the Constitution protects idiots too.

What I'm talking about is the proposal to prohibit people on the no fly list from buying guns just because they are on the list. There is no due process in getting someone on the list therefore it is Unconstitutional to strip someone of their right to purchase a gun. The 5th Amendment says that and the Democrats are ignoring it.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the clarification.

No doubt the no fly list isn't perfect...but that is something that can be fixed...whereas a massacre can't.

Anyway, I don't think the FBI can prevent a suspect on the no fly list from buying a gun...however I think it would be a good idea if the law allowed them to be pinged or notified if a suspect tried to buy one so they can monitor their actions more closely. But I don't see how a suspect is being denied due process....especially if there is a compelling reason to put them on the list.

Moot said:

They would still have to follow the amendment process outlined in the Constitution. An opinion poll doesn't quite cut the mustard but it's a good start.

Click to expand...

Do you to propose holding a pole on whether the state should scrap the Constitution? A referendum would give the Leader a stronger mandate.

joG said:

Do you to propose holding a pole on whether the state should scrap the Constitution? A referendum would give the Leader a stronger mandate.

Click to expand...

No...I like the Constitution and the separation of powers. I think the founders did a remarkable job and what they created will never be repeated again. So if we allow the constitution to be destroyed....we will never get it back....it will be gone forever. Why would anyone who called themselves an American want that?

Moot said:

No...I like the Constitution and the separation of powers. I think the founders did a remarkable job and what they created will never be repeated again. So if we allow the constitution to be destroyed....we will never get it back....it will be gone forever. Why would anyone who called themselves an American want that?

Click to expand...

That makes me feel better.

The Constitution has been overturned and we're just dealing with the bits and pieces now. Consider Hate Laws and hate speech and the First Amendment. When did we vote to do away with the prohibition on double jeopardy. Fifty years ago it was taught that a person could be tried just once for a criminal episode. Now, we're told that if the criminal episode involved different laws thaty can be tried over and over again in different courts. And, I'm still waiting to see where that clause on abortion is hiding in the Constitution.

Limitations on the federal government have all been abandoned and now we have an elected tyrant who can ignore the courts and the congress. The checks and balances are a dim dream.

The other problem for me are the things that people think are in the Constitution but aren't. The Constitution doesn't guarantee you can say what you want, when you want, and where you want without penalty or even legal sanctions. When I read a previous post about about surveillance I started wondering which forms of surveillance are dealt with in the Constitution.

Lutherf said:

I'm watching this latest tantrum by Democrats on the house floor and they are demanding a closing of "loopholes" even though the method they are supporting is Unconstitutional. They are claiming that their proposals are supported by 90% of the public. So I ask, if 90% of the public chooses to negate the Constitution should we just accept their proposal?

Since I'm currently on tapatalk I can't add the poll but it's a simple yes or no with an explanation.

Click to expand...

I am sure the 90% claim is either from a old ass poll, a poll done by a liberal network so which liberal respondents will pick pro-liberal choices, or they worded the questions a certain way in order to get the results they wanted.

Moot said:

Thank you for the clarification.

No doubt the no fly list isn't perfect...but that is something that can be fixed...whereas a massacre can't.

Anyway, I don't think the FBI can prevent a suspect on the no fly list from buying a gun...however I think it would be a good idea if the law allowed them to be pinged or notified if a suspect tried to buy one so they can monitor their actions more closely. But I don't see how a suspect is being denied due process....especially if there is a compelling reason to put them on the list.

Click to expand...

"Can be" fixed is your key phrase here. Yes, it can, but government usually doesn't fix anything. Rather, they usually tweak, add more, and make it worse.

Sometimes fixing means scrapping, and they almost never do that.

radcen said:

"Can be" fixed is your key phrase here. Yes, it can, but government usually doesn't fix anything. Rather, they usually tweak, add more, and make it worse.

Sometimes fixing means scrapping, and they almost never do that.

Click to expand...

Nothing is perfect in this world. So if you're looking for perfection you're in the wrong dimension.

Constitution...Smonstitution.

I follow only those laws I agree with...unless it is not worth the hassle to break them.

Now if you will excuse me...my prostitute in my nuclear-powered car is smoking all of my illegal drugs - I must go.

Moot said:

Nothing is perfect in this world. So if you're looking for perfection you're in the wrong dimension.

Click to expand...

You can't tell me that. That's what I tell other people.

Ok, but there's a difference in directions is what I'm talking about. Often the best solution with a government program is to simply not do it, but ending it is pretty much never considered. Even scaling it back, which would fall under "not perfect" isn't even considered.

Celebrity said:

If 90% of the public opposed the Constitution, that would mean we have done something wrong. The Constitution might be an obstacle to process, though it is designed to be amended. The real obstacle to progress is due process. Any decision that's unconstitutional would have to be ruled so in a court of law. Otherwise, it's not unconstitutional. I guess the law's innocent until proven guilty, too.

Click to expand...

A law doesn't have to be ruled unconstitutional, to be unconstitutional. Our elected leaders are supposed to be smart enough to obey the law of the land

apdst said:

A law doesn't have to be ruled unconstitutional, to be unconstitutional. Our elected leaders are supposed to be smart enough to obey the law of the land

Click to expand...

I bet

They never did anything I asked them to do.

apdst said:

A law doesn't have to be ruled unconstitutional, to be unconstitutional. Our elected leaders are supposed to be smart enough to obey the law of the land

Click to expand...

In theory, no. In practical reality, yes. Laws passed are the laws of the land until they are declared unconstitutional.

radcen said:

In theory, no. In practical reality, yes. Laws passed are the laws of the land until they are declared unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

Illegal, is illegal, is illegal. We don't need to go to court to know that murder is illegal. If Congress passed a law making Christianity the official relegion, we know that's unconstitutional. That's fact, not theory.

apdst said:

Illegal, is illegal, is illegal. We don't need to go to court to know that murder is illegal. If Congress passed a law making Christianity the official relegion, we know that's unconstitutional. That's fact, not theory.

Click to expand...

...and yet you still could be prosecuted for not being a Christian until said unconstitutional law is ruled unconstitutional. That's fact, too, like it or not.

radcen said:

...and yet you still could be prosecuted for not being a Christian until said unconstitutional law is ruled unconstitutional. That's fact, too, like it or not.

Click to expand...

And, that would be unconstitutional. No court ruling needed to determine that.

That why I say that politicians are supposed to know the difference. They were never intended to do whatever they want and hope they get a sympathetic court. This is why The Constitution isn't open for interpretation.

radcen said:

"Can be" fixed is your key phrase here. Yes, it can, but government usually doesn't fix anything. Rather, they usually tweak, add more, and make it worse.

Sometimes fixing means scrapping, and they almost never do that.

Click to expand...

You mean, admitting that someone in the government was wrong? Is there any precedent for this? Wait, I know something a bit like the opposite, "our thing."



"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."