• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Bill of Rights Turns 230, and What Do We Have to Show for It? Nothing Good

Rich2018 said:
Actually Thomas Jefferson opinionated that the Constitution only had a "shelf life" of about 20 years before needing a rewrite.
Click to expand...
It didn't last that long, hence this thread.

I am reminded of a cold war era joke (translated from Russian).

In Soviet Russia and USA there is equal freedom. A man can stand in front of either the Kremlin or the White Hose. In both places he can denounce US policy.
 
Last edited:
prometeus said:
I don't like that is the the nominator at all....
Click to expand...

You mean you support nominating a candidate for the SC to be a function of Congress ?


...can still be very political especially when one party controls both houses...
Click to expand...

True but if not Congress then who ?

The SC itself ?


...that is a way to bring some balance...
Yeah, that way candidates with extreme views are banned from serving on the SC. I'd ask candidates if they believed in the creation, if they answered yes, instant black ball from me.

...how about a death penalty case? It is not a constitutional matter.
Click to expand...

No it shouldn't be.

The law needs to be clear.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Jay59 said:
It didn't last that long, hence this thread.

I am reminded of a cold war era joke (translated from Russian).

In Soviet Russia and USA there is equal freedom. A man can stand in front of either the Kremlin or the White Hose. In both places he can denounce US policy.
Click to expand...

True, I like the report to Stalin the the Soviet mail system had broken down...why Stalin asked why, he was told people are spitting on the wrong side of the stamps...
 
Rich2018 said:
You mean you support nominating a candidate for the SC to be a function of Congress?
Click to expand...
If a provision of "veto" as in say jury picking would exist then yes, one nominate the other confirm.

Yeah, that way candidates with extreme views are banned from serving on the SC.
Click to expand...
Not only that but also political operators such as Kagan or Kavanaugh.

No it shouldn't be.
Click to expand...
But it happens all the time. The law can be very clear on a capital punishment case, but it is not humanly possible to anticipate all possible extenuating circumstances where some clemency can or should apply.

The law needs to be clear.
Click to expand...
Yes, in as much as possible.
 
prometeus said:
If a provision of "veto" as in say jury picking would exist then yes, one nominate the other confirm....
Click to expand...

By that you mean one house nominate, the other confirm ?

OK I could go with the House nominates candidates, the Senate votes on them. Would one veto vote be enough ?


...not only that but also political operators such as Kagan or Kavanaugh...
Click to expand...

Indeed, any controversial judge could be vetoed out of the process


...the law can be very clear on a capital punishment case, but it is not humanly possible to anticipate all possible extenuating circumstances where some clemency can or should apply....
Click to expand...

People who don't agree with a law will look for a way to interpret it differently

Have the law say if convicted of murder 1, then the penalty is death.
 
Rich2018 said:
By that you mean one house nominate, the other confirm ?
Click to expand...
Yes, that.

OK I could go with the House nominates candidates, the Senate votes on them. Would one veto vote be enough ?
Click to expand...
I am not sure how to make the veto power adequate and fair, need some time to think about it.
 
prometeus said:
...I am not sure how to make the veto power adequate and fair, need some time to think about it.
Click to expand...

But you agree that a minority of members of Congress can veto a nominee regardless of how much support he has with the majority party ?
 
prometeus said:
Yes, a veto is a veto regardless who makes it.
Click to expand...

Fixing the Constitution seems so easy sometimes.

Cut out the extreme elements.


The beauty of separating the heads of state and government, is that in republics that do, the head of the government (say Germany's Angela Merkel) is like Nancy Pelosi and must enjoy constant political support.
 
Gdjjr said:
In America today, the government does whatever it wants, freedom be damned.

We can pretend that the Constitution, which was written to hold the government accountable, is still our governing document, but the reality of life in the American police state tells a different story.
Click to expand...

1. I agree that the United States of America is, in some respects, a police state.

2. But I think that you are being too cynical about the Bill of Rights.

a. Over the years, it has been interpreted to give Americans more rights.

3. Being 82 years old, I have seen a lot of changes over the years.

a. For example, in the 1950s, the Post Office regularly would not deliver so-called "obscene" magazines. Lawyers took their case to the Supreme Court, and the First Amendment was interpreted to allow those magazines to be delivered.

b. One of the Amendments forbids "cruel and unusual" punishment. Some people are convinced that the Supreme Court will eventually outlaw executions, based on that Amendment. (Personally, I am disappointed that most states no longer execute murderers.)

3. Any human institution is far from perfect. But the Bill of Rights has given Americans more freedom than currently exists in the majority of other countries.
 
Aberration said:
No citation.
Click to expand...

Of course you could cite Thomas Jefferson himself:


"...The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.—It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19 years only...."


Thomas Jefferson to James Madison | The Papers of Thomas Jefferson



Good enough ?
 
Last edited:
Aberration said:
Ok.

Shall not be infringed.

Same ****ing thing.
Click to expand...



Who has the right ?
Right to bear what arms ?
Who can take away this right ?
What is an "infringement" in this case ?


You don't know much about law. "Same ****ing thing" gets you nowhere in a court of law!

Lawyers make a living out of the ambiguity of legal language - and a law written 230 years ago is easier that most.
 
Gdjjr said:
the reality of life in the American police state tells a different story.
Click to expand...

So much so, that the OP doesn't provide a single example.
 
Gdjjr said:
“That was when they suspended the Constitution. They said it would be temporary. There wasn’t even any rioting in the streets. People stayed home at night, watching television, looking for some direction. There wasn’t even an enemy you could put your finger on.”—Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid’s Tale

It’s been 230 years since James Madison drafted the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments to the Constitution—as a means of protecting the people against government tyranny, and what do we have to show for it?

Nothing good.

In America today, the government does whatever it wants, freedom be damned.

We can pretend that the Constitution, which was written to hold the government accountable, is still our governing document, but the reality of life in the American police state tells a different story.

The Bill of Rights Turns 230, and What Do We Have to Show for It? Nothing Good – The Future of Freedom Foundation
Click to expand...

We should blame the right wing. Our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited; and, there is no general warfare clause nor any general malfare clause.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom