Let's Give Up on the Constitution

#128
#128
newyorkvol said:
I was heading home from game weekend in Knoxville yesterday and thinking about blue state migration to Tennessee. I would certainly move there in a heartbeat if I could. But I live further upstate, and despite the known crappiness with taxes, the quality of life here is very good. Much different than the City. And thatā€™s where I think most migrants are leaving from. The dense blue areas of NY.

Which means as Tennessee may get more blue, NY is becoming more red.
Click to expand...
That's the most depressing thing I have heard all day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#131
#131
Sgt_Nick_Fury said:


Beleive them, they really want to destroy the constitution....and as this thread shows it's been a consistant point of attack for years.

Enemies of The Republic.
Click to expand...


Coming from the "free speech absolutist" who said speech laws should be determined by the will of the people.
 
#132
#132
I can't tell at all if this article is actually controversial or if it's just a click-bait title. Who is the author? What does it actually say?

Is it beyond reason to say components of the constitution are dangerous to our liberties? I would say that's self-evident, if you believe more state sovereignty would lead to better results. Our interpretation of the constitution has allowed for endless war and ever-expanding foreign policy, which is extremely dangerous to our democracy. Same goes for the spending and regulatory practices, like interpretations of interstate commerce clause, have allowed.

I think it's perfectly fine to trash aspects of the constitution. We definitely need a constitution. Is the author saying scrap it or just fix some bad parts? Because only one of those is blaspheme.

I gotta know what's actually in the article to make any judgment.
 
#134
#134
volbound1700 said:
If we want to get rid of an Amendment, let's get rid of the 11th so only property owners can vote and the freeloaders can't anymore.
Click to expand...

Yeah, seems like taking the right to vote from people would definitely be one way to blaspheme against the spirit of the founding and constitution.
 
#135
#135
newyorkvol said:
From the Dean of UC Berkeley Lawā€¦.
www.latimes.com

Opinion: We're living under a flawed Constitution. Let's start fresh and rewrite it

Many of todayā€™s problems can be traced back to choices made in drafting the Constitution, choices that are increasingly haunting us.
www.latimes.com www.latimes.com

It only took this Dean of a Law school 7 paragraphs to link Senators to population. Thatā€™s a losing argument to me every time. He linked EC to population in paragraph 6, which is also a stupid point, but I at least see the EC as something that can be fine tuned (meaning, why is my red vote from a red district in NY completely irrelevant to the Presidency and vice versa for the blue vote from a blue county in Tennessee?)
Click to expand...
The Senate cries are just absurd.

United States Senators represent The States, not The People.

It was never meant to be proportional to the population - that is the role of The House.

All States are created Equal, and are granted equal representation.

If both chambers were proportional to the population, there would be no need for two chambersā€¦
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, Sea Ray, NorthDallas40 and 3 others
#138
#138
n_huffhines said:
I can't tell at all if this article is actually controversial or if it's just a click-bait title. Who is the author? What does it actually say?

Is it beyond reason to say components of the constitution are dangerous to our liberties? I would say that's self-evident, if you believe more state sovereignty would lead to better results. Our interpretation of the constitution has allowed for endless war and ever-expanding foreign policy, which is extremely dangerous to our democracy. Same goes for the spending and regulatory practices, like interpretations of interstate commerce clause, have allowed.

I think it's perfectly fine to trash aspects of the constitution. We definitely need a constitution. Is the author saying scrap it or just fix some bad parts? Because only one of those is blaspheme.

I gotta know what's actually in the article to make any judgment.
Click to expand...
After multiple articles from individuals that seem to share the same perspective, the view appears to be -

Letā€™s amend it if we can get what we want (e.g., Senate, EC, Supreme Court, etc), otherwise we should just scrap it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#139
#139
aoc chief of staff. ā€œThe interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasnā€™t originally a climate thing at all,ā€ Chakrabarti said to Insleeā€™s climate director, Sam Ricketts, according to a Washington Post reporter who attended the meeting for a profile published Wednesday.

ā€œDo you guys think of it as a climate thing?ā€ Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,ā€ he added.
 
#140
#140
No other nation in the world has the constitutionally protected rights like we have. We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. obama said he felt constrained by the constitution. Great! That is what it is for. Our system was designed as a hedge against central govt tyranny. I would however support changing birthright citizenship to only people here legally.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman
#141
#141
n_huffhines said:
I can't tell at all if this article is actually controversial or if it's just a click-bait title. Who is the author? What does it actually say?

Is it beyond reason to say components of the constitution are dangerous to our liberties? I would say that's self-evident, if you believe more state sovereignty would lead to better results. Our interpretation of the constitution has allowed for endless war and ever-expanding foreign policy, which is extremely dangerous to our democracy. Same goes for the spending and regulatory practices, like interpretations of interstate commerce clause, have allowed.

I think it's perfectly fine to trash aspects of the constitution. We definitely need a constitution. Is the author saying scrap it or just fix some bad parts? Because only one of those is blaspheme.

I gotta know what's actually in the article to make any judgment.
Click to expand...
the entire article seems to be based on the idea that we are a "democracy" and that anything that takes us away from being a pure "democracy" is wrong. Including:
- being a Republic
- and that approval ratings should apparently mean a lot more than they do.
-rags on the filibuster, 50%+1 seems to be their argument.
-attacking the supreme court for not striking down gerrymandering, but doesn't go into the specifics of the case which are a lot more gray than the article lets on, also avoids blaming the House for not getting rid of gerrymandering either.

IMO they do point out many flaws, but their recommendations, implied or implicit, do little to fix it.
-Bigger house
-proportional senate
-no filibuster
-no gerrymandering

the author is the Dean of UC Berkley Law, so not just some nobody.

the gerrymandering is probably the only one worth considering imo. I vehemently argue that more bureaucrats and elected officials will fix anything. tying the decisions of this country to a popularity vote is incredibly short sighted.

they admit its a complicated issue, but do nothing to explain how those complications led to the current issues, or how those complications will impact their changes. they end the article by saying we just need a new constitution because ours is old. not very well thought, supported, or reasoned imo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, 85SugarVol and n_huffhines
#142
#142
Liberals today don't appreciate our Founding Fathers nor the principles our country was founded on. I will say that I appreciate them coming out and just admitting it

Our FFs purposely made passing a law difficult. They did not want a simple majority to be all it took to change our laws. They wanted gridlock. Liberals today want to fundamentally change our country. It's up to the rest of us to stand up and keep them from doing this
 
  • Like
Reactions: CagleMtnVol and UT_Dutchman
#144
#144
LouderVol said:
the entire article seems to be based on the idea that we are a "democracy" and that anything that takes us away from being a pure "democracy" is wrong. Including:
- being a Republic
- and that approval ratings should apparently mean a lot more than they do.
-rags on the filibuster, 50%+1 seems to be their argument.
-attacking the supreme court for not striking down gerrymandering, but doesn't go into the specifics of the case which are a lot more gray than the article lets on, also avoids blaming the House for not getting rid of gerrymandering either.

IMO they do point out many flaws, but their recommendations, implied or implicit, do little to fix it.
-Bigger house
-proportional senate
-no filibuster
-no gerrymandering

the author is the Dean of UC Berkley Law, so not just some nobody.

the gerrymandering is probably the only one worth considering imo. I vehemently argue that more bureaucrats and elected officials will fix anything. tying the decisions of this country to a popularity vote is incredibly short sighted.

they admit its a complicated issue, but do nothing to explain how those complications led to the current issues, or how those complications will impact their changes. they end the article by saying we just need a new constitution because ours is old. not very well thought, supported, or reasoned imo.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the rundown
 
#145
#145
volbound1700 said:
Changing the Constitution (any part) is stupid IMO.
Click to expand...

Ehh, we might need to rewrite it, dumb it down by eliminating commas and other punctuation/grammar rules. Take out the big words like infringe and replace them with simple words like "can't mess with" or abbreviations. That way people of today could understand it and wouldn't need courts to interpret it for them...
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, whodeycin85, volbound1700 and 3 others
#146
#146
hog88 said:
Ehh, we might need to rewrite it, dumb it down by eliminating commas and other punctuation/grammar rules. Take out the big words like infringe and replace them with simple words like "can't mess with" or abbreviations. That way people of today could understand it and wouldn't need courts to interpret it for them...
Click to expand...
emojis would probably help
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, Vol since 77, UT_Dutchman and 1 other person
#148
#148
hog88 said:
Ehh, we might need to rewrite it, dumb it down by eliminating commas and other punctuation/grammar rules. Take out the big words like infringe and replace them with simple words like "can't mess with" or abbreviations. That way people of today could understand it and wouldn't need courts to interpret it for them...
Click to expand...

Maybe throw in something about ā€œhate speechā€.
 
#150
#150
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top