"Not my job"

[bam15]

It's being copied as we speak by the people of Egypt. The military is just filling the power void temporarily

The 10 commandments is thousands of years old but it's a very basic set of principals
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Link me?

 

[bam15]

How does the constitution address deficits, foreign trade, energy, environment?

 

[gasguy98]

Disagree. We are talking about the president and the leader of what should be the loyal opposition. Win the debate on policy and ideas, or go home. But don't win by turning a blind eye to people saying really sinister things which, in your own estimation, are not true.

What Gregory is getting at is that the GOP leadership say they don't believe there is anything to it, but are willing to proft from it politically. This is an absolutely correct assessment and it relfects VERY poorly on the Speaker and his party's loyalty to the country.

I don't remember any DEMS defending W against the bogus claims about his National guard service.
This is a moot point, it is pointless and a waste of time. There are much more important things a bonehead interviewer should be discussing with the SOTHOR.

 

[volinbham]

The entire point is many consider this to be treason or heresy, and reforming the system in any shape or form is wrong.

Not sure who these "many" are. In my view the primary objection is treating the Constitution as if it has already been amended.

There is a built-in adaptation mechanism - amendments and a general framework of what government cannot do.

If you are suggesting it's not modern so we can just argue "x" is okay since it is modern then you open the flood gates to any number of interpretations.

 

[hohenfelsvol]

Very narrow minded thread for an open minded liberal

 

[sjt18]

So Boehner was on Meet the Press this weekend and was asked a series of question about Obama. He said that the facts show that he was born in the U.S. and he is a Christian. But, he says he will not rebuke GOP house members who perpetuate the claim otherwise, as recently occured with a new member. He also says he will not correct those who continue to argue or imply that Obama is not U.S. born or is a Muslim.

His explanation is that it his not his job to do that.

I find that rather cowardly. I think that if he knows its nonsense and that it is a pathetic attempt to de-legitimize Obama on false grounds, then it is exactly his job, as Speaker of the House and as the guy at the top of the GOP food chain, to decry it.

When will you actually turn your criticism on the one person with both the ability and responsibility to resolve this? All Obama has to do is grant a release. Problem solved.

It is not Boehner's fault or the fault of those who do not believe Obama that he won't provide the documentation.

 

[MG1968]

Very narrow minded thread for an open minded liberal

LG's mind is so open his brains were lost at a UF kegger

 

[sjt18]

The original framework was intended for those times. Even if the founders envisioned a framework for a country, they could not envision many years later. As one would write a framework now, it would only be applicable to a certain extent 300 years later, for we can only attempt to imagine the future. Nevertheless, founding principles remain (For example a Republic/Democracy from the BC era, etc.) Many want to strictly adhere to the document, as if it was written yesterday, which isn't entirely reasonable. The point being, one could override a previous amendment or portion of the document, but would be labeled as considering the document as a piece of paper.

the HUGE, GLARING problem with this non-sense is that the founders very wisely anticipated that needs and situations would change... and provided a very effective means for changing as necessary- the amendment process. The big problem that conservatives and originalists have is NOT that things may need changing... but that the legal process for making the changes has been ignored and trampled by the left. It was inconvenient so Progressives/Statists made up "judicial philosophies" and non-existent loopholes so they could just do what they wanted.

(Reformating Sep of Powers)
(Term limits)
(Birthplace limits)
(Age limits)
(Parliamentary/Cabinent)
(Unicameral congress)

yada yada -- only ideas thrown out.

None of those is necessary and birthplace limits should be replaced with time as a citizen of say 15-20 years.

The most effective thing that could be done is to tie the number of Representatives to a set number of constituents. IIRC, congress was expanded along with the population up until around 1910 (the beginning of the Progressive era, go figure they'd want to limit the distribution of power and detach Congressmen from the people they represented). Our population is around 4 times what it was in 1910.

Congress should have about 2000 members representing about 160K people each. Since only about 120K would be eligible to vote and only half that would be registered and only half that would vote... about 30K votes could win a seat. A person with good ideas and friends could win a congressional seat with no more invested than shoe leather. If you really want to take special interest and big money out of the equation, this is the best start.

The entire point is many consider this to be treason or heresy, and reforming the system in any shape or form is wrong.

If you use legitimate means then by all means it is not wrong. If you circumvent or simply ignore the Constitution as our founding basis in LAW then it IS criminal and treasonous. Progressives have a VERY long history of manipulating the system to avoid the fact that much of what they have created IS unconstitutional.