Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    12:15 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Is the constitution now obsolete? Back to Topics
AC-302

Champion Author
Los Angeles

Posts:30,722
Points:3,408,795
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 3:09:10 PM

[L=http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/01/27/text deleted Charles Osgood and this professor think so..[/L]

This link is from Newsbusters, but it will take you to the video of this professor, Louis Seidman of Georgetown, and his interview with Charles Osgood. If anyone wants to post the link, that would be great.

I'd like to get some folks' take on this. Is the constitution obsolete? Should we discard it? I don't think so, but I'd like to see what others thinking is on the topic.
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,488
Points:1,838,430
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Feb 5, 2013 5:55:27 PM

SUVFan, >>Today, a majority of 9 votes can make sweeping changes to the Constitution.<<
***
The Supreme Court can reverse itself while the Constitution can only be changed via amendment.

In your example of John Adam's "Midnight appointment" of several Federalist judges the day before Jeffeson was to take office. Many fail to recognize the numerous appointments were politically motivated as Marbury, Adams, and Marshall were Federalists. This may someday be reversed.

Thomas Jefferson criticized the decision, "You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." (Source Wikipedia)
Profile Pic
SUVFan
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:255,900
Points:2,183,655
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Feb 5, 2013 4:32:26 PM

>It has been designed to be changed via a very difficult process called amending. <

Well, that is how it was designed. Trouble is, John Marshall changed that in Marbury vs. Madison, effectively amending the constitution to permit judicial review, a concept not found within the document itself. Far better would have been to wait for an amendment permitting judicial review and defining the permissible parameters.

Today, a majority of 9 votes can make sweeping changes to the Constitution. Two votes on appellate panels can have the same effect, at least temporarily.

Largely because of that single decision, words written before we had electricity and anything but actual horsepower to propel vehicles is being interpreted by judges in an attempt to make sense out of nonsense.
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,442
Points:3,123,970
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 5, 2013 4:09:59 PM

>>Are you advocating murder if the Constitution ever became obsolete?<<

It sure sounds like he is, Jay.

I am also curious, since he wants to "establish a new Constitution" only "based LARGELY on the existing one", which parts of the Constitution he'd want to change or eliminate. On the Amendments side, my guess would be he'd want to eliminate 13, 14 (parts of it), 15, 16, 18, 19, 23, 24, and 26, for starters. He would probably also re-define the qualifications to be President to ensure that Obama wouldn't meet those qualifications (which he
DOES meet under our existing Constitution, BTW).
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,667
Points:1,475,020
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 5, 2013 3:51:40 PM

Jay try this on for size----
.When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,488
Points:1,838,430
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Feb 5, 2013 3:51:26 PM

From the topic post, >>...Is the [C]onstitution obsolete? Should we discard it?...<<
***
It is not obsolete. It has been designed to be changed via a very difficult process called amending.

Discard it? We as a nation have been ignoring it for over 100 years. Not following has resulted in much (if not all) of our problems we face today.

Profile Pic
jayrad1957
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:24,406
Points:2,152,315
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Feb 5, 2013 3:40:42 PM

"If it ever becomes obsolete we will need to take up our guns and rid us of those in government and establish a new Constitution which should be based largely on the existing one."

Are you advocating murder if the Constitution ever became obsolete?
Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Feb 5, 2013 1:37:37 PM

AC-302 is correct.

Actually the proposed Bill of Rights contained 12 Amendments, 11 of which have been adopted.

Proposed Amendments 3rd thru 12th became Amendments 1st thru 10th. The 2nd proposed Amendment became the 27th Amendment on May 7, 1992. The 1st proposed Amendment dealt with increasing the number of Representatives and their number has been increased without any Amendment being made.

The Constitution is NOT obsolete. If it ever becomes obsolete we will need to take up our guns and rid us of those in government and establish a new Constitution which should be based largely on the existing one.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:30,722
Points:3,408,795
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Feb 5, 2013 10:24:08 AM

sgm - "another" of my friends messaged me the following:

"Here is what the Preamble to the Bill of Rights actually says:

"RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz."

Most of the states and many of the founders were VERY concerned that there were no 'rights' of citizens spelled out in the Constitution. And they were concerned that the Constitution could devolve into and overbearing government just like the one in England that they had defeated.

So the states ratified the Constitution with the demand that a "Bill of Rights" be attached to it with the full force of the original document itself."

--So, what say you?

Profile Pic
Lucchese
Champion Author Oakland

Posts:3,355
Points:132,315
Joined:Mar 2007
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2013 2:12:44 PM



The revised PLEDGE of Allegiance -


'... and to the Republic, for which it stood ...'
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:30,722
Points:3,408,795
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Feb 3, 2013 1:56:48 PM

Well, I stand corrected, sgm. Yes I was referring to the Bill of Rights. However, the copy I have doesn't call them "amendments". In the document "The Bill of Rights", the 10 rights are titled (for example) Article 1, Article 2, etc.
Profile Pic
wbacon
Champion Author Philadelphia

Posts:15,875
Points:3,535,775
Joined:Jun 2004
Message Posted: Feb 3, 2013 5:34:30 AM

no just not followed
Profile Pic
goldseeker
Champion Author West Virginia

Posts:22,798
Points:3,272,390
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 3, 2013 2:15:11 AM

According to obumer it is. I think it is time to impeach!
Profile Pic
neofinoy
Sophomore Author Long Island

Posts:182
Points:55,860
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Feb 3, 2013 1:39:42 AM

I don't think so.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:22,821
Points:2,932,320
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Feb 3, 2013 1:30:35 AM

<<But do we consider the first 10 "articles" to be obsolete? And on some of those Amendments (like the 19th), I think that since the right wasn't explicitly granted, we made sure it was so.>>

Just a side note on terminology. There are seven articles of the body of the Constitution; there are ten amendments in the Bill of Rights; and a total of 27 amendments to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.

So your comment about the first ten "articles" is confusing. Did you mean the amendments in the Bill of Rights?
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:30,722
Points:3,408,795
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 8:57:22 PM

Very sensible comment, Katmando. In a sense, I agree. But do we consider the first 10 "articles" to be obsolete? And on some of those Amendments (like the 19th), I think that since the right wasn't explicitly granted, we made sure it was so.
Profile Pic
KatmanDo
Champion Author Detroit

Posts:15,227
Points:3,151,660
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 12:40:29 AM

"Is the constitution now obsolete?"

It always has been. It wasn't long after the U.S. Constitution took effect that the first ten amendments to it were enacted. Since then, the document has been modified by additional amendments as well as court decisions over time. Unlike with the Bible, the people who enacted the U.S. Constitution apparently never intended it to be cast in concrete. So, as thinking progresses over time it may be prudent to update the document.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:30,722
Points:3,408,795
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Feb 1, 2013 10:40:47 PM

You're right, it their website.

Gocatgo said: "So far I have not seen a serious post explaining how the Constitution is obsolete. Con whining does not count."

--Did you actually look at any of the links? It's your party that seems to be touting ridding ourselves of those pesky civil rights. Particularly of late.
Profile Pic
Daurel
Veteran Author Indiana

Posts:341
Points:37,310
Joined:Jul 2011
Message Posted: Feb 1, 2013 9:09:20 PM

Obama maintained that the Warren Court's decisions on civil rights in the 1960s failed to go far enough -- that they should also have sought "redistributive justice." His opinion was that the court needed to break from the "essential restraints" of the Constitution:

What is this?
Profile Pic
Lucchese
Champion Author Oakland

Posts:3,355
Points:132,315
Joined:Mar 2007
Message Posted: Feb 1, 2013 1:10:25 PM

>> "... of what the Constitution really stood for ..."



Yes, unfortunately "stood" is the operative word. The revised PLEDGE of Allegiance-


'... and to the Republic, for which it stood ...'
Profile Pic
sissurf
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:24,190
Points:2,207,480
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 3:42:42 PM


You know they are going to take the Constitution apart piece by piece until they create a new meaning of what the Constitution really stood for just like they did with Church and State.

And the young people would have been brain washed long enough to believe that it's so.
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,442
Points:3,123,970
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 3:20:02 PM

>>Where in the article did Obama say he wanted to re-write the Constitution as Wanda claimed?<<

It doesn't, Jay, as I'm sure you know. But many of those on the right say what they want to believe is true (ya know, like Romney is going to win the election), then they'll try to trick people into thinking that they're providing proof when, in fact, their link does nothing of the sort.

It's kind of like when someone sends out a chain e-mail and writes, "I checked this out on snopes", but when you actually go to snopes it says that their e-mail is a lie.
Profile Pic
Lucchese
Champion Author Oakland

Posts:3,355
Points:132,315
Joined:Mar 2007
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 1:52:10 PM


mudtoe >> "There is no doubt the goal of the left is to destroy the Constitution because it limits government, and they seek a government with absolute power ..."


Yes, the Constitution has been trashed. Now we have the 'Malignant DC-Empire'
It's no longer America. They serve themselves,

... OF the gov't ... BY the gov't ... and FOR the gov't

also known as FASCISM
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,262
Points:3,084,385
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 1:47:23 PM


gocatgo, "So far I have not seen a serious post explaining how the Constitution is obsolete"

Good eye. The Constitution is NOT obsolete; it embodies the timeless principles upon which this country was founded and has prospered.

It is the left that chafes under the constraints on their power that the Constitution sets forth that drives them to call the Constitution obsolete.

Profile Pic
jayrad1957
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:24,406
Points:2,152,315
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 12:48:32 PM

Yes, GB does censor posts. It is their site. It is free for us to use. Don't complain.
Profile Pic
RAB2010
All-Star Author Kalamazoo

Posts:641
Points:76,570
Joined:Mar 2010
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 11:41:02 AM

Mudtoe is on to something - just be cautious what you say; GasBuddy does censor posts. There is no free speech here, and liberals and anti-Americans hold sway.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,579
Points:1,828,775
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 11:09:31 AM

There is no doubt that the goal of the left is to destroy the Constitution because it limits government, and they seek a government with absolute power and no limits, with them in the positions of power in that government of course.


mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 1/31/2013 11:10:07 AM EST]
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:18,851
Points:3,084,500
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 10:18:57 AM

So far I have not seen a serious post explaining how the Constitution is obsolete. Con whining does not count.
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,262
Points:3,084,385
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 10:17:03 AM


AC-302, "Can someone post a link to the video of the interview?"

Here you go -

Professor: Take our country back, from the Constitution

Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,262
Points:3,084,385
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 10:04:05 AM


Professor Louis Michael Seidman Authors New Book on the Constitution

"Seidman believes that the Constitution should not be viewed as a legal document, but rather as an inspiration to help us better handle the modern challenges we face"

And the man teaches Constitutional Law to young skulls full of mush.

Is it any wonder that academia turns out people like Obama (and his supporters in the media) who trash the Constitution they are sworn to defend?

Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:30,722
Points:3,408,795
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 9:59:24 AM

Can someone post a link to the video of the interview?
Profile Pic
jayrad1957
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:24,406
Points:2,152,315
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 9:52:01 AM

Where in the article did Obama say he wanted to re-write the Constitution as Wanda claimed?



[Edited by: jayrad1957 at 1/31/2013 9:53:26 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Lucchese
Champion Author Oakland

Posts:3,355
Points:132,315
Joined:Mar 2007
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 12:03:21 AM



brat hussein islama certainly the Traitor-in-Chief - but not the *cause* of collapse

... just another symptom of the Malignant Fascist DC-Empire
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,514
Points:4,535,455
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 11:22:28 PM

Here is your proof, jayrad:

President Obama: Constitution is "charter of negative liberties"
Profile Pic
jayrad1957
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:24,406
Points:2,152,315
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 11:17:56 PM


"It's not obsolete but we have a President that does not what to abide by it so they are trying to convince us that it's obsolete so they can rewrite it the way Obama & some other want."

Proof please, if you can provide it.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:30,722
Points:3,408,795
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 11:03:52 PM

Ydraig - understand that there are a whole lot of Dems that also want to abridge or discard the Constitution as well. Bill Clinton was one. He said he wanted to abridge the free speech rights of right wing talk radio. And look at a whole cadre of lib dems who want to take away your 2nd amendment right, if they can (which they won't). And look at Seidman himself. Should we even start with Obama and his health care non-tax tax?

Profile Pic
Wanda127
Champion Author Florida

Posts:4,807
Points:1,463,560
Joined:May 2010
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 10:56:55 PM

It's not obsolete but we have a President that does not what to abide by it so they are trying to convince us that it's obsolete so they can rewrite it the way Obama & some other want.



[Edited by: Wanda127 at 1/30/2013 10:59:13 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Lucchese
Champion Author Oakland

Posts:3,355
Points:132,315
Joined:Mar 2007
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 10:54:05 PM



Not obsolete - it's deceased - extinct

First it was mutilated - then incinerated

It's dead - gone - goodbye
Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 7:28:51 PM

Is the constitution now obsolete?

No, at least not yet. But if the Republicans get their own way much longer, it will be.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:52,521
Points:1,221,795
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 4:55:54 PM

The Constitution is only obsolete to those who don't get their way following it...then they want to toss it aside.

But all the while they say they love the Constitution?

SMH
Profile Pic
jayrad1957
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:24,406
Points:2,152,315
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 4:51:53 PM

Never.
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:18,851
Points:3,084,500
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 4:47:24 PM

The Constitution will never be obsolete. The provisions to make changes in it were set up to ignore passing fads.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:30,722
Points:3,408,795
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 3:10:41 PM

Let's retry that link:

[L=http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/01/27/text deleted Charles Osgood must think so[/L]

Try this one "http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/01/27/cbss-charles-osgood-constitution-worthy-reverence-which-most-american"

[Edited by: AC-302 at 1/30/2013 3:11:39 PM EST]
Profile Pic
1OILMAN
Champion Author Alabama

Posts:2,269
Points:221,160
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 3:10:37 PM

No
Post a reply Back to Topics