The US Constitution

Printable View

11-01-2008, 09:12 AM
Edwina's Secretary

The US Constitution

There has been some hyperbolic fear mongering on PT about the danger the US Constitution may face in the coming years.

Facts overcome fear. So here are some facts.

The US Constitution was ratified in 1788. There have been 27 amendments to the original constitution over the years. This is probably a good thing since the country and the world are rather different today than in 1788.

The president does not amend the constitution – congress writes and passes proposed amendments. The amendment must then be ratified by ¾ of the states. Hundreds of amendments are proposed -- very few are seriously discussed – far, far fewer get to a vote and are sent to the states for ratification.

The states do not always ratify what congress passes. An example is the Equal Rights Amendment. This was to guarantee women equal rights under the constitution. It was passed by congress and ratified by 35 of the states. It has never been ratified by the three additional states needed.

In the 20th century 13 amendments were ratified. The 18th and 21st cancel each other out (prohibition and repeal of prohibition.) Other 20th century amendments include granting women the right to vote, limiting presidential terms to two, prohibiting poll taxes, limiting congressional pay raises and reducing the voting age from 21 to 18.

Despite all these changes to the constitution the Union still stands.

So don’t drink the Kool-aid. At ease. Do not be afraid. Change has happen, change will continue to happen. After all...would you really want to live without change?
11-01-2008, 09:21 AM
DJFyrewolf36

I mean this with all sincerity...

THANK YOU!

Sometimes hearing a voice of reason makes me feel as if the world hasn't completely gone crazy. :D
11-01-2008, 10:00 AM
K9soul

I have to agree... I have been puzzled about the seeming fears that one man could be elected president, go in and just rewrite the constitution himself, even if he wanted to. Just think of how many presidents have been against Roe V Wade or Pro-life, yet they cannot just skip into office and fully overturn it themselves. No president can just eliminate checks and balances, in my belief. That's something to keep in mind for anyone who thinks a president can go in and easily produce massive changes, either for good or for ill. I have no soaring hopes that the man elected president will just get in and solve the nation's problems overnight.
11-01-2008, 10:03 AM
Ginger's Mom

Good post, truly, I mean that. However, many people will answer "yes" to your last question. Many people are so worried about hanging on to what they have, that they have decided that change is the enemy. They have succeeded so far in protecting what they have in the world as they now perceive it to be, and they fear any change. I would point to the Equal Rights Amendment as a perfect example of that. I am also willing to bet that some people (not necessarily people on this board) would point to some of the changes that you have mentioned as being the reason this country is in the precarious financial and security position that it is in now (never mind that most of the countries on the globe are experiencing similar issues). So although your post is most informative, I am afraid it will only enlighten those who are willing to open their eyes to the light.
11-01-2008, 10:05 AM
beeniesmom

Thanks. That was good information.
11-01-2008, 10:18 AM
jennielynn1970

I think this woman really summed it all up.

:p :D
11-01-2008, 12:20 PM
Puckstop31

Thank you for the civics lesson. A small shame that most people do not understand the process you explained.

Obama as President? Fine. Obama as President with an entirely Democratic legislature? Yikes. There needs to be balance.

Like I have said before, several times... I HOPE and PRAY I am wrong. But I fear that Barack Obama wants to turn the Constitution into a document of entitlements, rather than freedoms.
11-01-2008, 12:42 PM
Grace

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puckstop31

Obama as President? Fine. Obama as President with an entirely Democratic legislature? Yikes. There needs to be balance.

May I ask you a question, seriously? Did you feel this same way back when Bush was President and both the House and Senate were Republican?

I was concerned and expressed that to some friends. They pooh-poohed me. But the same sort of things happened then that you portend will happen if and when next Tuesday.

I much prefer if there is a balance in the Government.
11-01-2008, 12:51 PM
kitten645

Excellent post ES. As always :D The fear mongering is what annoys me most. It's simply ignorance. If you look at facts, the fear goes away.
I think Grace brings up an interesting point. We VOTE for who we want. If the country wants 100% on either side, it's up to the voters. (God help us!) Oi vey!:rolleyes:
11-01-2008, 12:58 PM
Puckstop31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grace

May I ask you a question, seriously? Did you feel this same way back when Bush was President and both the House and Senate were Republican?

I was concerned and expressed that to some friends. They pooh-poohed me. But the same sort of things happened then that you portend will happen if and when next Tuesday.

I much prefer if there is a balance in the Government.

100% absolutley, YES. What Bush did is proof of just how little difference there is between the two major parties.

Balance, good. I'd much prefer WAY, WAY, WAY less federal government. But they got most people right where they want them.... Looking to them to solve their problems.

How sloth we have become as a people. Quite sad, no?
11-01-2008, 01:00 PM
Puckstop31

Quote:

Originally Posted by kitten645

I think Grace brings up an interesting point. We VOTE for who we want. If the country wants 100% on either side, it's up to the voters. (God help us!) Oi vey!:rolleyes:

Sure. But then they just go and do whatever the hell they want. Regardless of what they said to get elected.

Until we break the stranglehold the two parties have on us.... It's all going to be the same. We need to stop fighting each other and focus on forcing THEM to do what they say they should do.
11-01-2008, 01:43 PM
momoffuzzyfaces

There is slim chance that only one party will be elected to Congress.

All of the House members are up for election every two years. Their terms start in even numbered years, including this one. All 435 are up this year.

The Senators are elected for 6 year terms. About 1/3 of them are up for re-election every 2 years on even numbered years.

http://www.mahoney.house.gov/index.p...temid=99999999

Plus there are always some Independents sprinkled through the mix.
Maybe more Independents need to be elected to Congress to keep an eye on the Dems and the Reps. ;)
11-01-2008, 01:51 PM
Puckstop31

Lets hope that the Dems do not get a filibuster proof Senate.

And I totally, totally agree that we need a LOT more independant/3rd party people in the legislature.
11-02-2008, 12:39 AM
blue

The problem is that many on the left think the Constitution can be interpreted to fit their mode of how things should be. The Fairness Doctrain, the AWB, and taxing ourselves into prosperity are prime examples of the liberals going against the intent of the Constitution.
11-02-2008, 07:23 AM
rosethecopycat

I'd be more concerned about the Supreme Court than the Legislature.
:eek::rolleyes:
11-02-2008, 10:22 AM
Edwina's Secretary

Quote:

Originally Posted by rosethecopycat

I'd be more concerned about the Supreme Court than the Legislature.
:eek::rolleyes:

Amen Sister!
11-02-2008, 10:54 AM
blue

A very legitimate fear. A SCOTUS that interprets the Constitution to thier own views rather then strictly adhering to its original intent is far more reaching and damaging to our rights and liberty.
11-02-2008, 11:10 AM
Edwina's Secretary

Quote:

Originally Posted by blue

A very legitimate fear. A SCOTUS that interprets the Constitution to thier own views rather then strictly adhering to its original intent is far more reaching and damaging to our rights and liberty.

So you think slavery and women not being able to vote -- original intent! are good things?
11-02-2008, 11:28 AM
blue

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary

So you think slavery and women not being able to vote -- original intent! are good things?

Absolutly not and Im offended you would even suggest I did. Part of the original intent of the Constitution was that it could and would be changed with the amendment process, not to be interpreted to conform to the views of those in power.
11-02-2008, 12:05 PM
Edwina's Secretary

Quote:

Originally Posted by blue

Part of the original intent of the Constitution was that it could and would be changed with the amendment process, not to be interpreted to conform to the views of those in power.

So you support change (aka amendment) to the Constitution?
11-02-2008, 12:27 PM
blue

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary

So you support change (aka amendment) to the Constitution?

When properly warrented yes I do. If it expands the size, reach, and power of the government I do not
11-02-2008, 12:56 PM
Edwina's Secretary

Quote:

Originally Posted by blue

When properly warrented yes I do. If it expands the size, reach, and power of the government I do not

So who decides "properly warranted"? The "people in power?"

What does the Constitution have to do with the size of the government. The Bush Administration has GREATLY expanded the size (and power) of the federal government without touching the Constitution (or reading it I think...;))
11-02-2008, 01:24 PM
momoffuzzyfaces

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary

What does the Constitution have to do with the size of the government. The Bush Administration has GREATLY expanded the size (and power) of the federal government without touching the Constitution (or reading it I think...;))

Yea, when the Constitution was written there were only 13 colonies, therefore, small representation. Baby, look at us now!!! :D
11-02-2008, 02:51 PM
blue

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary

So who decides "properly warranted"? The "people in power?"

What does the Constitution have to do with the size of the government. The Bush Administration has GREATLY expanded the size (and power) of the federal government without touching the Constitution (or reading it I think...;))

We the People decide what is properly warranted, as laid out in the Constitution's amendment process.

The Constitution lays out what the federal government can and cant do. Bush cant do anything without the approval of Congress, its called balence of powers.
11-02-2008, 03:45 PM
Edwina's Secretary

Quote:

Originally Posted by blue

We the People decide what is properly warranted, as laid out in the Constitution's amendment process.

The Constitution lays out what the federal government can and cant do. Bush cant do anything without the approval of Congress, its called balence of powers.

You have just made an EXCELLENT argument for not having any fears for the Constitution regardless of who is elected this week!

Well done!
11-02-2008, 10:02 PM
blue

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary

You have just made an EXCELLENT argument for not having any fears for the Constitution regardless of who is elected this week!

Well done!

Wrong.

If the Democrats win the White House and a super majority in the House and Senate, the outlook on SCOTUS could be very much changed and the hard left leadership can pass whatever they want. Its not just about who wins the White House this time around..
11-02-2008, 10:25 PM
Grace

Quote:

Originally Posted by blue

If the Democrats win the White House and a super majority in the House and Senate, the outlook on SCOTUS could be very much changed and the hard left leadership can pass whatever they want. Its not just about who wins the White House this time around..

Not necessarily. SCOTUS right now is divided 4 - 4 - 1, the 1 being Anthony Kennedy.

IF Obama is elected, he may have the opportunity to appoint 2 - 3 Justices. However, the 3 most likely to leave would be Stevens, Ginsburg and Souter - so the overall makeup of the Court would not change.

IF McCain is elected, then the Court could change dramatically.
11-03-2008, 01:02 AM
blue

From what I remember McCain has stated over and over he would appoint strict constitutionalists to the SCOTUS. How would that be a dramatic change?
11-03-2008, 05:55 AM
Puckstop31

<Insert my typical 3rd party rant here>

This thread is a EXCELLENT example of why we NEED a viable 3rd party.

Sooner or later, states will start seceding again. And justifiably so.
11-03-2008, 06:25 AM
joycenalex

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puckstop31

<Insert my typical 3rd party rant here>

This thread is a EXCELLENT example of why we NEED a viable 3rd party.

Sooner or later, states will start seceding again. And justifiably so.

puckstop, remember what happened the last time states succeeded? :eek:
never again! please god
11-03-2008, 06:55 AM
Puckstop31

Quote:

Originally Posted by joycenalex

puckstop, remember what happened the last time states succeeded? :eek:
never again! please god

Please do not misunderstand me... I do NOT want it to happen.

But the federal government already FAR exceeds its mandate. Sooner or later, I fear they will leave certain states only two choices....
11-03-2008, 07:09 AM
Grace

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puckstop31

Sooner or later, I fear they will leave certain states only two choices....

Certain states - such as Alaska and Vermont perhaps?
11-03-2008, 10:23 AM
kitten645

Can we choose which states we throw out? :p
Claudia
11-03-2008, 12:44 PM
Grace

Quote:

Originally Posted by kitten645

Can we choose which states we throw out? :p
Claudia

Oh, we're not throwing any state out. But there are some states that have indicated an interest seceding. Some that come to mind - Alaska, Vermont, Montana.

There is a town in Vermont that wants to secede from Vermont and become part of New Hampshire.
11-03-2008, 03:29 PM
smokey the elder

One Constitutional amendment I would like to see is the Presidential line-item veto. Clinton tried to do that once, and it was overturned as unconstitutional, so would need an amendment.

In terms of Supreme Court, or any other justices, they need to resist the temptation to be "judicial activists", creating the law rather than interpreting it. I have been pleasantly surprised by the moderate stance of Chief Justice Roberts, a Bush pick (although I don't agree with everything the Court has decided.)

Because the SCOTUS is a lifetime (or until the Justice decides to retire) it is somewhat decoupled from the other two branches of government. It would be even more so if all public offices had term limits (also requiring an amendment for which I'd be in favor.)

Regardless of what your opinions are, please go out and vote, all you US citizens out there in Pettalkville!:)
11-15-2008, 12:28 AM
blue

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grace

Certain states - such as Alaska and Vermont perhaps?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grace

Oh, we're not throwing any state out. But there are some states that have indicated an interest seceding. Some that come to mind - Alaska, Vermont, Montana.

There is a town in Vermont that wants to secede from Vermont and become part of New Hampshire.

With the way I see this country going I voted Alaskan Independence Party for the first time this year.

With a republican proposing reinstituting and extending the Clinton AWB (I know Clinton didnt write it but he did sign it into law), with a president elect with a proven anti Second Amendment voting record I am beginning to fear for our Rights. Looking at a Congresional Branch that is allready getting into the pockets of banks and businesses with the current bailouts, and a president elect that isnt giving any specifics, I fear for our belief in Free Trade. The possibility that Congress could re-enact the Fairness Doctrine in the next term makes me wonder about how secure the First Amendment is.

Too many Alaskans have gotten used to drinking from the Government Teet, we have gotten away from what made us unique in the nation. We where once the Last Frontier, thanks to Ted Stevens and Don Young we are now first to the feeding troff of earmarks and handouts.

If the Country, the People, dosent get the Government spending under controll and end the earmarks and handouts I think both the equality and liberty of the American People will be lost.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smokey the elder

One Constitutional amendment I would like to see is the Presidential line-item veto. Clinton tried to do that once, and it was overturned as unconstitutional, so would need an amendment.

That is an amendment I supported then and still do today, even with Obama as President Elect.

Quote:

In terms of Supreme Court, or any other justices, they need to resist the temptation to be "judicial activists", creating the law rather than interpreting it. I have been pleasantly surprised by the moderate stance of Chief Justice Roberts, a Bush pick (although I don't agree with everything the Court has decided.)

Because the SCOTUS is a lifetime (or until the Justice decides to retire) it is somewhat decoupled from the other two branches of government. It would be even more so if all public offices had term limits (also requiring an amendment for which I'd be in favor.)

It seems to me only the second most important Federal elected office has a term limit.