The US Constitution

**Edwina's Secretary** · 11-02-2008, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by rosethecopycat

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

Amen Sister!

**blue** · 11-02-2008, 10:54 AM

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.

**Edwina's Secretary** · 11-02-2008, 11:10 AM

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?

**blue** · 11-02-2008, 11:28 AM

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.

**Edwina's Secretary** · 11-02-2008, 12:05 PM

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?

**blue** · 11-02-2008, 12:27 PM

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

**Edwina's Secretary** · 11-02-2008, 12:56 PM

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...

)

**momoffuzzyfaces** · 11-02-2008, 01:24 PM

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!!!

**blue** · 11-02-2008, 02:51 PM

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.

**Edwina's Secretary** · 11-02-2008, 03:45 PM

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!

**blue** · 11-02-2008, 10:02 PM

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..

**Grace** · 11-02-2008, 10:25 PM

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.

**blue** · 11-03-2008, 01:02 AM

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?

**Puckstop31** · 11-03-2008, 05:55 AM

<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.

**joycenalex** · 11-03-2008, 06:25 AM

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?

never again! please god