Politics and religion.

[mrspunkysmom]

A good question Wom.

Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

"Article III - The Judicial Branch
Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."



*************************

So, as long as the SCOTUS does it's job.... Ruling if laws the Congress and Executive branch pass are legal according to the Constitution, then the system is working as the founders intended. (Ok, at least the Court part. LOL)


To summarize... If you want to CHANGE how the Federal Government of the United States works... (ETA, or confer new 'rights' to citizens.) Amend the Constitution. The founders, in their brilliance, gave us the ability to do so.

I don't usually post here, so apologies if I step on any feet.

I agree. During the recent elections, the local TEA party had stickers for the CSA, Constitutional States of America. This reflected the idea that the country needs to return to the roots of the constitution. They don't like all of the amendments or liberal views of the constitution.

Okay, I don't pay attention like I should, but I didn't realize that we had strayed. I explained to the seller at the rally that the constitution was designed to be amended, but it wasn't easy. He wasn't happy with that and just smiled. IMHO, this desire by 1/2 of our country to run the constitution through a conservative filter does break from the intentions of our forefathers.

Sadly I do realize that there are other issues behind this desire to "return" to the "roots" of the constitution. I also think it is a rallying cry, just to get people to vote your way.

We have also gotten to the point where we cannot agree to disagree any more. WE are each right and there is no between.

[Puckstop31]

I don't usually post here, so apologies if I step on any feet.

I agree. During the recent elections, the local TEA party had stickers for the CSA, Constitutional States of America. This reflected the idea that the country needs to return to the roots of the constitution. They don't like all of the amendments or liberal views of the constitution.

Okay, I don't pay attention like I should, but I didn't realize that we had strayed. I explained to the seller at the rally that the constitution was designed to be amended, but it wasn't easy. He wasn't happy with that and just smiled. IMHO, this desire by 1/2 of our country to run the constitution through a conservative filter does break from the intentions of our forefathers.

Sadly I do realize that there are other issues behind this desire to "return" to the "roots" of the constitution. I also think it is a rallying cry, just to get people to vote your way.

We have also gotten to the point where we cannot agree to disagree any more. WE are each right and there is no between.

Can you explain what you mean by "conservative filter" and how doing so breaks from the intentions of the founders? Or, can you share what you think the founders intentions were?

I do understand how you can feel on the point of not being able to disagree anymore. It goes to the buzzword "bi-partisan". That word is a very dangerous one. Compromise (Bi-Partisanship?) is OK, as long as one does not have to compromise core values to get it. I think this is where the deadlock comes from. The "sides" are so far apart that neither seems to be willing or able to compromise. Basically, each 'side' sees compromise as the OTHER side caving in. Its a pickle indeed. Personally, I think that a slow moving, divided Congress is a GREAT thing. Partisanship makes people think and be creative.