Do We Really Need All of the Amendments to the Constitution? »
Posted by: populist 2 months, 1 week agoThe following words are the now abandoned fourth amendment, and we are looking to delete if from further copies that we print of the Constitution in that it is no longer useful for the President or the Congress to pay attention to it any longer.
Read Full Story at huffingtonpost.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 58
-
0%
Justice4All2 months, 1 week ago
It's just a G-D piece of paper. And soon it may not even be that.
God help this once great country.
Reply -
0%
Charlson2 months, 1 week ago
The only legal way to change our Constitution is by admendments and not by decree of the executice branch of government.
Reply-
0%
Codi69342 months, 1 week ago
The other two branches of govt are just as guilty of re-writing the Constitution. Don't put this squarely on GW's shoulders.
Reply -
0%
bigurn2 months, 1 week ago
Agreed. In fact, it is the responsibility of Congress to refer and vote upon Constitutional amendments. They are then ratified by the many states. We haven't done this in a generation, though.
Reply
-
-
0%
BB642 months, 1 week ago
You know I'm confused by a few things here. First, how does some fat asXed witch who barely speaks English get so powerful? Huffy post is a joke yet people still talk to her, only in America.
On this whole subject, why when this nation is at war, we're trying to hold the government to such high standards? We didn't in 1917, that's how we intercepted a cable between Germany and Mexico. That forced us into WW1. FDR not only permitted eavesdropping, he jailed thousands of people because of their race. Most of the concerns I see here are listening in on conversations from foreign terror suspects calling numbers in America. For that we're seeing claims of freedoms taken. How about those folks in towers 1 & 2. Weren't their rights slightly infringed upon? Life, liberty, oh, heck, just life.
Reply-
0%
Charlson2 months, 1 week ago
The reason we hold America to a high or higher standard is self evident. If we want to hold up our ideals to the rest of the world, shouldn't we also practice what we preach? I am of a firm resolve that America can fight terrorism effectively and decisively without eroding our Constitution. This administration has demonstrated time and time again that they can't and they won't. Any intelligent, competent president without a personal agenda could have captured or killed OBL and crippled or destroyed Al Qaeda.
Reply-
0%
BB642 months, 1 week ago
I'm retired Navy. Proud Seal with surface command later in life. In all of the things my nation sent me to do, I can't picture reading a set of Miranda rights to someone shooting at me. I also can't imagine having to secure a wire tap every time we're tracking down terror suspects here in the US. This isn't the 1940's with technology. Between internet access and disposable cell phones, watching our enemies is very difficult.
As to tracking OBL you're kidding right? I understand you're a lefty but come on. You're talking about someone living in caves and spider holes in a very large area. You're not simply going to go there and find him. As to disabling AlQueda, we haven't seen another attack on the USA have we? Or was there one but your lefty press refused to carry that too?
Reply
-
-
-
0%
RCHIII2 months, 1 week ago
"Most of the concerns I see here are listening in on conversations from foreign terror suspects calling numbers in America."
That's a dangerous assumption.
The FISA courts already gave the government all the power it needed to listen in on terrorist suspects. They even allowed for the government to come to the court after the fact. Allowing the government to listen in on anyone it likes is a step in a very dangerous direction.
Reply -
0%
bigurn2 months, 1 week ago
A civics lesson:
Amendments
The authors of the Constitution were clearly aware that changes would be necessary from time to time if the Constitution was to endure and cope with the effects of the anticipated growth of the nation. However, they were also conscious that such change should not be easy, lest it permit ill-conceived and hastily passed amendments. Balancing this, they also wanted to ensure that an overly rigid requirement of unanimity would not block action desired by the vast majority of the population. Their solution was to devise a dual process by which the Constitution could be altered.
Reply -
0%
bigurn2 months, 1 week ago
Amending the Constitution is a two-part process: amendments must be proposed and then they must be ratified. Amendments can be proposed one of two ways. The only way that has been used to date is through a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress. Alternatively, two-thirds of the legislatures of the States can call a Constitutional Convention to consider one or more amendments. This second method has never been used, and it is unclear exactly how, in practice, such a Constitutional Convention would work.
Reply-
0%
Ratskii2 months, 1 week ago
If such a Constitution Convention were called, and it altered our current Constitution, it would have to be ratified by 3/4ths of the states.
Reply -
0%
unorthodoxic2 months, 1 week ago
The danger of a constitutional convention is that once it is convened, the whole Constitution is on the table. As this discussion, and several others on this site, show so clearly, we the people have become a society incapable of discussing anything without resorting to name callling and insult. Sound bites and blurbs on tv or internet have replaced even the most cursory attempt to discover the facts behind issues, and both left and right are so gullible that they will latch on to the most inflamatory statements so long as they cast aspersions on the opposite side. As a society we know more about Paris Hilton than our Congresspersons, and are more interested in the president's sex life than his performance in office. We believe in symbols, not actuality, and castigate anyone who tries to point out the difference between them. These are Not the people I want "revising" the foundations of my government.
Reply
-
-
0%
bigurn2 months, 1 week ago
Regardless of how the amendment is proposed, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states, a process called ratification. Depending on the amendment, this requires either the state legislatures or special state conventions to approve the amendment by simple majority vote. Amendments generally go to state legislatures to be ratified, only the Twenty-first Amendment called for special state conventions.
Reply -
0%
bigurn2 months, 1 week ago
Unlike many other constitutions, amendments to the U.S. constitution are appended to the existing body of the text without altering or removing what already exists. There is no provision for deleting either obsolete text or rescinded provisions.
Reply -
0%
bigurn2 months, 1 week ago
Judicial review
Aside from the direct process of amending the Constitution, the way the Constitution is understood is also influenced by the decisions of the court system, and especially the Supreme Court. These decisions are referred to, collectively, as precedents. The ability of the courts to interpret the Constitution was decided early in the history of the United States, in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison. In that case, the Supreme Court established the doctrine of judicial review, which is the power of the Court to examine legislation and other acts of Congress and to decide their constitutionality.
Reply -
0%
bigurn2 months, 1 week ago
The doctrine also embraces the power of the Court to explain the meaning of various sections of the Constitution as they apply to particular cases brought before the Court. Over the years, a series of Court decisions, on issues ranging from governmental regulation of radio and television to the rights of the accused in criminal cases, has affected a change in the way many Constitutional clauses are interpreted, without amendment to the actual text of the Constitution.
Reply -
0%
bigurn2 months, 1 week ago
Legislation, passed to implement provisions of the Constitution or to adapt those implementations to changing conditions, also broadens and, in subtle ways, changes the meanings given to the words of the Constitution. Up to a point, the rules and regulations of the many agencies of the federal government have a similar effect. If the actions of Congress or federal agencies are challenged as to their constitutionality, however, it is the court system that ultimately decides whether or not they are allowable under the Constitution.
Reply -
0%
KISA452a2 months, 1 week ago
I like the view that terrorism may one day be enough to remove the entire Constitution. I think we also have the opposite problem that everyone/everything could easily become viewed as terrorists. A white guy hits a black guy? Terrorism. A kid brings a knife to school? Terrorism. You can't get the food you want at the store unless you pay? Economic terrorism. And so forth.
Who does the president (current or future) say is a terrorist? Some seem to think that anyone who is not PC enough should be so designated. And with essentially no appeal to legal recourse the power is just ripe for abuse.
On the other hand, I'd be more worked up about it if I thought the Constitution had meant anything for the past 30 years. This is just a continuation of a great American tradition. Or are people actually just noticing the Constitution is gone?
Reply -
0%
miklkit2 months, 1 week ago
Yes, the Constitution is dead, and these are it's replacements.
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/fema.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P-hvPJPTi4
Reply-
0%
Ratskii2 months, 1 week ago
I'm aware of the executive orders you've listed. The Executive would face a big problem if it tried to implement them. People would simply stop going to work or going out to buy things. In effect it would bring about an almost immediate general strike. Such a strike would bring the U.S. to it knees, economically, in a matter of days. I get paranoid too at times, but I really don't think the ultra-right (for the most part) is that stupid.
Reply
-
Submitted By:
populist
The essays we offer are unapologetically presented for you to read & analyze. Many are offered as a similar view to ours & others simply to invite ...
Also submitted:
- 1.0 - What a Mess To Clean Up
- 1.0 - It's not a right; it's theft, plain and simple.
- 1.0 - When Desertion is a Duty
- 1.0 - Do You Really Need a License to Arrange Furniture?
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Also Propping This Article
Alexia
capn_caveman
MidnightPrism
ciera-marie
berkeley
eugenegerard
Ratskii- rebner
Eagle_Eye
dandt1612
Groups Watching This
No groups are watching this story. Why not share it with your group?
