The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Forming a More Perfect Union
MrMonroe
passed outon the floor nowRegistered User regular
passed outon the floor nowRegistered User regular
So it'll be two hundred and twenty four years this June since the United States Constitution was ratified. Thomas Jefferson, principal author of the Declaration of Independence, third President of these United States, and all-around swell guy except for the owning humans and raping them thing, had this to say about the permanency of the foundational document of the nation:
I couldn't agree more!
Here are some things that have happened since the Constitution of the United States was ratified:
woah
dang what the hell
holy shit god damn
see now you're just pulling my leg
them too‽
what the fuck is that thing?
sweet mother of god you've got to be kidding me
wait they are how small now?
Since that document was written, we've had a war over mercantilism, a war over slavery, a war over some dumb shit no one can really make heads or tails of that we call the "Great" war for some reason, a war over fascism, a war over communism, and a couple other wars over some even less sensible bullshit. Suffrage has extended to the unlanded, women, and non-whites.
We've got an internet now. What would Thomas Jefferson think about that? Who fucking knows, probably nothing of worth since the telegraph would have been to him indistinguishable from magic.
And yet more than one of the nine people who determine how our laws stack up against this foundational document are fond of breaking out the two-century-old dictionary to determine what exactly the "Founding Fathers" were thinking when they wrote the damned thing in order to determine how to interpret it. Why they ignore the part where those same people thought that was exactly the sort of behavior we should avoid in order to have a reasonable jurisprudence is beyond me but I've given up arguing with them and figure it's easier to just give the document a once-over with track changes on. That way they have to start being honest about thinking for themselves rather than claiming they are impartial.
So what should be in a Constitution? Should we have a Constitution? Lots of other countries don't have one and they seem to get by pretty OK going without. It's not like ours actually stops us from going to war or spying on our civilians or regulating religious beliefs or what have you, so maybe it's just a political expedient that helps unscrupulous individuals cloak their political ideology in more defensible constitutional "principles."
So what would you do if you had a magic wand? If they let you into the National Archives with a red pen and a highlighter, what would you do change about the Constitution? Or would you change nothing?
I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
I couldn't agree more!
Here are some things that have happened since the Constitution of the United States was ratified:
woah
dang what the hell
holy shit god damn
see now you're just pulling my leg
them too‽
what the fuck is that thing?
sweet mother of god you've got to be kidding me
wait they are how small now?
Since that document was written, we've had a war over mercantilism, a war over slavery, a war over some dumb shit no one can really make heads or tails of that we call the "Great" war for some reason, a war over fascism, a war over communism, and a couple other wars over some even less sensible bullshit. Suffrage has extended to the unlanded, women, and non-whites.
We've got an internet now. What would Thomas Jefferson think about that? Who fucking knows, probably nothing of worth since the telegraph would have been to him indistinguishable from magic.
And yet more than one of the nine people who determine how our laws stack up against this foundational document are fond of breaking out the two-century-old dictionary to determine what exactly the "Founding Fathers" were thinking when they wrote the damned thing in order to determine how to interpret it. Why they ignore the part where those same people thought that was exactly the sort of behavior we should avoid in order to have a reasonable jurisprudence is beyond me but I've given up arguing with them and figure it's easier to just give the document a once-over with track changes on. That way they have to start being honest about thinking for themselves rather than claiming they are impartial.
So what should be in a Constitution? Should we have a Constitution? Lots of other countries don't have one and they seem to get by pretty OK going without. It's not like ours actually stops us from going to war or spying on our civilians or regulating religious beliefs or what have you, so maybe it's just a political expedient that helps unscrupulous individuals cloak their political ideology in more defensible constitutional "principles."
So what would you do if you had a magic wand? If they let you into the National Archives with a red pen and a highlighter, what would you do change about the Constitution? Or would you change nothing?
MrMonroe on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
Draw a picture of Hank Williams, Jr. on it!
here u go
happy birthday mensch
who invited the swede
I say 6-3 in favor of the constitutionality of the "mandate" provisions and 7-2 in favor of the constitutionality of the medicaid requirements
that
doesnt look like le petit prince.......
and politicians interpret these flaws as anachronistic or the UNDENIABLE TRUTH OF EXISTENCE whenever it supports them
this is a basis for a surprising amount of politics
we also talk about other random shit and clown upon each other
5-4 in favor of the mandate, 6-3 in favor on Medicaid.
A) That Congress has the power to impose any restriction on corporations as they are not people and therefore do not have the same protections as them
C) Clarify the meaning of and the means to attain citizenship. I'm undecided on whether this should make it more or less restrictive, though.
because there's fuck all else in there they can use to justify it
in short, blame FDR and his threat to stack the Court
Yeah. I was going to say "because at a certain point we decided to have a functional federal government and had to find a way to justify it".
god it's like these idiots don't even know how to write english
can you summarize it please because the last article i read on it gave me no clue on whether what had happened was badass or just a clusterfuck
Dear satan I wish for this or maybe some of this....oh and I'm a medium or a large.
you're on
I'm betting your 4 in the case of the mandate are Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts, but who is your third in the Medicaid slot? (after the obvious Scalia/Thomas bullshit dissent)
and no, mr @LuvTheMonkey, I don't really want to place bets on who writes the opinions, although I'd like to express my personal hope that Justice Scalia writes for the minority on both issues, as I love hating his opinions. However, I would expect him to cede the driver's seat in one or both as a strategic matter if he can, although not to Thomas.
(I edited the Oxford comma back in)
as far as I know the supreme court of iceland rejected it because there were a bunch of privacy and permissions issues with the actual drafting process, and even then 2/3rds of iceland didn't actually view or access the constitutional proposal when it was available for suggestions online
Hmm
Icelanders hand in draft of world's first 'web' constitution
So by "the people", they meant unemployed 27 year old males
we also talk about other random shit and clown upon each other
that what happens when you have fishing as your major money maker for centuries and then hey banks run by people who don't really know how to run banks but LOANS LOANS LOANS
Well, that's a somewhat compelling generalization. We should look at a specific instance of a condition of communication limitations, though. That might be more interesting.