Okay, lets have a Constitution Study and then next thread, a Bill of Rights Study

GB, if you're referring to me trying to disrupt this, you're wrong. I'm playing the other side of the argument, which is not making you happy. And yes, how many posts have been listed where we haven't gotten past the preamble? That is my point.
 
"You see people. You can't even get past the damn preamble and you're already bickering over what "is" is. That is why there are professionals in law that make a career of this stuff. What you believe and what you think you saw is irrelevant too the laws as they are written today.
Come on professors. Anyone here that is willing to take your interpreations of the constitution and use it for their case defense need to have their heads examined. As a matter of fact I believe 51-50 is the term of those people"

"GB, if you're referring to me trying to disrupt this, you're wrong. I'm playing the other side of the argument, which is not making you happy. And yes, how many posts have been listed where we haven't gotten past the preamble? That is my point."

Yes, I'm referring to you. No, I'm not wrong. I see you as trying to disrupt the rational discussion as to what the meaning of the Constitution actually is. I don't see you as taking any particular side other than trying to quash rational discussion of the topic at hand, since you seem to think that is the sole realm of a certain class of scholars and judges (clergy and priests). Do you know why this sort of thing never gets past the preamble? Partially because of thread drift, and partly because people disrupt the discussion. And partly because the topic itself is so large that it really can't be reasonably covered in 1 thread. I'd be happier if Wayne had just limited the thread to just the preamble, and start a different thread for each of the other sections, to help limit drift -- not just 1 thread for the main body of the Constitution and 1 for the Bill of Rights.

What you are doing is a self fullfilling prophesy: You'll never get past the Preamble without bickering, and I'm going to help you along that path.
 
"And yes, how many posts have been listed where we haven't gotten past the preamble? That is my point."

Since I imagine it would easily be possible to use the preamble to the US Constitution as the basis of a doctoral dissertation, I wonder how many posts you think are required to adequately cover it.

Tim
 
"Anyone here that is willing to take your interpreations of the constitution and use it for their case defense need to have their heads examined."

Actually, I don't think that anybody here has any such intentions -- I know that I don't.

No, I'm interested in in-depth discussion of the Constitution in order to better understand the foundation of the nation, to understand the ideals that the nation was founded on. This is the first step in identifying those areas (and there are many) where we have strayed over the years, and is a prerequisite to any sort of restoration of this nation to it's former glory of liberty and republican ideals. Before we can rightly identify those who are outside of constitutional authority, we have to know what that authority is, what the measure of the rule is. Us, not the legal clerics and priesthood, many of whom are offenders themselves. Hence, constitution study and discussion.

All of this can be done with decency and order, completely within the existing frameworks, there is no immediate threat posed by any such restoration movement to the safety and wellbeing of the common people. Unless, of course, the powers that be stage a coup -- a distinct possibility.

What problems do you have with that? Or are you one of those who stand to be "outed"?
 
There is also the matter of why the Constitution and a more perfect Union were needed. What had been wrong with the Articles of Confederation, and why couldn't they just be amended? I think the main problem, although some say it was exagerated, was that the US was in debt and not all States were paying their federal taxes. The US was facing bankruptcy. There was an attempt to amend the Articles, but it was resisted by one State (under the Articles, every State had to agree to amendment). It seemed to become evident that something more than a confederacy was needed ... a more perfect Union.
 
Folks, I strongly suggest to anyone who has a real interest in this stuff taking a 3 hour course at their local university in upper division Constitutional Law. I just finished mine (4200-- Government Powers and Discrimination) at UNT, and it was exhilarating. Frankly, my friends and family are probably pretty damned tired of me talking about it. Find yourself a well-thought-of Political Science professor who lives for Constitutional Law, and go hog-wild. I will warn you, though-- you will have to brief and brief and brief cases. I think I ended up briefing about 60 this semester.

And friends, you wouldn't believe the most basic revelations you might make. (Yes, I had a couple.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top