Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

Article 2 section 1 of the Constitution.



It's primarily meant to keep a foreigner from becoming the commander in chief. Who knows if it's really still necessary in today's America. Frankly, I think there are a number of things about the Constitution (and the opinions of the founders) that make more sense during the time it was written. By way of example, Jefferson's opinions on business and government don't quite relate, because he was talking about farmers and tradesmen owning a small shop, there was nothing even remotely close to the international conglomerates we have now. The separation of church and state was there to keep the state out of religion, not the other way around(remember most of the northern part of the country was there because of state persecution of their religion).

Dvergar /
Quisling

Because this country treats the Constitution the way fanatics treat a religious document. It's outdated and stupid, but we have to keep up appearances in the name of tradition, you see.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

That's funny, because we seem to ignore a great deal of it, or "interpret" it to mean things it that anyone capable of understanding plain English can see it doesn't. It's not like we as a nation can't rewrite it, seeing as how we have legitimately done so a couple of dozen times.

It's a little shocking some of the things you educated people say. You'd think you'd know better. You never get the despot you expect, whether it's Mayo solitary monarch or mob rule.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

I would like to point out that Hitler was actually Austrian and not a German. This is what happens when you let foreigners take positions of power!

I care so much that im not even going to read your worthless whinign about an irrelevant topic and add nothing to the conversation.

Carry on.

I am THE man.
http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee15 ... 171424.jpg

I think we should just give birthers a day where they can come out and say "I don't want an ape as my president" and get zero repercussions from it.

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

Maybe we can make it the same day individuals like yourself can accuse people of being racists/sexist/bigot/homophobes for not holding the same opinions you do...which would be excessive since that already looks to be any day ending with the letter "Y."

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

The jokes on you - we're not even talking about the subject of the thread anymore!

Surprise, surprise.

If we say hell to any part of the constitution, then what's the purpose of any part of it? We might as well just say the hell to all of it. Which is unfortunately what we've done a lot of instead of doing what previous generations did - legally change it. The constitution is malleable for a reason, unlike religious documents that set themselves in stone.

Religious documents are so set in stone that there's only one branch of Christianity and there have never been any wars between sects of the same religion for any reason ever.

No but really, we do basically treat it as a religious document. It's nice of you to cite Wickard v Filburn, Jubber, but as you already pointed out, that's interpretation rather than rewriting or ignoring. The problem, as I'm sure you've noticed since you so keenly read every Supreme Court case, is that since the Constitution is so damn hard to change and since it can't keep up with modern issues (can't blame the Founders for not being prescient), the Court frequently has to engage in mental gymnastics in an effort to reconcile good policy with a specific clause that might or might not have supported that approach 200 years ago.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

If we get rid of the Constitution then we've gotten rid of the foundation of our government and how it's structured and run; in doing so, we'd dissolve all requirements and limitations of the government so all branches of the government wouldn't be defined in their scope. Without that definition, the federal legal system, the congress, senate and President, as well as our armies, and equality laws wouldn't exist as it stands. That would be pretty bad... so there would have to be some form of base-line legislation drafted to ensure all these functions, limitations and divisions of the US Government are defined so there is no over-stepping of boundaries. Of course, the representatives of the US states (assuming we recreate a democratic republic) should have the ability to change the document through amendments to the document... and those amendments should need some form of 'majority' vote by the representatives and a ratification by the individual states.

Not a bad idea... but I just don't know what we should call this document? Perhaps, the Constitution?

I guess what I meant to say was nobody admits they've changed.

"I swear to the god that wrote this that it is exactly how he/she/it wrote it!"

I'll agree that the constitution may be a bit too hard to change, we could always go through one last hard change to change that though.

Or can we?























*dun dun!*

ROYAL WEDDING
This post is still on topic.

That's all I'm reading.

Would you like some reading glasses?

France has a constitution too. It's been a constitutional government since 1791. The primary difference is the current version is from 1958, because they come up with a new one every time the government realizes the previous version is too outdated and no amount of amending can save it. I suppose that sort of approach doesn't really appeal to hardline traditionalists in this country who really like the idea that their constitution is older than everyone else's and would rather it not change, since it's a symbol or something.

But yeah, all these constitutional governments go about it in different ways. Here, the constitution is difficult to change and the articles are basically set in stone, which leads to the country having to rely on the Supreme Court to change it with the times. In France, the only real difference is the legislature changes it instead of the courts. Ideally, that would be done here too, but the US Constitution really only changes for really drastic things everyone can agree on, and those tend to happen like once every 40 years.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh