For what would you open the Constitution? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-09-2005, 07:13 AM   #16
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 09:26 PM
hmmmm ... maybe something to do with the overrepresentation of the sparesely populated western states in the Senate.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-09-2005, 07:17 AM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 02:26 AM
I'd like to abolish the whole thing, and go on strictly the popular vote.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 04-09-2005, 07:55 AM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 10:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
hmmmm ... maybe something to do with the overrepresentation of the sparesely populated western states in the Senate.
Could be.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 04-09-2005, 08:07 AM   #19
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 09:26 PM
i think it's much easier to say what you wouldn't amend the constitution for than what you would. as a general principle, the constitution should be to preserve rights, not take them away or narrow their focus, and it should never, never be used as a political tool, i.e. flag burning. the constitution must protect the rights of a minority from the tyranny of the majority -- which is why i always find it laughable when politicians talk about letting the people vote on certain cultural issues. i'm sorry, but rights are not to be conferred upon nor taken away from a minority by the majority.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-09-2005, 08:10 AM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 10:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
i think it's much easier to say what you wouldn't amend the constitution for than what you would. as a general principle, the constitution should be to preserve rights, not take them away or narrow their focus, and it should never, never be used as a political tool, i.e. flag burning. the constitution must protect the rights of a minority from the tyranny of the majority -- which is why i always find it laughable when politicians talk about letting the people vote on certain cultural issues. i'm sorry, but rights are not to be conferred upon nor taken away from a minority by the majority.

Thank you for that post.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 04-09-2005, 02:14 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
sue4u2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: hatching some plot, scheming some scheme
Posts: 6,628
Local Time: 09:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
i think it's much easier to say what you wouldn't amend the constitution for than what you would. as a general principle, the constitution should be to preserve rights, not take them away or narrow their focus, and it should never, never be used as a political tool, i.e. flag burning. the constitution must protect the rights of a minority from the tyranny of the majority -- which is why i always find it laughable when politicians talk about letting the people vote on certain cultural issues. i'm sorry, but rights are not to be conferred upon nor taken away from a minority by the majority.
With that said, it should be aganist the law of man and humanity to Abuse, Torture or Neglect of Children. Period...
Penalties should be so severe that no one would do this.. EVER!!
Regardless of the laws now in place, this is not being observed.
Untill it is, we have.... what we have.
__________________
sue4u2 is offline  
Old 04-09-2005, 03:49 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 10:26 PM
I don't know if it's right to change the constitution at all, unless it was absolutely necessary. As I said earlier, we should never fog up the constitution with imaginary petunias that suit agendas and nothing more. For every major ruling, it should be explained to the public as to why something is constitutional or not. I don't have a strong opinion on the electoral college. As Irvine said, we should preserve rights, rather than amend, amend, amend. I find myself in agreement with his last post.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 04-09-2005, 04:01 PM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
I don't have a strong opinion on the electoral college.



That is a shame


We (the country) can not even have any confidence in how the president attains the office.

How can any thing else be more important?


Is it ignorance and/or apathy?

that allows our country to have an election process less legitimate than many banana republics
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-09-2005, 04:07 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 10:26 PM
You should be happy that I wouldn't piss my pants over it if it was overruled.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 04-09-2005, 04:14 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 10:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
That is a shame


We (the country) can not even have any confidence in how the president attains the office.

How can any thing else be more important?
I think it's more important how the country is run than by whom is running it.


Quote:
Originally posted by deep
Is it ignorance and/or apathy?

that allows our country to have an election process less legitimate than many banana republics
"Less legitimate", interesting terminology. However, I won't be out claiming that the Founding Fathers were infallable. Perhaps it is consistency, for better or worse that keeps the electoral college together.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 04-09-2005, 04:26 PM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
I think it's more important how the country is run than by whom is running it.



So a dictator would be fine

if you like the choices he made?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-09-2005, 04:29 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 10:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
So a dictator would be fine

if you like the choices he made?
Not exactly, because he would be running a dictatorship, rather than a democracy. I would not approve of that.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 04-09-2005, 04:35 PM   #28
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
I think it's more important how the country is run than by whom is running it.


"Less legitimate", interesting terminology. However, I won't be out claiming that the Founding Fathers were infallable. Perhaps it is consistency, for better or worse that keeps the electoral college together.
The Founding Fathers - what ever the fuck that means?

Just a bunch of property holders looking out for their self-interest

They came up with plans and compromises that served their ends

to their credit they did a fairly good job

Especially providing for changes and amendments

The E C is as obsolete as the concept “3/5 human for Negroes” is in census counting for apportionment.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-09-2005, 04:38 PM   #29
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
Not exactly, because he would be running a dictatorship, rather than a democracy. I would not approve of that.

Bush supports this.

Maybe you should reconsider.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-09-2005, 04:39 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 10:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
The Founding Fathers - what ever the fuck that means?

Just a bunch of property holders looking out for their self-interest

They came up with plans and compromises that served their ends

to their credit they did a fairly good job

Especially providing for changes and amendments

The E C is as obsolete as the concept “3/5 human for Negroes” is in census counting for apportionment.
Does your opinion of Ben Franklin, etc get any higher than that? I sure hope so.

Would you approve of rewriting the constitution little by little?
__________________

__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com