we are screwed if Paul does not get in.He is the only one that believes in the constituion.all the others are here to serve wall street and the establishment.Even man of the idiot blacks in chicago have come out and admitted they made a mistake in voting for Obama.They are seeing the obvious that he is here only to serve wall street and has lied about everything he said he would do once he got into office.Its only the die hard blacks who want a black man in office who still want him in.everywhere I go that I see these Obama 2012 stickers on cars,its always a black person driving that car.things will never change if Paul doesnt get in.
Originally posted by inimalist
believes in a document that considers blacks to be worth less than whites, allows slavery and doesn't mandate that women should vote...man, what a wonderful document
I bet you don't like the Magnacarta. You know, freedom for all men, as long as you are a land owner.
These kind of documents have become more then they were in the beginning.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I bet you don't like the Magnacarta. You know, freedom for all men, as long as you are a land owner.These kind of documents have become more then they were in the beginning.
I'm just not interested in the religification of the documents.
Sure, there are good things in the constitution, but they are good on their own merits, not because they are part of some document. The idea that a constitution written over 200 years in the past would still be a relevant document to base all government practice on is delusional. Ours [Canada] is, what, 40 years old? and it already is out of date on a few issues.
Originally posted by inimalist
I'm just not interested in the religification of the documents.Sure, there are good things in the constitution, but they are good on their own merits, not because they are part of some document. The idea that a constitution written over 200 years in the past would still be a relevant document to base all government practice on is delusional. Ours [Canada] is, what, 40 years old? and it already is out of date on a few issues.
I would argue that the Canadian Constitution is not mature.
You must keep in mind that the Constitution of the US does not stand alone. There are also the bill of rights and the amendments. The US Constitution is not stagnant.
Simple sound bites from politicians are not good enough information to base a opinion about the US Constitution.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I would argue that the Canadian Constitution is not mature.You must keep in mind that the Constitution of the US does not stand alone. There are also the bill of rights and the amendments. The US Constitution is not stagnant.
Simple sound bites from politicians are not good enough information to base a opinion about the US Constitution.
there is a difference to looking at amending the document and worshiping it the way some on the right seem to
I didnt claim it was, the idiot leftists who clamour for Paul because they want a strict constitutional interpretation are equally misguided. I don't think you could argue that this rhetoric isn't more common on the right however, the tea party has people dress up in cos play of Jefferson and washington
Originally posted by inimalist
I didnt claim it was, the idiot leftists who clamour for Paul because they think returning to a strict constitutional interpretation are equally misguided. I don't think you could argue that this rhetoric isn't more common on the right however, the tea party has people dress up in cos play of Jefferson and washington
I think that some of that is reactionary.
However, how many people believe that Washington could not tell a lie. The truth, he was a master at deception.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think that some of that is reactionary.However, how many people believe that Washington could not tell a lie. The truth, he was a master at deception.
sure, it may be, you still have elected representatives from that group saying things like "we need to return to the magna carta!", though they have no idea what information is contained in the document, they just know it is a "foundation of western society" and want to seem the most extreme in "going back"
whatever motivates it, it still is a lunatic position.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
🙄
no, I can totally see its appeal
you see some value in devoting oneself to an unchanging religious text?
Originally posted by inimalist
I'm just not interested in the religification of the documents.Sure, there are good things in the constitution, but they are good on their own merits, not because they are part of some document. The idea that a constitution written over 200 years in the past would still be a relevant document to base all government practice on is delusional. Ours [Canada] is, what, 40 years old? and it already is out of date on a few issues.
I'm going to clarify my position a little here. My point isn't that there are no good things in the constitution, but as I said above, these are good independent of the fact they are in the constitution. The constitution has many bad ideas in it too, or failed to express ideas we all essentially take for granted today. That it can be amended is almost my point. Policy needs to be set based on what is pragmatic, and thus, there are ways to change what is contained in the constitution such that it comes in line with, again, what are good ideas independently of the fact they are now included in the constitutional document.
In fact, this idea makes the appeal to the constitution essentially moot. Policy and positions need to be good independently of their inclusion in the constitution, and if they are at odds with what is contained there, the constitution is changed.
The constitution works very well at preserving rights so that citizens can use the judicial branch of government to oppose violations by the state, I don't see any benefit to the whole "constitution" meme that is going around right now. Like, I get the appeal of Paul on a civil rights or certain things about the economy, but this is because he has ideas that I think are good, which is the way it should be. Not because he follows some document that we change when we figure stuff out better anyways.