My wife and I were talking the other night while avoiding watching Bush's state of the Union. Yes, we avoided it, and even more importantly, we were actually talking!
Is there a time when we need to look at our Constitution and give it a little update? I mean, how much of our fore fathers thoughts and ideals are applicable today, 200+ years in the future?
I won't get into the specifics of our discussion, but just throwing this out there for discussion here.
And for arguments sake, I believe 99% of the original Constitution is relevant today...
"Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few . . . or the one."
- Spock
My wife and I were talking the other night while avoiding watching Bush's state of the Union. Yes, we avoided it, and even more importantly, we were actually talking!
Is there a time when we need to look at our Constitution and give it a little update? I mean, how much of our fore fathers thoughts and ideals are applicable today, 200+ years in the future?
I won't get into the specifics of our discussion, but just throwing this out there for discussion here.
And for arguments sake, I believe 99% of the original Constitution is relevant today...
I dont think we need to take a look at the constatution, we just need judges who will inteperate it *alito, roberts, scalia, thomas* as opposed to those who just want to make their own rules *row v. wade*
class 1996
Progressives look at reality through the lens of Liberalism
My wife and I were talking the other night while avoiding watching Bush's state of the Union. Yes, we avoided it, and even more importantly, we were actually talking!
Is there a time when we need to look at our Constitution and give it a little update? I mean, how much of our fore fathers thoughts and ideals are applicable today, 200+ years in the future?
I won't get into the specifics of our discussion, but just throwing this out there for discussion here.
And for arguments sake, I believe 99% of the original Constitution is relevant today...
I dont think we need to take a look at the constatution, we just need judges who will inteperate it *alito, roberts, scalia, thomas* as opposed to those who just want to make their own rules *row v. wade*
And you want us to believe Breyer, Ginsburg, O'Connor, Souter, Kennedy are above reproach? By the way, it is Roe V Wade, not row
I think laws dealing with controversial social issues are maleable and should change through the generations. The thing that makes the US constitution special is its built-in defense against those who would use their power to put such laws in concrete.
Thus, whether abortion is legal or not doesn't bother me. I know that in another 200 years it will have long since ceased to be a tool of political leverage because our society will have matured past indiscriminate sex and religious hangups; For the most part.
But when presidents are bypassing warrants for domestic spying and claiming national security as a defense I think it's much more of a threat to the stability of our country.
My wife and I were talking the other night while avoiding watching Bush's state of the Union. Yes, we avoided it, and even more importantly, we were actually talking!
Is there a time when we need to look at our Constitution and give it a little update? I mean, how much of our fore fathers thoughts and ideals are applicable today, 200+ years in the future?
I won't get into the specifics of our discussion, but just throwing this out there for discussion here.
And for arguments sake, I believe 99% of the original Constitution is relevant today...
I dont think we need to take a look at the constatution, we just need judges who will inteperate it *alito, roberts, scalia, thomas* as opposed to those who just want to make their own rules *row v. wade*
And you want us to believe Breyer, Ginsburg, O'Connor, Souter, Kennedy are above reproach? By the way, it is Roe V Wade, not row
1) ever hear of a typo?
2) sorry i dont trust anyone who hasnt spent at least a year as a judge *that shoots down ginsburg*
3) or anyone else who says that "we will seek out other ways to back up what we want to have as us law" (that is basically the rest of them)
class 1996
Progressives look at reality through the lens of Liberalism
Joined: 25 Jan 2003 Posts: 2137 Location: The Lords personal toilet, otherwise known as Battle Creek, MI. 765 eGriz Bucks
Oh and O'Connor is gone now too. Just thought I would point that out.
"Well, why not 112%? Why not 500 percent or 1,300 percent or 38 billion percent? I mean if he can crank it up beyond 100%, why not? What's stopping him exactly?" ----Floyd Landis to Outside Magazine on athletes saying they gave 110%
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
class 1996
