Why the U.S Constitution sucks balls

[Delinquent]

civil war, labor rights movement--and the commerce clause being interpreted to apply to everything (until about 1998)

Yea I always thought the Civil War was the major turning point.

The South wanted more States Rights so they decide to secede. North says no and makes the South look like slave laboring monsters that turns all the north against them thus causing the need for a bigger gov't in their eyes, to prevent such a thing from happening again.

It's too bad they don't teach what the Civil War was really about in high school, more people may have a little different view of the gov't which is precisely why it isn't in there

 

[Razorguns]

Yea I always thought the Civil War was the major turning point.

The South wanted more States Rights so they decide to secede. North says no and makes the South look like slave laboring monsters that turns all the north against them thus causing the need for a bigger gov't in their eyes, to prevent such a thing from happening again.

It's too bad they don't teach what the Civil War was really about in high school, more people may have a little different view of the gov't which is precisely why it isn't in there

it was a time that young white american soldiers killed other young white american soldiers for the rights of black people.

r

 

[eddymerckx]

it was a time that young white american soldiers killed other young white american soldiers for the rights of black people.

r

naw, it was for the right of a select group of rich white guys to decide what everyone can and cannot do....

 

[Razorguns]

naw, it was for the right of a select group of rich white guys to decide what everyone can and cannot do....

resulting in white soldiers killing other white soldiers, cuz they truly felt they were fighting for the freedoms of black people.

Pretty honorable. Just like soldiers now are fighting for the 'freedoms' of iraqis. It's what gets them up in the morning in Iraq.

The real reasons are always irrelevant. Few care. Few would even understand.

r

 

[eddymerckx]

resulting in white soldiers killing other white soldiers, cuz they truly felt they were fighting for the freedoms of black people.

Pretty honorable. Just like soldiers now are fighting for the 'freedoms' of iraqis. It's what gets them up in the morning in Iraq.

The real reasons are always irrelevant. Few care. Few would even understand.

r

in general, the confederates knew they were fighting for states rights--most had no opinion on slavery as the number of slaveholders were pretty small compared to the population. In general, the same holds true for many from the north--it has just gotten a bit distorted in the last 150 years

 

[Stefka]

Loopholes. Either intentional or unintentional.

For instance, first amendment states that congresss shall make no law interfering with free speech or right to protest and peaceably assemble.

Yet that is just federal laws. Seriously nothing is stopping any state from being like hey that's it, fuck off, no freedom fo anything, you dont like it get get lost.

Also the separation of church and state thing. Technically all the constitution says is that there can be no federal laws made concerning religion. It doesn't say for example that a public school can't allow prayer.

So basically i dunno what the founding fathers were thinkig. Did they not see the complete potential for any state to adopt traits making them just like England at the time, the place they couldn't stand, right within their very own national borders? I understand they were trying to leave everything open ended, but maybe they put too much faith into people not being dickheads int he future and they should have made things a bit more locked down tight as to what states can do.

The 14th amendment made many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. States can't violate your 1st Amendment rights.

Early American laws were intentionally modeled after English law. No one hated English common law.

And the open ended question is a big topic in Con Law classes. Some say that they did it intentionally - so that future generations would not be "tied to the mast" by the founding founding fathers' decisions.
I think that they had a lot of issues they just didn’t want to deal with. They were negotiating, trying to compromise. They knew some of the vagueness would eventually cause problems, but they needed to get something on paper.
I like that it is open ended.
I like that our interpretation of the constitution can change as societal norms and our perceptions of justice change.

 

[Burning_Inside]

resulting in white soldiers killing other white soldiers, cuz they truly felt they were fighting for the freedoms of black people.

Pretty honorable. Just like soldiers now are fighting for the 'freedoms' of iraqis. It's what gets them up in the morning in Iraq.

The real reasons are always irrelevant. Few care. Few would even understand.

r

and thats honestly how they taught me what the deal was when iw as in school.

And if you asked me what it was about before I read your comment, for simplicities sake, because i don't retain info in my brain that has no common daily use to me, I'd have said "Yeah it was about abolishing slavery."

 

[Burning_Inside]

The 14th amendment made many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. States can't violate your 1st Amendment rights.

Early American laws were intentionally modeled after English law. No one hated English common law.

And the open ended question is a big topic in Con Law classes. Some say that they did it intentionally - so that future generations would not be "tied to the mast" by the founding founding fathers' decisions.
I think that they had a lot of issues they just didn’t want to deal with. They were negotiating, trying to compromise. They knew some of the vagueness would eventually cause problems, but they needed to get something on paper.
I like that it is open ended.
I like that our interpretation of the constitution can change as societal norms and our perceptions of justice change.

yeah i was just coming on here to talk about the 14th amendment.

I dont like however how it's AS open ended as it is. It needs some more rigidity (is that a word? More importantly do i care?)

If it's completely open to interpretation, and as malelable as it is, would you agree that in 500 years from now, let's say little by little bit by bit, by having the liberties we take for granted now ever so slowly chipped away at because of these changes in social norms, that eventually this freedom of speech thing could mean freedom to speak unless spoken to by police for example? But hey it'll still be freedom of speech...Technically..Right?

I'd feel comfy with it being so open IF positions of power didn't typically prove themseves to also be positions of corruption and greed.

 

[Razorguns]

in general, the confederates knew they were fighting for states rights--most had no opinion on slavery as the number of slaveholders were pretty small compared to the population. In general, the same holds true for many from the north--it has just gotten a bit distorted in the last 150 years

I can't imagine northern soldiers waking up and going 'Time to kill those bastards and protect our states rights'.

Usually wars are based upon emotions, which is 10x more effective in getting people to sacrifice themselves, than figures. I have no desire to die, so GDP can rise 5% next year.

Same with Vietnam. Discussing this would require a whole new thread, and I'm watching Ali right now (speaking of draft dodgers).

r

 

[eddymerckx]

I can't imagine northern soldiers waking up and going 'Time to kill those bastards and protect our states rights'.

Usually wars are based upon emotions, which is 10x more effective in getting people to sacrifice themselves, than figures. I have no desire to die, so GDP can rise 5% next year.

Same with Vietnam. Discussing this would require a whole new thread, and I'm watching Ali right now (speaking of draft dodgers).

r

there are a lot of civil war diaries available online via various special interest orgs--very telling...and as much as 20% of the soldiers from the north were conscripts right off the boat---