Why the U.S Constitution sucks balls

[Stefka]

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.

SCOTUS interprets the constitution.
I dont really see them as corrupt or greedy.
But sometimes they make no sense and sometimes their opinions piss the hell out of me.

I think a super rigid constitution would cause just as many (if not more) problems than a somewhat openended constitution.

Off topic but...
There is this new law in Michigan where everyone arrested (not convicted, just arrested) for a violent felony has to submit a DNA sample.
I've been wondering how this is constitutional.

 

[eddymerckx]

SCOTUS interprets the constitution.
I dont really see them as corrupt or greedy.
But sometimes they make no sense and sometimes their opinions piss the hell out of me.

I think a super rigid constitution would cause just as many (if not more) problems than a somewhat openended constitution.

Off topic but...
There is this new law in Michigan where everyone arrested (not convicted, just arrested) for a violent felony has to submit a DNA sample.
I've been wondering how this is constitutional.

i bet it say they will toss it if you are not convicted (yea, sure they will)

 

[-SD-]

Founding Fathers recognized the importance of states rights and wrote the constitution accordingly.
"Those rights not guaranteed or limited by the constitution shall be left to the states" or something like that.

 

[Stefka]

i bet it say they will toss it if you are not convicted (yea, sure they will)

They arrest you, take your DNA, scan it through their database and try to get you for other crimes.

 

[javaguru]

They arrest you, take your DNA, scan it through their database and try to get you for other crimes.

The government has far too much power over our lives, thanks to playing to the "law and order" platform.

I'm sure that even the founding father's that were pro strong central government would turn in their graves if they knew how much power the federal government and President have seized.

 

[-SD-]

SCOTUS interprets the constitution.
I dont really see them as corrupt or greedy.
But sometimes they make no sense and sometimes their opinions piss the hell out of me.

I think a super rigid constitution would cause just as many (if not more) problems than a somewhat openended constitution.

Off topic but...
There is this new law in Michigan where everyone arrested (not convicted, just arrested) for a violent felony has to submit a DNA sample.
I've been wondering how this is constitutional.

its not

 

[Stefka]

its not

I'm taking crim pro right now (and it makes me angry).
This law makes me uncomfortable.
I dont think it is constitutional, but I think that there is a winning argument for its constitutionality.
Something like...
Probable cause to arrest = probable cause for search and seizure
DNA sample = search and seizure
Then they can balance government interests against personal interests and justify running the DNA through the database and keeping it on file.
Maybe.
I'm just guessing. I'm only half way through crim pro.

 

[Razorguns]

The government has far too much power over our lives, thanks to playing to the "law and order" platform.

I'm sure that even the founding father's that were pro strong central government would turn in their graves if they knew how much power the federal government and President have seized.

Or the ability of loud masses, to influence politics - just by marching in the streets and shouting on cnn. The power belongs to mobs in democracies. What was the result: VOTE-PANDERING.

I just want to work, enjoy myself, take care of my family, have some of my money for infrastrucutre that's for the good of the people (roads, prisons, etc.), and protect me from those who would do me harm.

That's it. Anything more, and Government has crossed it's boundaries. That's what governments do. Always try to grow bigger and make itself the 'answer' to every 'problem' out there. Define itself as God, and thus ability to do tax or do whatever they want.

Think about it. Whenever there's a problem: What's the first reaction? "Yell at the Govt to fix it".

Who is usually thought of as the person who can fix everything? God.

And now you know how things work now. Govt = God. That's what politicians want. 100% Obedience from their worker slaves.

r

 

[-SD-]

there wasnt even a fucking federal income tax until 1916, how the hell did the USA function or survive for the previous 140 years.

 

[javaguru]

I'm taking crim pro right now (and it makes me angry).
This law makes me uncomfortable.
I dont think it is constitutional, but I think that there is a winning argument for its constitutionality.
Something like...
Probable cause to arrest = probable cause for search and seizure
DNA sample = search and seizure
Then they can balance government interests against personal interests and justify running the DNA through the database and keeping it on file.
Maybe.
I'm just guessing. I'm only half way through crim pro.

I hated criminal procedure.....damned Supreme Court eroding civil liberties since the 70's... It pissed me off too.