Why the U.S Constitution sucks balls

[Burning_Inside]

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.

 

[75th]

Uh...that was the whole point for them starting their own country.

Thats the way it should be.

 

[jnevin]

eh...

 

[curvymommy]

I Dunno but here's to US Constitution and Sucking Balls in the same thread title.

What a great country we live in!!!!

 

[redguru]

The Federal Government was intended to loosely hold the States together under a common flag, provide for common defense from aggression, and secure free commerce across the borders of the States. Each State was expected to create it's own Constitution.

Jefferson never envisioned a ruling Political class. I think the only way to return things to a Constitutional Republic is to set up term limits for all Legislators. Two terms for the House and a single term for the Senate. Also, the Senate should be appointed according to the several State's Constitutions as it was designed to be representative of the State's government, the House was to be representative of the People.

 

[Delinquent]

I don't think they truly knew that this would happen to their Republic. It originally stood for states rights with a centralized federal government to protect against invasion.

Now we have a irontight centralized gov't with very little states rights.

What went wrong?

 

[75th]

I don't think they truly knew that this would happen to their Republic. It originally stood for states rights with a centralized federal government to protect against invasion.

Now we have a irontight centralized gov't with very little states rights.

What went wrong?

People bitching about how the gubment dont give them no money.

 

[redguru]

I don't think they truly knew that this would happen to their Republic. It originally stood for states rights with a centralized federal government to protect against invasion.

Now we have a irontight centralized gov't with very little states rights.

What went wrong?

it's all in my sig.

 

[eddymerckx]

I don't think they truly knew that this would happen to their Republic. It originally stood for states rights with a centralized federal government to protect against invasion.

Now we have a irontight centralized gov't with very little states rights.

What went wrong?

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

 

[Burning_Inside]

I Dunno but here's to US Constitution and Sucking Balls in the same thread title.

What a great country we live in!!!!

you have no nudes in your gallery.

 

[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---

 

[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.

 

[Stefka]

And for the record, I do not think that the U.S. Constitution sucks balls.

 

[javaguru]

And for the record, I do not think that the U.S. Constitution sucks balls.

More importantly, surprised this hasn't been asked, do you?

 

[JonPee]

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.

Are you serious? That's exactly what the constitution is for. States can't make laws that contradict the constitution

 

[flex229]

lawyers/law students, please correct me if im wrong, but the Supremacy Clause would not allow a State to intrude on first amendment rights, correct?
Federal law would pre-empt, i believe.

also, with his second assertion, the ban on school prayer comes from Common Law, as opposed to statutory law. Common Law tells us that a public school cannot allow prayer because by definition, a public school is paid for with public funds. To allow prayer in school, thus, would violate the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution.

perhaps our founding fathers intended for us to interpret the US Constitution using the courts (Common Law)?

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.

 

[flex229]

my guess is that the Michigan law will be struck down by the courts as unconstitutional.

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.

 

[jackangel]

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.

isn't this the tricky part (i.e. big leap)?

 

[Stefka]

lawyers/law students, please correct me if im wrong, but the Supremacy Clause would not allow a State to intrude on first amendment rights, correct?
Federal law would pre-empt, i believe.

No
Remember Barron v. Baltimore?
Before the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government, and not to the states.

But a bunch of SCOTUS decisions after the 14th Amendment changed that.
The 1st Amendment (and most of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights) has been incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. So now a state cannot intrude on 1st Amendment rights.

 

[Stefka]

isn't this the tricky part (i.e. big leap)?

SCOTUS has held that blood and urine samples constitute a search and seizure.

 

[manny78]

The founding fathers were most likely drunk so good luck.... lol

 

[manny78]

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.

Lucky you cause in Canada the Constitution has a provision called the "notwithstanding clause" which allows the federal and provincial governements to suspend any right/liberty with just miserable bill. Imagine what GWB would do if he had somethign similar ? lol

 

[heatherrae]

I guess you missed the Supremacy clause. Look it up.

Good God, what is this country coming to? Seriously, not to be a bitch, but do they even have kids read in school these days?

 

[Powerlifting57]

who wants to pack up, infiltrate cuba and make our own country??

 

[javaguru]

Lucky you cause in Canada the Constitution has a provision called the "notwithstanding clause" which allows the federal and provincial governements to suspend any right/liberty with just miserable bill. Imagine what GWB would do if he had somethign similar ? lol

Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and FDR imprisoned thousands of American citizens for the entire war based solely on their ethnicity.

 

[-SD-]

Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and FDR imprisoned thousands of American citizens for the entire war based solely on their ethnicity.

we cant talk about that, those are the cool and good presidents dude.

 

[Razorguns]

I guess you missed the Supremacy clause. Look it up.

Good God, what is this country coming to? Seriously, not to be a bitch, but do they even have kids read in school these days?

it's all about who said what on myspace. and how to look hip.

kids don't give a shit about what's being taught. the alarming rise in levels of teenage pregnancies and dropouts is evident of this.

oh well. Hope they're okay with having Mr. Chen and Mr. Lopez as their boss.

r

 

[Burning_Inside]

I guess you missed the Supremacy clause. Look it up.

Good God, what is this country coming to? Seriously, not to be a bitch, but do they even have kids read in school these days?

I've been out of school for over 15 years and being that the constitution or politics isn't something I worry about in my day to day goings on, I don;t retain the info I learned about it from that long ago, and I bet there is plenty of shit you don't remember that was taught to you 10 years ago either because you dont utilize the info daily to keep it fresh in your mind. It's unrealistic that anyone know politics and the laws of the country inside and out. What does it matter to the common person's daily life? Even if you knew that right then and there you were in an unconstitutional position and your rights were being violated, do you really think that stating off proof of this violation from memory is going to stop it from happening? It'll run its course and you'll have to fight it in a court anyways. And that is why we have lawyers. How many times have you heard of someone telling a cop they are wrong at the very time they are doing somthing wrong and the cop saying "gee youre right, I'm sorry, here's 6 grand out of my pocket for your troubles"?

Also, explain why Philadelphia has a law causing you to register and pay for a protest that directly infringes upon your right to "FREE" speech and peacable assembly? if I want to protest somethign RIGHT NOW in Philly, i can't cause I need to register and pay for it. It seems that Supremacy clause thingamajigger didn't do shit.

 

[flex229]

thank you, Heatherrae...supremacy clause is what i referred to in my post.

I guess you missed the Supremacy clause. Look it up.

Good God, what is this country coming to? Seriously, not to be a bitch, but do they even have kids read in school these days?

 

[Stefka]

thank you, Heatherrae...supremacy clause is what i referred to in my post.

Argh
Do you two need to borrow my Chemerinsky?
The Supremacy Clause doesnt make the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.
The 14th Amemdment did.
Did you guys not spend weeks going over selective incorporation in your 1L con law class?

Remember this pre 14th Amendment case?
http://www.constitution.org/ussc/032-243a.htm

 

[javaguru]

we cant talk about that, those are the cool and good presidents dude.

Lincoln also said he would save the union with slavery or without it.

 

[eddymerckx]

Argh
Do you two need to borrow my Chemerinsky?
The Supremacy Clause doesnt make the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.
The 14th Amemdment did.
Did you guys not spend weeks going over selective incorporation in your 1L con law class?

Remember this pre 14th Amendment case?
http://www.constitution.org/ussc/032-243a.htm

he does he bar bri lecture on con law---you will want to strangle him by minute 10

 

[flex229]

i dont know much conlaw outside the commerce clause and standing.

however, doesn't the supremacy clause state that when a federal law and a state law contradict, the federal law controls?

also, if i'm not mistaken, doesn't the pre-emption doctrine proviee that a state can give more protections, but not less, than what the federal law provides for?

Argh
Do you two need to borrow my Chemerinsky?
The Supremacy Clause doesnt make the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.
The 14th Amemdment did.
Did you guys not spend weeks going over selective incorporation in your 1L con law class?

Remember this pre 14th Amendment case?
http://www.constitution.org/ussc/032-243a.htm