My Constitutional Education

[Accountable]

The whole thing's outdated??

 

[Peter Parka]

The whole thing's outdated??

My personal opinion on the constitution - ripping it up would be a big bonus for the USA. Yes, it was very noble and there is still some good stuff in it but like the Bible, it is completely outdated. It really isn't the holy grail and is dragging the USA back to a silly, outdated era.

Come on, for a teacher I would assume your reading skills were at least slightly better than a 5 year old.

 

[Accountable]

Come on, for a teacher I would assume your reading skills were at least slightly better than a 5 year old.

It is, and fuck you for the insult.
You don't declare something outdated, rip it up and throw it away, unless the preponderance is no good. Aren't most of your fits thrown about the Second Amendment? That's one small part. What else is outdated? Generally, what makes something outdated? Simply being old? How old?

 

[Minor Axis]

Generally, what makes something outdated? Simply being old? How old?

When the standard set by the document no longer is considered appropriate or meaningful. I'm not saying the Constitution is totally outdated. Peter if you feel that the Constitution is in need of a redo, what would you change?

 

[Accountable]

If I recall, he doesn't like our guns, religious freedom, or how we let people just run around saying whatever enters their head without government permission.

 

[Minor Axis]

Good reading! >>>>> How the Tea Party Gets the Constitution Wrong- Newsweek. If you read the entire article they couch their description of the Constitution in terms of being divine. :smiley24:

The Tea Partiers are right to revere the Constitution. It’s a remarkable, even miraculous document. But there are many Constitutions: the Constitution of 1789, of 1864, of 1925, of 1936, of 1970, of today. Where O’Donnell & Co. go wrong is in insisting that their idealized document is the country’s one true Constitution, and that dissenters are somehow un-American.

True patriots, according to Beck, favor a pre-progressive vision of the United States. When Nevada Senate nominee Sharron Angle says we need to “phase out” Social Security and Medicare; when Alaska Senate nominee Joe Miller asserts that unemployment benefits are “unconstitutional”; when West Virginia Senate nominee John Raese declares that the minimum wage should “absolutely” be abolished; when Kentucky Senate nominee Rand Paul questions the legality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; when Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann (pyscho woman-my edit) claims that Obama’s new health-insurance law violates the Constitution; and when various Tea Party candidates say they want to repeal the amendments that triggered the federal income tax and the direct election of senators—this is the vision they’re promoting.

Angle has said that “government isn’t what our Founding Fathers put into the Constitution”—even though establishing a federal government with the “Power To lay and collect Taxes” to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare” is one of the main reasons the Founders created a Constitution to replace the weak, decentralized Articles of Confederation.

The real problem with the Tea Party’s brand of Constitution worship isn’t that it’s too dogmatic. It’s that it isn’t dogmatic enough. In recent months, Tea Party candidates have behaved in ways that belie their public commitment to combating progressivism. They’ve backed measures that blatantly contradict their originalist mission. And they’ve frequently misunderstood or misrepresented the Constitution itself. In May, for example, Paul told a Russian television station that America “should stop” automatically granting citizenship to the native-born children of illegal immigrants. Turns out his suggestion would be unconstitutional, at least according to the 14th Amendment (1868) and a pair of subsequent Supreme Court decisions. A few weeks later, Paul said he’d like to prevent federal contractors from lobbying Congress—a likely violation of their First Amendment right to redress. In July, Alaska’s Miller told ABC News that unemployment benefits are not “constitutionally authorized.” Reports later revealed that his wife claimed unemployment in 2002.

 

[Accountable]

Lots of quotes with virtually no argument to the contrary. Who wrote this? Michael Moore?