The Constitution

[Peter Parka]

Yes, of course it would. But I really fail to see your point here. Hell, you could do it in 90% of Europe too.

Schengen Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's wrong too, glad my country dosen't buy into that shit!......yet! Fucking hate this trying to create a European superstate shit!

 

[Tim]

I guess, i did say sorry if I've got things wrong. My main point was how that some people seem to view it as infalliable while i see that things need to evolve and change with time, I dont see why if something is in the constitution, it must always be right.

There are provisions for amending the constitution. It's not easily done but can be and has been amended to keep up with times.

Like you will never see anything in the constitution about internet crimes. But that's ok, the legislature will pass laws covering that and as long as they fall within the outline of the constitution it will be held up by the judiciary. So they can make it a crime for child predators on the internet even though the constitution never addressed that, as long as they don't violate your constitutional rights. So even though the constitution is the basis of all our laws (the framework) it will never be outdated.

 

[Peter Parka]

Yeah, get the idea now, wasn't trying to critise the idea of the constitution as such, more how some people in the debate section argue points by the fact that it's in the constitution as if that makes it immediately right.

 

[Alien Allen]

The constitution is really a brilliant document. It is timeless. The reason it is cited so often is because it is so well thought out and what we are so grounded in. Have you ever read it? It is not that long a read and maybe if you took a peak you would get a sense of why some revere it. Hope ya do and give us your view :thumbup

 

[Peter Parka]

I've already given my view on one of the amendments and thanks to Donnie for his explanation though I dont neccessarily agree fully with it. I will have a thorough read of it sometimewhen I get a chance. I still dont think that anything is neccesarily timeless and shouldn't be questioned though.

 

[Alien Allen]

I've already given my view on one of the amendments and thanks to Donnie for his explanation though I dont neccessarily agree fully with it. I will have a thorough read of it sometimewhen I get a chance. I still dont think that anything is neccesarily timeless and shouldn't be questioned though.

but it is always questioned and interpreted in courts. for it to hold up to 200+ years of scrutiny should say something about it.

 

[Peter Parka]

but it is always questioned and interpreted in courts. for it to hold up to 200+ years of scrutiny should say something about it.

Oh agreed, it just seems that I've seen a lot of comments in the debate section that imply that it must be right because it's the constitution. Think I may have worded some of this thread wrong, hope you get what I'm saying now. The cider I'm drinking probably dosent help me make things clear!

 

[Alien Allen]

Oh agreed, it just seems that I've seen a lot of comments in the debate section that imply that it must be right because it's the constitution. Think I may have worded some of this thread wrong, hope you get what I'm saying now. The cider I'm drinking probably dosent help me make things clear!

no problem

give me about 4 hours and i will be in the same position.

think of the constitution as a building's foundation. it is what everything is based on. hard for me to explain but maybe Mulder can elaborate better.

 

[Peter Parka]

no problem

give me about 4 hours and i will be in the same position.

think of the constitution as a building's foundation. it is what everything is based on. hard for me to explain but maybe Mulder can elaborate better.

NOOO! It's ok, I'll take your word for it!:surrender

Bit like the Magna Carta which Donnie mentioned earlier on, most of it is irrelevant now but it laid the basis for why we have a Monarchy that cant just go around chopping peoples heads off because they get in the Queens way, anymore.

 

[TheOriginalJames]

Get what you're saying but the contitution dosent seem to be primarily about controlling the President. It does seem hopelesly out of date though, take it's view on the gun laws. as you are aware I think they are too soft in the USA anyway so I aprove that the law in your country breaks the constitution.Even if you're a bit of a gun nut, would you like the laws you already have abolished so it dosen't break the constitution?

What in the hell are you babbling about? The constitution outlines how our government works.

The Executive Branch, Judicial Branch and Legislative Branch are all controlled by the outlines of the Constitution. It basically states that each branch cannot have more power than the other two. It outlines a system of checks and balances between the three branches so that one can't take total control.

As for the gun laws, why is it always about gun laws with you? You sit here all high and mighty without ever having been here and claim that guns are so absolutely horrible that they should just be outright banned. Do that and criminals won't give two shits. Do you HONESTLY, and TOTALLY believe there are absolutely NO guns carried in England? If you answer yes to this, then your naivity is overwhelming your ability to logically think about this on the grand scale, and thus there is no real point to even debating this with you.

Come off your high horse, Pete. If England hadn't been such pussies, taxing our colonies, raping and pilaging our villages and murdering our citizens, the 2nd amendment would have never included anything about firearms for self protection. Put yourself in someone elses shoes, both in the current time and past times, and think about things before you bring up gun control to Americans.

 

[Peter Parka]

What in the hell are you babbling about? The constitution outlines how our government works.

The Executive Branch, Judicial Branch and Legislative Branch are all controlled by the outlines of the Constitution. It basically states that each branch cannot have more power than the other two. It outlines a system of checks and balances between the three branches so that one can't take total control.

As for the gun laws, why is it always about gun laws with you? You sit here all high and mighty without ever having been here and claim that guns are so absolutely horrible that they should just be outright banned. Do that and criminals won't give two shits. Do you HONESTLY, and TOTALLY believe there are absolutely NO guns carried in England? If you answer yes to this, then your naivity is overwhelming your ability to logically think about this on the grand scale, and thus there is no real point to even debating this with you.

Come off your high horse, Pete. If England hadn't been such pussies, taxing our colonies, raping and pilaging our villages and murdering our citizens, the 2nd amendment would have never included anything about firearms for self protection. Put yourself in someone elses shoes, both in the current time and past times, and think about things before you bring up gun control to Americans.

If you had read earlier, I was using the guns thing as an example not to make an issue about gun laws and one where your laws are more favorable to me than the constitution.
The high horse bit made me laugh, really think you have been watching the Patriot Mel Gibson film a little bit too much!:24::24::24:

And no, I dont think there are no guns in England, never said I did although the stats show its a lot less of a problem than in the USA.

 

[TheOriginalJames]

Yes, a country with almost a fifth (1/5th) the amount of people will have less problems of any type... did you really just compare a watermelon to an apple?

I have never seen the Patriot, I have however read history books and I did pay attention in school. Not to mention the various amounts of English and US history on History channel, etc.

Don't go sitting there believing that I (or anyone else) get their education from movies. Why do you think you have the reputation of sitting on a high horse, Peter?

 

[lumpenstein]

It's always about guns with you Pete :smiley24: I don't know which laws specifically you're saying violate the Constitution. Give me a law, and I'll tell you what I think.

Have you ever read the Constitution? It's ALL about controlling the President. Our founding fathers didn't want any possibility of a monarch-type figure. There's an entire system of checks-and-balances. Here's a quick summary of how each of the 3 branches keep the other branches in check:

Separation of powers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Like stopping Bush Jr. declaring a national emergency so he could browbeat the populace and media into accepting draconian security measures and a multi billion dollar invasion of the wrong country?

 

[Alien Allen]

Like stopping Bush Jr. declaring a national emergency so he could browbeat the populace and media into accepting draconian security measures and a multi billion dollar invasion of the wrong country?

damn straight

we aint no stinkin nation of pussies :hey

we kick ass and then if we feel like it we may apologize :award:


now go grab your binky and have a nice evening :nanners:


:jk:jk:jk

 

[Peter Parka]

Yes, a country with almost a fifth (1/5th) the amount of people will have less problems of any type... did you really just compare a watermelon to an apple?

I have never seen the Patriot, I have however read history books and I did pay attention in school. Not to mention the various amounts of English and US history on History channel, etc.

Don't go sitting there believing that I (or anyone else) get their education from movies. Why do you think you have the reputation of sitting on a high horse, Peter?

If you compare gun crime in Britain per head of population it is far lower than in the USA. if you like guns, knock your self out, juststop bitching that it isn't a problem when it most obviously is!

Oh and seeing you get your sources from reputable places you'll know that the patriots commited just as many distcusting crimes during the independance war but funny how you never mentionedthat and wereso quick to slag off the English.

 

[Alien Allen]

If you compare gun crime in Britain per head of population it is far lower than in the USA. if you like guns, knock your self out, juststop bitching that it isn't a problem when it most obviously is!

Oh and seeing you get your sources from reputable places you'll know that the patriots commited just as many distcusting crimes during the independance war but funny how you never mentionedthat and wereso quick to slag off the English.

in my state they made it damn near impossible for one to get a CCW (Carry Concealed Weapon) in some counties. For example in Detroit it was impossible. That is in Wayne County. Oakland County was the same. You had to know somebody to get one. Yet in the neighboring county of Macomb they routinely issued them.

The legislature decided it was crazy to have different criterion so they did a couple things. they made the criterion unified statewide which made it easy to get one. as long as one passed the criterion and took an extensive class on guns.

The doom and glooms said it would be like the wild west with guns blazing. They were proven wrong. No such thing has happened.

Our gun rights are a direct result of the iron fist ruling over the colonies by Britain. As somebody said we would still be Brits if we did not have the ability arm back then. The problem is if you make guns illegal there are so many of them that they will still be around. The honest people will disarm and the bad guys won't. Also we do not really treat illegal possession as seriously as we should IMO.

 

[Peter Parka]

A good, balanced view.

This wasn't even a thread about gun control anyway, I only used that as an example and it wasn't to argue about guns at all, just a shame one or two people jumped all over it without reading this thread properly, just because they know my views on guns and jumped to conclutions. Any chance we can get this back on topic now, please?

 

[TheOriginalJames]

Per capita really means nothing in the grand scheme. 60 million people and 360 million people, and two completely different systems of government is too huge of a difference to compare.

I addressed the topic of the constitution, but when I made a sidebar reply about guns, you only chose to only react to that portion of my initial post, Peter.

Don't whine aboot eet now, or I'll have to fart in your general direction.

 

[Peter Parka]

Per capita really means nothing in the grand scheme.

In that case, we're much better at American football than you, dont tell me we arn't because per capita means nothing at all.:24::24::24::surrender

 

[TheOriginalJames]

You probably are. How did the US Soccer team do in the olympics anyway?