Judge thinks the Constitution is outdated

Originally posted by no1marauder
Tell me what an "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is that warrants impeachment.

Tell me who decides.

Your usual Obama ranting is noted, but that question I asked remains on the table: Should it [the US Constitution] be interpreted under different rules than other laws are? Why?

I'd add: And if so, what should those rules be?

At the federal level, Article II of the United States Constitution states in Section 4 that "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching, while the United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments.

Congress decides.

But don't worry, most public officials do not throw each other under the bus like that. Even when Clinton was impeached, the Senate did not carry it out.

Impeachment, or other charges brought against one public official from another, is only slinging poo with no real consequences attached. That way everyone is in agreement that nothing really bad will ever happen to them no matter how many laws you break, like Charley Rangel and Clinton and company,.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Here's the Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Show me where it bans the Federal Government from using "fiat currency".

Speaking of fiat currency which was necessitated by a $20 debt, what about the intent of the Constitution, which was to create a limited government?

Should the spirit of the document be considered or just read at face value?

Originally posted by whodey
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/06/27/veteran-federal-judges-stunning-declaration-about-the-constitution/

A Federal judge has come out and publically said that the Constitution is outdated and thinks studying it is pointless..........along with every other Progressive on the face of the earth.

Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner sees “absolutely no value” in studying the U.S. Constitution because “eighteenth-century guys” couldn’t have possibly foreseen the culture and technology of today.

In a recent op-ed for Slate, Judge Posner, a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, argued that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments “do not speak to today.”

“I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries — well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments),” he wrote. “Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century.”

He added, “let’s not let the dead bury the living.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/27/richard-posner-no-value-in-studying-us-constitutio/

Seems sensible enough.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Richard Posner as a "progressive". He's a Reagan appointee who, in tandem with Robert Bork, essentially eviscerated anti-trust law.

The mind reels.

He WAS a conservative , but not anymore.

Originally posted by whodey
Speaking of fiat currency which was necessitated by a $20 debt, what about the intent of the Constitution, which was to create a limited government?

Should the spirit of the document be considered or just read at face value?

All this clap-trap about the Constitution intending a 'limited government' is neo-liberal nonsense.

You have the outrageous claim, so prove it.

Originally posted by Suzianne
All this clap-trap about the Constitution intending a 'limited government' is neo-liberal nonsense.

You have the outrageous claim, so prove it.

In 1821 Thomas Jefferson warned of the consequences of an unfettered and limitless government:

"When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another."

No words have been proven to be any truer.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner sees “absolutely no value” in studying the U.S. Constitution because “eighteenth-century guys” couldn’t have possibly foreseen the culture and technology of today.

In a recent op-ed for Slate, Judge Posner, a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, argued that the original Constitution, the B ...[text shortened]... 016/jun/27/richard-posner-no-value-in-studying-us-constitutio/

Seems sensible enough.

how should culture and technology change the foundation of our laws?

Originally posted by whodey
how should culture and technology change the foundation of our laws?

Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today.

Richard A Posner
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2016/supreme_court_breakfast_table_for_june_2016/law_school_professors_need_more_practical_experience.html?wpsrc=sh_all_mob_tw_top

For example:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

There is no "well regulated militia" that is "necessary to the security of a free state" in this current culture and technology has greatly changed the capabilities of arms. As such, it does not "speak to today".

The Constitution is just something that was produced in the 18th century. Do you view it as "sacred"?

Originally posted by whodey
In 1821 Thomas Jefferson warned of the consequences of an unfettered and limitless government:

"When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another."

No words have been proven to be any truer.

So of course they want a One World Order just like they wanted a Federal Reserve. How did that one work out?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Here's the Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Show me where it bans the Federal Government from using "fiat currency".

I can see both sides of the argument in Article 1 section 10. Of course it comes down to the commerce clause again to justify anything the government wants to do.

Yes. Your constitution is outdated as far as gun ownership is concerned. You no longer require a militia for defence and so that amendment is largely irrelevant and dangerous to you.

Originally posted by whodey
At the federal level, Article II of the United States Constitution states in Section 4 that "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching, whil ...[text shortened]... happen to them no matter how many laws you break, like Charley Rangel and Clinton and company,.

If Congress could impeach for any reason, then the phrase "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is meaningless surplusage.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Yes. Your constitution is outdated as far as gun ownership is concerned. You no longer require a militia for defence and so that amendment is largely irrelevant and dangerous to you.

Deepthroat, you don't know!!!

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[quote]Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today.

Richard A Posner
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/feature ...[text shortened]... onstitution is just something that was produced in the 18th century. Do you view it as "sacred"?

The right to defend yourself is not limited to foreign invasion, although the former USSR once said that if they were ever to invade the US they would avoid Texas because of all the gun owners.

No, everyone has a right to defend themselves and their families against any attacks, whether it be terrorist attacks or a crime against you.

You always hear of those on the left saying how many lives have been lost because of the right to bear arms, but you never hear them talk about all of the lives that have been saved. Why is that and which is greater do you reckon?

Originally posted by no1marauder
If Congress could impeach for any reason, then the phrase "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is meaningless surplusage.

Who should decide then, SCOTUS?