2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderAt 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.
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?
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,.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderSpeaking of fiat currency which was necessitated by a $20 debt, what about the intent of the Constitution, which was to create a limited government?
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".
Should the spirit of the document be considered or just read at face value?
1 edit
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A Federal judge has come out and publically said that the Constitution is outdated and thinks studying it is pointless..........along with every other Progressive on the face of the earth.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 whodeyAll this clap-trap about the Constitution intending a 'limited government' is neo-liberal nonsense.
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?
You have the outrageous claim, so prove it.
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneIn 1821 Thomas Jefferson warned of the consequences of an unfettered and limitless government:
All this clap-trap about the Constitution intending a 'limited government' is neo-liberal nonsense.
You have the outrageous claim, so prove it.
"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 ThinkOfOnehow should culture and technology change the foundation of our laws?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.
7 edits
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 whodeySo of course they want a One World Order just like they wanted a Federal Reserve. How did that one work out?
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 no1marauderI 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.
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".
Originally posted by whodeyIf Congress could impeach for any reason, then the phrase "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is meaningless surplusage.
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,.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe 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.
[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"?
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?