Continental Congress
-
To be fair, if I wanted to subvert the thing I could probably do so without ever so much as tickling a letter of it. It's just not that well defined, and either it was intended that way, or our founding fathers were idiots. They had to realize that time would change what people thought of something and by not providing an explicit definition of terms the meaning would change.
Distind wrote:
To be fair, if I wanted to subvert the thing I could probably do so without ever so much as tickling a letter of it.
Which is exactly what is happening. They just say, oh, the framers didn't know what the hell they were thinking when they wrote it, this is what they really meant...and then the stupid yuppies eat it up because they never read the constitution.
-
Every document which outlines rights and protections has to shift along with society so it stays relevant. Failure to realize this ultimate simple truth only enhances your misunderstanding of the constitution itself.
Check out the CodeProject forum Guidelines[^] The original soapbox 1.0 is back![^]
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Now tell me how that has to shift to stay relevant to today?
EliottA wrote:
Failure to realize this ultimate simple truth only enhances your misunderstanding of the constitution itself.
You should redirect that statement to yourself, you know nothing about the constitution. You probably voted for Obama instead of Ron Paul. You are un-American trash.
-
It doesn't need to be interpreted. For instance. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It means exactly what it says. Got that?
What is a religion? What is exercising a religion? Where exactly does human sacrifice fall under here, is calling it murder limiting someone's ability to follow their religion? Define freedom of speech. Does this give you the right to slander someone without repercussion? Does Peaceably assemble include doing so in areas which may spur external violence? What form may these petitions take? What qualifies as a grievance? That's off the top of my head. I spent five years getting the basics of good documentation drilled into my head. The Constitution reads like a basic summary of intent more than the specification of a nation.
-
Your logic is broken.
-
What is a religion? What is exercising a religion? Where exactly does human sacrifice fall under here, is calling it murder limiting someone's ability to follow their religion? Define freedom of speech. Does this give you the right to slander someone without repercussion? Does Peaceably assemble include doing so in areas which may spur external violence? What form may these petitions take? What qualifies as a grievance? That's off the top of my head. I spent five years getting the basics of good documentation drilled into my head. The Constitution reads like a basic summary of intent more than the specification of a nation.
You are a fucking moron. Look up the definitions in the English dictionary at the time of writing (which is hardly different than today) and you will know.
-
Distind wrote:
To be fair, if I wanted to subvert the thing I could probably do so without ever so much as tickling a letter of it.
Which is exactly what is happening. They just say, oh, the framers didn't know what the hell they were thinking when they wrote it, this is what they really meant...and then the stupid yuppies eat it up because they never read the constitution.
Hah, no, what they're doing right now is bending the letters around to fit with modern reality. Anything less would be dooming the nation to irrelevance. That said, I could take every bit of it and use subtle changes in definition to easily turn it into something out of your worst dreams. That's the problem, it's flexible and if someone with malicious intent was really bent on destroying it and actually could, it'd be long gone. I particularly like most of what it says(most of my dislike involves hypocrisy and the father's lack of knowledge of automatic weapons and what major cities would become), but I'm aware it's not set in stone.
-
You are a fucking moron. Look up the definitions in the English dictionary at the time of writing (which is hardly different than today) and you will know.
-
Your logic is broken.
Not really, so long as you're running around screaming about these things no one has managed to get far enough to consider it worth silencing you. And trust me, if they actually got that far they'd realize how easily such things can be destroyed and would want you silenced.
-
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Now tell me how that has to shift to stay relevant to today?
EliottA wrote:
Failure to realize this ultimate simple truth only enhances your misunderstanding of the constitution itself.
You should redirect that statement to yourself, you know nothing about the constitution. You probably voted for Obama instead of Ron Paul. You are un-American trash.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You should redirect that statement to yourself, you know nothing about the constitution. You probably voted for Obama instead of Ron Paul. You are un-American trash.
Uh oh! 69,456,897[^] people are Un-American trash!
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
Hah, no, what they're doing right now is bending the letters around to fit with modern reality. Anything less would be dooming the nation to irrelevance. That said, I could take every bit of it and use subtle changes in definition to easily turn it into something out of your worst dreams. That's the problem, it's flexible and if someone with malicious intent was really bent on destroying it and actually could, it'd be long gone. I particularly like most of what it says(most of my dislike involves hypocrisy and the father's lack of knowledge of automatic weapons and what major cities would become), but I'm aware it's not set in stone.
Distind wrote:
if someone with malicious intent was really bent on destroying it and actually could, it'd be long gone
It basically is in the governments eye. The only reason why its still relevant is because the people still hang onto it and demand it be treated as supreme law like its supposed to.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You should redirect that statement to yourself, you know nothing about the constitution. You probably voted for Obama instead of Ron Paul. You are un-American trash.
Uh oh! 69,456,897[^] people are Un-American trash!
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Uh oh! 69,456,897[^] people are Un-American trash!
Many of those people have realized their mistake and have switched sides.
-
Not really, so long as you're running around screaming about these things no one has managed to get far enough to consider it worth silencing you. And trust me, if they actually got that far they'd realize how easily such things can be destroyed and would want you silenced.
Your logic is very broken. People who get the most attention, like Ron Paul or Alex Jones are viciously attacked by the corporate media and sent death threats like you wouldn't believe. Every malicious dirty trick in the book has been used on those guys.
-
You are a fucking moron. Look up the definitions in the English dictionary at the time of writing (which is hardly different than today) and you will know.
-
So you want to have all the definitions of the words used in a legal document, and have all of the words in the defintions to be defined, and then have their words defind, and have their words defined, until you have a stack overflow. And the same for interpretations, and interpretations of interepretations, ...stack overflow.
-
So you want to have all the definitions of the words used in a legal document, and have all of the words in the defintions to be defined, and then have their words defind, and have their words defined, until you have a stack overflow. And the same for interpretations, and interpretations of interepretations, ...stack overflow.
Not quite no, But what I would want would be at the very least the kind of specification I have to drum up for a piece of software, if something is supposed to be the concrete, unchanging, basis for all law within a nation. Otherwise there is no real end to the room to change things. Here's another question off the top of my head for you, would the founding father's consider Scientology a religion to be protected under the constitution?
-
Not quite no, But what I would want would be at the very least the kind of specification I have to drum up for a piece of software, if something is supposed to be the concrete, unchanging, basis for all law within a nation. Otherwise there is no real end to the room to change things. Here's another question off the top of my head for you, would the founding father's consider Scientology a religion to be protected under the constitution?
Distind wrote:
Here's another question off the top of my head for you, would the founding father's consider Scientology a religion to be protected under the constitution?
If it fits the definition of religion of the 1776 series American dictionary, then yes. Its that simple.
-
Hah, no, what they're doing right now is bending the letters around to fit with modern reality. Anything less would be dooming the nation to irrelevance. That said, I could take every bit of it and use subtle changes in definition to easily turn it into something out of your worst dreams. That's the problem, it's flexible and if someone with malicious intent was really bent on destroying it and actually could, it'd be long gone. I particularly like most of what it says(most of my dislike involves hypocrisy and the father's lack of knowledge of automatic weapons and what major cities would become), but I'm aware it's not set in stone.
Yeah you're right. Because they've used the "general welfare" clause to enact "social security" and medicare and stuff. the general welfare clause was meant to be the general welfare of the united states as a whole, not a particular segment of society (older generation).