I understand the purpose by design, that doesnt mean it's flawless. Obamacare happened.... patriot act happened.... domestic drones happened....Originally Posted by bu villain
I understand the purpose by design, that doesnt mean it's flawless. Obamacare happened.... patriot act happened.... domestic drones happened....
I agree there are some questionable interpretations of constitutional powers out there, but overall the document still is the basis for the rules of our society. Laws are regularly overturned as unconstitutional and no longer enforced because of it. If not the constitution, what do you think prevents our democracy from becoming a dictatorship? I honestly don't think the second amendment is very high on that list right now.
The constitution can only protect us if we let it. A lock on your front door doesnt protect you if the person behind it convinces you to open up and let them in. Obama isnt kicking the door down...... but he's talking people into unlocking their doors.
1, we are not a democracy, we are a republic. Too many people, especially those in DC, have forgotten the difference.
2, the Constitution has been so heavily eroded by the SCOTUS that it is almost meaningless. Just look at the Commerce Clause. With as much as that has been expanded, Congress has the power right now to pass a law saying that you MUST own a vehicle that gets 30mpg, or you pay a 'tax'. That president has already been established with Obamacare. The SCOTUS has even pushed their power so far as they now decide what those that draft a bill want to do. Remember for 2 years we heard the people that write, voted for and signed Obaamcare into law say the fine was a fine, not a tax, yet the SCOTUS said it was a tax.
I would say it is time to get together and draft a new Constitution, but the people that would write it dont have the character to actually do it in a way that is best for the country. It would simply be piece of partisan trash.
We may have a new constitution before its over....... The constitution of the united nations.
Of course the constitution takes a back seat to the will of the people, as it should. The constitution exists to serve the people, not the other way around. If the people decide they want to "unlock their doors", that is their right. Although I think it should be done through the proper channels (i.e., the amendment process).
Why is this an important distinction? Either way, the power rests with the people.
I don't disagree that the constitutional lines have been blurred but Sinflix was arguing about the sanctity of the second amendment while simultaneously saying the constitutional system of checks and balances didn't mean much. He was also implying there wasn't much to keep us from becoming a dictatorship but yet, Obamacare did have to be passed through the congress (with 60 senate votes no less). You may not agree with the SCOTUS decision (I don't either) but we abide by their ruling either way. How many dictators have to go through that sort of process to pass a healthcare law? Checks and balances don't mean we get everything right, it simply means no single group gets too much power. That system still seems alive and well to me.
So if 51% of people want to "unlock their doors" then the other 49% should be forced to?
I believe the amendment requires approval by 2/3 of house and senate and ratification by 3/4 the states. There is also the much less used constitutional convention method. Of course we could theoretically pass an amendment that makes it 51% of the popular vote. Either way, the constitution is changeable by design.
In a republic such as ours, the power rests in the in the rule of law. We have laws a legal regulations that cover everything from the weight of a car to the handing over of power to our national leader. A true democracy is nothing more than mob rule. Think of it in the context of the wild west. Who should have legal authority over a criminal, a marshal, prosecutor, and judge, or a lynch mob? A democracy is a lynch mob.
The SCOTUS decision on Obamacare was far and away the largest power grab by the Congress in American history. The only reason it passed was because of the 2 Obama appointees. 1 was far leftist (Soto-Mayor), the other (Kagan), should have recused herself from the case because of her work on it as part of the Obama Admin.
As far as Sinfix goes, I just ignore him. Most of his comments are so off the wall Biden would be doing a double take.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote