Republicans edited the Constitution

Discussion in 'Politics' started by billwald, Jan 7, 2011.

  1. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Why would you expect them to read the parts of the Constitution that are no longer law? They are, after all, no longer part of the Constitution.
     
    #2 NaasPreacher (C4K), Jan 7, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 7, 2011
  3. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because they are a part of the Constitution.

    If you are only concerned about the law then all the Supreme Court decisions should also be read so Congress can "know what the Constitution 'says'."
     
  4. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Sorry, those passages are not a part of the Constitution. It has been amended according to its own rules. There were a part of the Constitution in 1789, but they are not today.

    Unlike the Bible, the Constitution had change built into it.

    Amazing document that.
     
  5. Paul3144

    Paul3144
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,378
    Likes Received:
    0
    Even if a section of the Constitution has been made inoperable by amendment, it is still part of the text of the Constitution.
     
  6. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    However there was no announcement that the entire Constitution would be read aloud.

    Reading alound only select portions of the Consititution is not "editing" anymore than reading aloud only select portions of the Bible is "editing".

    Tempest in a teapot.
     
  7. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,087
    Likes Received:
    218
    Even if the headlight of my car was broke, taken out and replace, the orginal one is still part of my car :confused:
     
  8. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why are Paul and Billwald concerned with the reading of the Constitution?

    They support a party that doesn't worry about what it says anyway...so what if it's read?

    Paul admits to being a socialist...anti-Constitution.
    Billwald worries more about the "working class" than anything else--including whether or not his pet issues pass Constitutional muster.

    So again I ask: Why are ya'll even worried about it?
     
  9. Paul3144

    Paul3144
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,378
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not anti-Constitution. I love the Constitution. In my mind, there is no conflict between it and my social democratic views. The Constitution protects my God-given right to be a social democrat. It also protects my freedom to be an evangelical Christian and worship our Blessed Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. Part of social democracy is protecting individual liberties.
     
  10. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your socialist position runs counter to our Constitutional principles.
     
  11. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,087
    Likes Received:
    218
  12. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Constitution, like the Bible, is accumulative, not substitutionary.
     
  13. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Excuse me, but what???
     
  14. North Carolina Tentmaker

    North Carolina Tentmaker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,355
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know that car :)

    My grandaddy told me once he had an axe had been in our family for over 200 years. The handle had been replaced 7 times and the head twice, but it was the same axe.
     
  15. AresMan

    AresMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,636
    Likes Received:
    0
    What compatibility is there between a pure democracy where the majority can vote away the rights of the minority and a Constitutional republic?
    How is a "social democracy" enforced by central planning compatible with the individual liberties of life, liberty, and property?
     
  16. AresMan

    AresMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,636
    Likes Received:
    0
    In other words, you do not like the original intent of the Constitution of the strict right to property. You want modern revisionists to be able to change the Constitution every which way to suit a society that is "fair" but no one has strict rights to keep the fruits of their labor, and still be able to call yourself a constitutionalist.
     
  17. Paul3144

    Paul3144
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,378
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't support a pure democracy at all or central planning, for the most part. I love the Constitution as is. I do support a balanced budget amendment, however. When I worked for the Census Bureau, I took the following oath:

    "I, [name], do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

    I kept that oath perfectly. Now I'm back in private sector employment and I still love the Constitution. As a political science student, I study it extensively.
     
  18. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    >>The Constitution, like the Bible, is accumulative, not substitutionary.

    >In other words, you do not like the original intent of the Constitution of the strict right to property.

    Doesn't matter what I like. The Constitution was amended, not replaced.

    In the same way Every time God made a new covenant it was added to the old covenant. It did not replace the old covenant.

    There is no strict right to property in the original Constitution. For example, Art. 1 SEC 8, Collecting taxes.
     
  19. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    It makes perfect sense to me that billwald can't distinguish b/t the Constitution and the Bible.

    It figures.
     
  20. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    It makes perfect sense that rbell (name call, name call, blah,blah). <G>
     

Share This Page

Loading...