Condemn The Contemptible Constitution

No

Why U
Why you say No?
Why not yes?

because I meant no. you asked any comment and my answer is no.

Fine
Thanks for your succinct views.
This is the article I read and highlighted in this thread to understand the word Constitution of USA
Here is a quote

"Thomas Jefferson, the intellectual selected to compose the Declaration of Independence, would most assuredly agree. That document declares "...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..." Exercising that most important right of rebellion not only brought about independence but paved the way for the governments that followed. Jefferson subsequently wrote a letter that justified rebellions every 20 years and further stated, "...what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?..." In his film Sicko Michael Moore learns that the French health and welfare systems are far superior to those in the U.S. He asks why.
The answer: the French government fears the people;
US citizens fear the government!

http://www.swans.com/library/art13/pgreen116.html

Re: Condemn The Contemptible Constitution


I believe you are an idiot.

Why? Only idiots make statements without providing facts to back up their statement.

Well, Rama, the very quote you posted goes against your argument. Jefferson believed in the Declaration of Independence (message of which is embodied in the Constitution) SO STRONGLY that he said any system that would violate what it embodies should be toppled. NOT THE CONSTITUTION! But the administration in power.

So given that I don't really know what you're on about. Why is the Constitution flawed? You said absolutely nothing about that.

Woiyo
But for your word IDIOT your statment above is couched in better English.
Can you uphold the founding fathers background?
( Mothers in those days are not allowed to be in the limelight.)
Your country's consitution is the cause for injustice .
Dare to boomerang with your legal expertise that your constitution is above board

An outmoded constitution which is NOT applicable to the arrogant presidents should be corrected.

If you want I will post many critical links from USA.
Stop to stoop to the abysmal level by using the word IDIOT.

Dagmaraka
Toward an American Revolution
Exposing the Constitution
and other Illusions



Jerry Fresia



South End Press
Boston, MA
http://www.cyberjournal.org/authors/fresia/
A very lengthy aricle which may vouchsafe my critical views.
Take time andtry to to understand the above American.( who is not far from my views)

You just called yourself an idiot per your definition

Thanks comrade.
I wish not to indulge myself in personal glorification.

James Madison would likely disagree with Ramafuchs, as would many of the framers of the Constitution. T'was the order of the day to preserve the status quo of social, economic and political stratification, and the means was through a well articulated constitution.

I think Rama has a point.

If one looks at the situation under which the Constitution was framed and look at the situation today they are entirely different. Possibly, the most important difference is our generation and distribution of power and especially electric power. The framers of the Constitution would not have even been able to imagine such a situation. It probably took all day to travel 20 miles and those who did that were rare.

There is a picture in a pub near Skipton in Yorkshire depicting a few men driving cattle to London for the booming demand for beef. There's a story with the picture. They were away many months and had to risk the road coming back with their gold. Now it's three hours and the gold is electronically transferred as the cattle are weighed. And nobody gave a damn whether they had Mad Cow disease.

Everywhere you look, near enough, things are completely different.

But of course one must remember that the incongruence is a lawyer's feeding frenzy and as lawyers are the ones who alter constitutions, short of fighting, I don't see much hope for serious change.

In England we can alter our unwritten Constitution as quick as a majority goes past the vote tellers. But a lot of them these days are lawyers whereas in the old days lawyers were despised. Men of the land wrote the Constitution. Had they had a science fiction writer he would never have come up with New York.

I agree that calling people idiots as an argument is idiotic.

The Constitution is only a temporary document. It is not immutable. Many professors at my university expressed views that suggest the Constitution should be changed. It can be changed but it requires 2/3 Congressional approval and 2/3 of the States to approve as well. You change the Constitution thru Amendments. Mind you it was written in 1776 so it might not fit the modern age.

but mind you also that the constitution is based on principles that are subject to interpretation. and that interpretation changes with times. american constitution has been ammended many times and interpretations have changed dramatically. the main principles, especially the Bill of Rights, are as relevant as they were then.

Re: Fine


NONSENSE!

I don't know what the FRENCH fear and I don't care what they FEAR! We AMERICANS stand united behind our Constitution and our beloved country.

So why the post, then?

This country needed a constitution. We were not going to be like England.

Can anyone imagine U.S. politicians shouting, "Hear, hear" in a Parliament? Totally ridiculous.

Having a constitution gives U.S. citizens a government roadmap that we can photocopy. Can anyone photocopy a parliament? I think not!

Why would anyone even question the constitution? It's like so parchment.

I suppose an argument could be made the Parliamentary System has advantages over the U.S. Constitution, where the Prime Minister is of the same Party as the majority in Parliament, so in theory things could get done. Assuming of course, you trust the Government's intentions.

I am told that when the U.S. Constitution was written, political parties such as what we have today weren't really envisioned.

But then again, maybe we wouldn't be so messed up if Article X of the Bill of Rights hadn't been ignored for the past 70 years or so.

In the Parliamentary System the Upper Chamber is for show. In England the House of Lords has lost its right to block the The House of Commons bills. In Canada the Senators just sleep as they too cannot block the bills from the House of Commons. In a majority rule, the Prime Minister is a virtual dictator. There is no impeachment so only the party in power can dismiss the Prime Minister in a leadership review.