(no subject)

Date: 26/4/13 19:14 (UTC)
you (and I and all others) cannot ask dead people what they meant, nor can we ask a piece of paper what it means. in order to avoid those fuitless tasks, we have appointed 9 people to speak on behalf of the constitution.

My general opinion on the matter is that we had a document written by slavers who only wanted white, land-owning males of a certain age to vote.

The entire interpretation system is essentially a crutch on the garbled, vague mess we call a Constitution.

We need to rewrite it to bring it more in line with not only other national documents, but more reflective of the time we live in. Even if we rewrote it, 10 or 20 years from now it will still have problems, especially since a lot of people are on the wrong side of history in terms of gay marriage, drug prohibition, etc.

That is not to say that everything in there gets tossed out. No, the legal progress and casework we have made until now will define most of the new document. With a new Constitution, it's possible to quell a lot of issues that, at this point, have no foreseeable end because of the vagueness of the wording that will allow a controversy to live on forever, holding us back and driving this country into third world status.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods

DAILY QUOTE:
"Clearly, the penguins have finally gone too far. First they take our hearts, now they’re tanking the global economy one smug waddle at a time. Expect fish sanctions by Friday."

July 2025

M T W T F S S
  123 456
78910 111213
1415 1617181920
21222324252627
28293031