Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Living document ?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Living document ? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Living document ? - 10/28/2008 8:33:58 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
Hearing the Constitution is a living document makes me want to chamber my guns. They are already loaded but only a fool keeps them chambered.

Let me put it this way, there is no such fucking thing as a living document, for you brainiacs out there, think of this : THAT'S WHY THEY WROTE IT DOWN !

Think of all the contracts you may have signed, what if they were living documents. In the last few years mortgages on houses somehow became living documents and look what happened 700 billion dollars later. When the ink is dry, the document is the document. There is no change, like I said that's why the fuck they wrote it down and signed it.

See the problem now is that we are so far off the path of actually living under true Constitutional rule, that a return to same would be costly and painful to most. And the government started violating the Constitution almost the day it was written. Sedition trials, sex laws, all that, and most of the bullshit because of religion.

They seem not to have noticed that the Constitution refers to "The Creator", not Yahweh, not the God of Abraham, not Allah or Buddah. The Creator is what it says, and if you need a cite for that I just don't know what to tell you. Try wiki.

People are people and it takes a strong Man to not imbue his beliefs on others, and when given power, becomes dangerous. That is why there is supposed to be a system of checks and balances so to speak, to prevent this from happening.

It didn't work, so my logical conclusion is the "living document" statement is a lie. It is actually dead. It has expired. Nobody is interested in the words of Horatio Bunch to then congressman David Crockett. Nobody cares if we put people in jail for having pot. After all, if you don't smoke pot, what do you care ? That is the prevalent mentality.

Unlike the normal US born asshole I care about the rights of others. I am a Man goddammit and I am all for legal abortions although I will never have one. People want same sex marriages and some are all over that like a cheap suit, saying that it is contradictory to the way this country is supposed to be. I found no reference to marriage in the Constitution, and the only thing that comes close is the fact that one spouse cannot be compelled to testify against the other. Believe me though, you piss her off she will not have to be compelled.

I guess I want my documents dead. I want the ink dry and for the document to stand in the form it was in when I signed it. I wonder what the signers of the Constitution and Declaration would think if they knew then that we were going to change the definitions of words and twist the thing all to hell.

There is none in the public eye I can see that understands this in what I call the proper way. First of all Christians think this is a Christian country, nothing could be farther from the truth. Look at the documents upon which this country was founded and find me one word or phrased that says so. You can't because it simply is not there.

One of the biggest things touted back then for independence was religious freedom. There were other problems of course, but in a way I think it was all part of a plan. Remember I look at results and can think backwards. So figure this.

During the revolutionary war the English fought in rows and columns and were very easy to pick off, meantime the settlers got behind trees and took cover to reload etc. What kind of strategy is that ? If England really wanted to keep ahold of this territory, they would have prepared for it. They were already, back in those days, considered almost a world power, or at least a force to be reckoned with. I state now that they really did not want to win. I would suspect that they were selective in just who they sent to fight and die here in the late 1700s.

Man's inhumanity to Man did not start yesterday. Backward thinking is not always appropriate, but sometimes can lead to correct conclusions based on results. When tertiary issues are considered, and they do sometimes come to light after the fact, many things are sometimes revealed.

England knew the potential of the new world, that's why they sent anyone here in the first place, to try to tame it enough to survive in it. They knew about gold and how to find it, they knew all about natural resources, possibly more than we do today. When you slip slide the analysis both ways, somewhat like a violin bow on a string, you can glean certain things.

First of all, back then travel across the ocean was unsure, not always successful and incredibly expensive. That's why some of the original settler had to become indentured servant, aka slaves, just to get here. You did not just take a cab to the airport like now.

So the Crown, that may have had a few brain cells working at the time, realized just how vast an undertaking that governing this vast land remotely would be. We would do it in a heartbeat today, but back then it was not so easy. If it were possible at all.

If my reason bears out at all, that means there is a possibility thayt the revolutionary war was just a show. What follows is that people got the illusion of freedom for a time. Thgat is all. While I admit that this has probably contributed to our national spirit, of which there is very little left, we are no different than anyone else. The fact is we never were. Witch hunts and all that, we brought that.

Let's touch on witch hunt for a moment. If I knew a true witch, and I mean a real one with kickass powers, burning her at the stake would be the farthest thing from my mind. I would befriend her and talk to her about problems people are having, and try to enlist her help, as long as it is toll free so to speak. I use the female vernacular because a male would be termed a warlock I think. Thing is, almost jokingly, there was an episode of Bewitched where Samantha was in the old days and then regained her memory. She wiggled her lips and her chains fell right off her wrists, a demonstration of power. Said right out something like "You have never killed a witch, you can't".

Thing is, people fear the unknown, and those with the most to lose fear the most. That, I believe is the reason that US citizens are prohibited by law from having contact with extraterrestrials. Somebody comes here with superior technology and I get a chance to talk to them before the government ? They can't have that. If you knew me you would know why so the much more.

So skip the illusion and give me reality. Operate within where you have in which to operate.  So shall I. When I cross the boundries they set, I know I am putting myself at risk, and so should you.

You may have noticed in the last decade or so that people no longer say "It's a freee country", and personally I am glad because it is a lie and always has been. I don't like being lied to.

Up until the recent "Castle law" ruling by the supreme court, any references to the second amendment were disallowed in gun possesion cases at what they call law. Even a politician got nailed on that in Ohio. And don't fool yourself for one fucking second, they don't want to take the guns away for our safety, they want to take the guns away for their own safety.

I want the Constitution taken out of the nitrogen filled case in which it lays dead, I am getting low on toilet paper.

Let's say you're a painter and the concract says paint five rooms. Later they say they they really meant six rooms.

That's my synopsis of the situation.

Sad, yes, but I am a realist.

T
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Living document ? - 10/28/2008 8:36:50 PM   
OrionTheWolf


Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline
"A living document or dynamic document is a document which may be continually edited and updated by either a limited or unrestricted group. "
 
 

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Living document ? - 10/28/2008 10:07:16 PM   
GreedyTop


Posts: 52100
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Savannah, GA
Status: offline
I always took the phrase to mean that it's something that (in the case of the Constitution) we -200+ years later - are still (at least somewhat) adhering to.. and what Orion posted.... 

_____________________________

polysnortatious
Supreme Goddess of Snark
CHARTER MEMBER: Lance's Fag Hags!
Waiting for my madman in a Blue Box.

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Living document ? - 10/28/2008 10:48:25 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
 
The made it with a mechanism to amend it.

Pretty simple really.

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to GreedyTop)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Living document ? - 10/28/2008 11:49:27 PM   
Hippiekinkster


Posts: 5512
Joined: 11/20/2007
From: Liechtenstein
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59


The made it with a mechanism to amend it.

Pretty simple really.
As far as Term Rants go, it's not up to his usual standards.
Subject matter - A
Development   - C
Meandering     - C

 

_____________________________

"We are convinced that freedom w/o Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism w/o freedom is slavery and brutality." Bakunin

“Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we are saved by love.” Reinhold Ne

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Living document ? - 10/29/2008 3:00:52 AM   
puella


Posts: 2457
Joined: 12/2/2004
Status: offline
Uh.....

You do realize the right for you to possess the guns that you want to lock up is because of the fact that the document is 'living', right?  Surely as a gun owner, you realize that your right to gun ownership is documented in the Second AMENDMENT.

Without the evolutionary nature of the document we call the Constitution your right to bear arms would never have been mandated in the 'dried ink' original.

...also, neither I, your mom, your sister, grandmother, etc would be allowed to vote, nor would black people (as slavery would still be legal and a part of the Constitution, decreeing them only 3/5ths of a person), your right to a trial would not be documented, nor your right to know why you were being arrested (don't make me go into Bush suspending Habeas Corpus)...

I really just find your rant ironic because it is the changing of the Constitution which allowed for your initial premise...locking up your guns.


_____________________________

We must move forward, not backward, upward, not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom...... The Simpsons

War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." ...Ambrose Bierce

"Don't you oppress me!"....Stan/Loretta

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Living document ? - 10/29/2008 4:16:44 AM   
Irishknight


Posts: 2016
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline
Term, nromally, i find your rants amusing at the very least.  This seems to be brought on by a lack of understanding of the term.  Orion and Op59 gave you the definition.  It applies fully to the constitution. 
There is no need to destroy that which is designed to change anyway.  As for our leaders following the constitution, they never have in my 37 years on this mudball.  Why should we blame the document.  It is still good, unlike our leaders.

Man, you ever feel like you're trying to pick between Lex Luthor and Dr Doom when you're in the voting booth?  Sorry.  Off topic.  I know.

(in reply to puella)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Living document ? - 10/29/2008 4:23:40 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
A "living document" is a contract made by politicians.

Go figure.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Living document ? - 10/29/2008 5:12:22 AM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline
Living- means someone must kill it.

Thats funny about being lied too. I tossed in bed last night thinking that.  Particularly in grade school.  Some were necessary for social cohesion, but others were a means to keep the rulling elite, in power.

Contract?   Ya lose me right there.  You see, with any contract, there are escape clauses.  I recall explaining that to my little brother when he came of age- his reply, "so all I have to do is write on the contract 'escape clause"?   lol.

To the larger point tho. Why must the modern world be  so bleak, unaware, and selfish?  I mean what would the world be like if each sunrise we awoke with the bold outlook that this is a brand new day- and anything is possible?    I will make it happen with my peers.

No.  We are stuck in learned helplessness mode.  We learn to be helpless.    There is no telling the increable world that we could build if we had a different mindset.

Oh- christian nation?   nahhhhhh. we are the "corporate cocksucker nation".

Everything is a contract..where YOU can never 'escape" but the grid- can and does.

Of course then, we need contracts for the contracts.  and contracts FOR THOSE contracts, which one should insure, which is another contract.     

We worship money.  not quality of life.  ya know the house always makes money from the spread.  (the mark up)  win or loose the house gets their cut.  so whom owns the house? do you?   HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

I should love my life.   I hate the midset I am in tho.

and at what point would I just board up- winterize the place and stomp on greener pastures?  My grandparents did so each year

But here we are fucked if we get to close to people, but we are also fucked if we talk to no one..


So Termin8or, my dear friend.   Some of the problem is the midset.  We are dazzled into viewing the world as the powerful mandate us to.    Loose the TV set.   Thats number 1.  Maybe someone has ideas for being happy.  Self medicate?  Go insane?
How about alzhiemers?  

I actually had a post started that lines up with all this.   But you know how my thougfhts scatter.

The wind has me messed up.

More shortly.   







(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Living document ? - 10/29/2008 5:17:20 AM   
Darias


Posts: 1757
Joined: 1/17/2006
From: midlands ireland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Irishknight

Term, nromally, i find your rants amusing at the very least.  This seems to be brought on by a lack of understanding of the term.  Orion and Op59 gave you the definition.  It applies fully to the constitution. 
There is no need to destroy that which is designed to change anyway.  As for our leaders following the constitution, they never have in my 37 years on this mudball.  Why should we blame the document.  It is still good, unlike our leaders.

Man, you ever feel like you're trying to pick between Lex Luthor and Dr Doom when you're in the voting booth?  Sorry.  Off topic.  I know.


go with luthor... mainly he was greedy

Doom was a crackpot


_____________________________

**Perving or perusing... it gets me the same place.**


**May Gods come between you and harm in all the empty places you must walk**


** may you live in interesting times**

(in reply to Irishknight)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Living document ? - 10/29/2008 5:27:55 AM   
NeedToUseYou


Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

"A living document or dynamic document is a document which may be continually edited and updated by either a limited or unrestricted group. "
 
 


I don't think he's using it that way, and many times I see "living document" its not used that way either.

I don't want to speak for him, but I think he's using it to refer to changing interpretation, without amending it, or going through the formal process. Personally I don't have a problem with amendments, as that is not a change in the formal process. However, there are plenty of new interpretations that are accepted without explicit amendments. I object to reinterpretations as well. It makes the document meaningless.



(in reply to OrionTheWolf)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Living document ? - 10/29/2008 5:44:11 AM   
OrionTheWolf


Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline
Then those that use the phrase improperly should educate themselves. As has been pointed out, the Constitution was made to be amended as needed. Also, with the judicial branch, a new interpretation can occur concerning an existing amendment (such as the right to privacy which is not specifically in the Constitution). You may disagree with reinterpeetation, but that is part of the judicial branches power, and you would need to change things to prevent it. Kind of ironic, eh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

"A living document or dynamic document is a document which may be continually edited and updated by either a limited or unrestricted group. "
 
 


I don't think he's using it that way, and many times I see "living document" its not used that way either.

I don't want to speak for him, but I think he's using it to refer to changing interpretation, without amending it, or going through the formal process. Personally I don't have a problem with amendments, as that is not a change in the formal process. However, there are plenty of new interpretations that are accepted without explicit amendments. I object to reinterpretations as well. It makes the document meaningless.





_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to NeedToUseYou)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Living document ? - 10/29/2008 6:02:39 AM   
NeedToUseYou


Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Then those that use the phrase improperly should educate themselves. As has been pointed out, the Constitution was made to be amended as needed. Also, with the judicial branch, a new interpretation can occur concerning an existing amendment (such as the right to privacy which is not specifically in the Constitution). You may disagree with reinterpeetation, but that is part of the judicial branches power, and you would need to change things to prevent it. Kind of ironic, eh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

"A living document or dynamic document is a document which may be continually edited and updated by either a limited or unrestricted group. "
 
 


I don't think he's using it that way, and many times I see "living document" its not used that way either.

I don't want to speak for him, but I think he's using it to refer to changing interpretation, without amending it, or going through the formal process. Personally I don't have a problem with amendments, as that is not a change in the formal process. However, there are plenty of new interpretations that are accepted without explicit amendments. I object to reinterpretations as well. It makes the document meaningless.






I was interjecting simply because the definition is obviously lacking, as it is used commonly in other ways.

As far as my thoughts on "this" system, I think it is beyond rescue. The problem is and always will be human corruption(reinterpretation) accumulates in any system, and builds on itself, like genetic errors eventually result in cancer given time.  My solution, and really its not my solution, but rather the universal solution for everything, is a collapse and reformation. It's just nature, IMO, it's not really a failure, as a human death is not a failure either, just a consequence of being human, thus reflected in human attempts at government.

Essentially, I think the US government has been corrupted much to far for any chemo treatment to fix, there is way to much reinterpretation, and sometimes out and out activity that is not authorized anywhere except in the most out and out perverse interpretations. After all that is what a cancer is, it is a cell not following the rules, a systemic reinterpretation of the rules or discarding of the rules that eventually leads to the death of the host.

Either, way, and people can have their opposing opinion to, but my view is this country is going down. Probably before I'm dead. I'm fairly certain of that.

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Living document ? - 10/29/2008 6:10:30 AM   
corysub


Posts: 1492
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: puella

Uh.....

You do realize the right for you to possess the guns that you want to lock up is because of the fact that the document is 'living', right?  Surely as a gun owner, you realize that your right to gun ownership is documented in the Second AMENDMENT.

Without the evolutionary nature of the document we call the Constitution your right to bear arms would never have been mandated in the 'dried ink' original.

...also, neither I, your mom, your sister, grandmother, etc would be allowed to vote, nor would black people (as slavery would still be legal and a part of the Constitution, decreeing them only 3/5ths of a person), your right to a trial would not be documented, nor your right to know why you were being arrested (don't make me go into Bush suspending Habeas Corpus)...

I really just find your rant ironic because it is the changing of the Constitution which allowed for your initial premise...locking up your guns.



And that's the wonderful vision shown by the Founders in creating the mechanism for societal change, via the amendment process.  I don't believe that they also had a vision of the courts taking on the role of legislating from
the bench rules for citizens that the majority in a democracy did not vote in favor. I could not agree more thatamendments to date have been fantastic in bringing equality to all with no prejucice based on gender and race.  We all have had grandmothers, mothers, some of us daughters, and slavery was abhorent and thousands of men died to end that institution. 
The concern for the country is that Obama's change will destroy the fabric of our democracy with his appointments of thousands of leftist and radical leftist jurists who will destroy our system representative government.  The odds are that the next president will be able to nominate at least three Supreme Court judges and so the "change" that Barack Obama will bring to the country...change that even his biggest supporters I talk to have no clue, other than NO MORE BUSH...will be his legacy.  Should he prevail as the polls suggest, and his "change" have immediate impact on our society, our way of life, I worry about the social upheaval that might result. 

The country is not only "marrying" Obama...it would be marrying his entire family of associates, friends, politically in tune leftists who pass his litmus test, people who will be placed in positions of power from the Supreme Court to the Heads of every agency of the USA, to every critical file on individuals (like Joe the Plumber) for perusal. (Remember  the first days of the Clinton administration)

Since the man has no experiene, no public record to speak of, other than ruuning a tremendously organized campaign, all I have to make a decision on "marrying the guy" for four years are his "words" said prior to running for national office, his friendships and associations in building his political career, and trying to make a judgement on who the REAL Obama is..."the charismatic man behind the mask of terrific speeches that offer hope ande "change",
and anything else that might be a "blue sky" promise to the masses.

I wonder... I wonder how people will vote their conscience in the privacy of the booth...It's going to be a historic day next week..one way or another.

(in reply to puella)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Living document ? - 10/29/2008 8:12:06 AM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
Usually when some politician calls it a "living document" that means that they're going to try to "interpret" it the way that (they) want to.
And no good can come from that!

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to NeedToUseYou)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Living document ? - 10/29/2008 8:16:11 AM   
puella


Posts: 2457
Joined: 12/2/2004
Status: offline
You mean like when they 'interpreted' the right to bear arms, the abolution of slavery, the right for blacks and women to vote....?  Like when it was 'alive' and changed then...?

_____________________________

We must move forward, not backward, upward, not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom...... The Simpsons

War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." ...Ambrose Bierce

"Don't you oppress me!"....Stan/Loretta

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Living document ? - 10/29/2008 9:07:03 AM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
Yes it was a rant. I hope most found it coherent enough at least. Been building for some time. There is more. Yes there is a process for amending it so let's tap on that.

Many years ago there was a thing, or actually an era known as prohibition. It made for some fun times and profits for some people, some of whom were nefarious to say the least. Speakeasies were raided by one famous Eliot Ness, who according to local folklore actually raided the house next door to me because the were cooking. Actually it was in the garage.

Now consider this, prohibition was an amendment. Why ? Why didn't they just draft a bill and get the President to sign it ? Should that normal process of lawmaking not work effectively ?  For some reason they thought not, and in my view, rightly so. They most likely foresaw Constitutional challenges clogging up the courts for years, all of which were made impossible of course since it was an amendment.

Apparently the document was dead at the time, but somehow miraculously sprung to life later. You see the way it is supposed to work is that our representatives (ugh) were to make laws for us, but the Constitution was the law by which they must abide, and let's just say that it was not "interpreted" quite as creatively then as it is now.

What that meant was that someone could go into court charged with running a speakeasy, and if it was simply a law could be challenged on the grounds that the Constitution clearly defines the powers of the government. Nowhere in the document is the power inferred that they could tell people what to eat or drink. Therefore the law would have been highly challengable back then.

Way back, Marbury v Madison set a precedent in that the court ruled that any law repugnant to the Constitution is null and void. Under that premise, most likely the law would have been shot down forthwith.

If this government was truly constrained by the Constitution as the founders intended, that would mean that every drug law in this country is null and void. However the way it is now you can't bring up Constitutional issues in a court, even if you are on trial for your life. This is wrong.

Now consider what was referred to as a "bill of attainder". This was defined as the partial stripping of one's rights for a crime even, or for any reason. Think of this, there are graduated penalties for many infractions now. Not that I agree with drunk driving, but in Ohio the first one has a mandatory sentence of three days, second ten days, third thirty days. There are also three strike laws which make it possible to recieve a life sentence for any felony no matter how innocuous if it is one's third felony conviction. It does not have to include violence. This is clearly not equal treatment under the law. This is clearly what the founders specifically wanted to prevent by prohibiting bills of attainder. Not allowing felons to have guns is also the same thing, no matter how you put it.

In other words, commit a crime and when you get out of jail your debt to society is paid. Period. Some places, felons lose their right to vote. Hell all the republicans have to do is convict all the democrats to insure they can stay in power. However the law is not strictly enforced, especially these days when you have dead people and dogs voting.

If that's not a bill of attainder I wish someone would explain just what one is.

Now in Ohio, we have this legislature that seems to be totally against casinos. There is a referendum on the ballot to amend the Ohio Constitution to allow it. Perhaps it is only a test to see just how far against the will of the people our legislature has gone. It's also a struggle between one entity who would be given a near monopoly in this state, and Argosy, who already has a near monopoly in several surrounding states.

Proponents of the issue claim that Ohioans are going to surrounding states and dropping big money at casinos which is true. Opponents of the issue claim that through certain loopholes casinos could usurp taxation and even local laws. Most likely both positions are true, but nobody is thinking about rights or anything like that, they are just thinking about money. Politics as usual.

So here's my question, where the hell did the government get the right to tell us we can't gamble ? They do you know. I can see where a town full of people  do not want a casino in their town. In that case that is the people's initiative. However years ago in FL they arrested a bunch of old Men for playing pinochle for a penny a point. Yup, they got the crime bosses alright, a pinochle game ends at 500 points which means a whopping five dollars is at stake. Look at the sheer immensity of the crime.

As Jim Belushi's character said in "The Palermo Connection", "There is money in cops and robbers" referring to the legalization of drugs. The character was all for legalization and running for mayor. He capitulated and agreed to shut up, but turned on them in the end and was assassinated. Not by the government though, guess who.

The Constitution was written in a time when people were largely responsible for their own well being. They had open fires in their houses and guns all around the place with a bunch of kids there as well. However they had been responsible for their own well being for some time and somehow enough of them survived that we are here now.

Now there are so many laws that nobody can even count them all, so pretty much anyone can be thrown in jail. It's called selective enforcement and friends, just hope they don't select you. In Cleveland I remember years ago they literally locked a guy up for not having lids on his trash cans.

The second amendment having been mentioned, has not been enforced very well, that is until the recent "Castle law" ruling by the supreme court. We may be in for some interesting times.

And then there is freedom of religion. If I remember, it says something about no state religion or prohibition of religion. This has now been "interpreted" to mean that there can't be certain Christmans decorations on public land. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Christian and I have no use for Chritmas at all. I do not exchange gifts, nor celebrate. It is simply a day off work to me. But for them to say you can't is as bad as them saying you must. I thought the idea was for them to just stay the hell out of it.

And while a nativity scene is outlawed, what passes as art is sometimes really offensive. Downtown we have a sculpture of a rubber stamp that would stamp the word "FREE". This monstrosity sits there and I find it offensive. I could go on about that, but I won't. The fact is that it belittles freedom in a way, as if a rubber stamp could create freedom.

That forged fake lying paper called the protocols (I didn't capitalise it so as not to offend the sensitive little babies among us) says that freedom is just an idea, but can't be realized because nobody knows how to use it with discretion, or something to that effect. I agree.

Actually true freedom only exists in anarchy, and the founders knew that. Otherwise why bother making a government ? The only way a government can promote freedom is to prevent people from infringing upon each others' rights. They haven't been doing too good of a job lately wouldn't you say ?

A court order to tap a phone, a thing of the past. RFID chips, a thing of the present. At this rate, what does the future hold ? Even with the most convoluted interpretation of the Constitution, these things, such as the patriot act etc., are specifically what the founders endevored to prevent.

News flash : It did not work.

But worry not my friends, it never did work. When did the sedition trials happen ? When did they call in the gold ? And what creature can be lawfully defined as an animal when it can be taught English ? Yes I am aware that the Constitution existed during the time of slavery, and that is abhorrent to me. 

The founders were not perfect, and I don't just mean in their document composing abilities. First of all what alot of people don't realize is that the people who came here from England, England wanted rid of them. I guess they weren't so bad that they should be killed but GIT, GO BE GONE ! They were considered heretics and dissidents, but just not bad enough to out and out kill.

Well now they have created a monster. A monster that considers itself above the law and any tenets of human decency. I am not talking about porn or kink, I am talking about all the shit we started in the world. George Washington's farewell address is repleat with warnings against international alliances and such, and abmonished that such things should be limited to establishing fair trade amongst nations, not alliances which effectively create a gang in the world.

The US, England and Israel are the toughest gang on the "street" right now, but there are those who might well kick all of our asses and take our lunch money.

Yes, I guess this would fall into the rant category, but people don't realize things. First of all we are so far from the ideal, we can't even comphrehend the ideal let alone see it. Second of all the ideal was flawed from the beginning.

Where do we go from here ?

T

(in reply to NeedToUseYou)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Living document ? - 10/29/2008 10:27:35 AM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline
One way to exist- is to file a worker comp claim against an employer.   Once the paper is properly filed- then the system zeros in on you.  You can add any number of lawsuits to this thought.

When you then exist- as a threat, every maneuver is done to prove, or what I mean- deam the accuser as with out cause.  or worse.

Take this fight- but transfer it to an HMO.  or  A pig farm coming in. A hazardous waste plant, or a casino in Ohio; you name it.

So there the peon, which has no training on grid navigation is up against the grid which buildt the rules of the grid- or in societal thought- as "freedom".  (gags)

The constitution isnt much applicable to humans- it is for corporations.  

The freedom of the human stops at the line where the freedom of the multinational corporation. or family (gag) of corporations.

To exist- one has to be a threat- once one is a threat- then life gets ugly.

Precisely the way the grid prefers it.

ouch


(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Living document ? - 10/29/2008 10:53:00 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Hearing the Constitution is a living document makes me want to chamber my guns. They are already loaded but only a fool keeps them chambered.

Let me put it this way, there is no such fucking thing as a living document, for you brainiacs out there, think of this : THAT'S WHY THEY WROTE IT DOWN !

Think of all the contracts you may have signed, what if they were living documents. In the last few years mortgages on houses somehow became living documents and look what happened 700 billion dollars later. When the ink is dry, the document is the document. There is no change, like I said that's why the fuck they wrote it down and signed it.


Sad, yes, but I am a realist.
T

Yes, your posts have been amusing but because if this bailout's economically historical precedence, I must correct you and others here until it sinks in. My info. has much of the typical capitalist's and spread-the-blame propaganda...to overcome.

First a mortgage is a civil contract the signatories of which are subject to the terms specified and amendable only by written notice acceptable to all of the parties thereto.

The constitution is a political document and thus any constitution can be either shredded as in say Liberia (had a constitution exactly like ours) or ours the terms of which are politically approved and amendable by super majority votes in both the federal congress and in 3/4 of the states congresses.

To say that a constitution is a 'living' document is to say that it can be amended like a contract but subject not to signatures but to the politics of the super majorities.

Those super majorities are created by politics requiring a civil consumation that inspires the public to petition for its creation first in the national congress. Then by political debate among the states seeking the last super majority.

About this bailout again...foreclosures on mortgages have been occuring since the creation of mortgages. This BAILOUT has nothing to do with those mortgages and was simply a $trillion gamble or role of the dice in the casino that wall street is and gambling on a NEW piece of PAPER called a Mortgage Backed Securities.

This gamble had been taken in derivatives that had one of the biggest and richest go bankrupt and Greenspan at the time arranged for a private bailout. He suggested/forced a collective spreading of the wealth among other derivative investors.

EVERBODY involved, regulators, investors, borrowers and the so-called rating institutions KNEW all of those MBS could quickly turn to shit-paper. The rest they say is history.

This bailout among other things renders the whole debate about socialism, a ruse to have you believe that for you...it is a bad thing. BUT for wall steet...a good thing and BTW, we just won't call that socialism. THEY KNEW they could get profits, $Billions in bonuses and when it went belly-up...the taxpayer would just have to bail them out. We were forced to do just that.

(SOTUS) Paulsen personally made $3.5 Billion in the two years prior to becoming secretary. How is that possible ? How is that not immoral ?  

This should not but still is having a very hard time over-coming all of the media and bullshit convincing all fence sitters and the deluded that it was the govt. the accounting rules and over-borrowers. You know those greedy capitalist scum that just wanted a house. Just who did they think they were actually trying for a 100% mortgage or going for a low early interest rate.

This argument is by design to obscure the real truth and that is that capitalism is nothing...NOTHING but buying selling things upon which speculate for capital gains, i..e. making money with money betting on paper while borrowing 100's of Billions to multiply their profits geometrically.

WE, the great main street capitalists are now keeping the richest socialists in the world very rich with this $trillion dollar swindle.

Let's stop trying to spread the blame in addition to all of the wealth we sharing with wall street.

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Living document ? - 10/29/2008 11:06:29 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
Termyn8or, you are rambling now. The 18th amendment wise or not and the women's vote, tellingly late are still prime examples of how if we get off our asses and do something about it...we can change it. Being arrested for violating the 18th amend. and the laws passed to enforced it would obviously and did in fact survive all court challenges specifically becaue it was in the consititution.

If the govt. has a right to ban lead and asbestos and it does, then it has a right to control and restrict cocain and other drugs and it is up to us to inspire legislation to change it if it is our desire to do it.

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Living document ? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094