The 'Official' Do Not Vote For Obama In 2012 - Thread. Don't Want Him Back N Office!

groovedaddy said:
I'd personally like the founding fathers interpretation. What do you think they would have to say about what we have done with their little experiment? Do you think they envisioned a government that forced us to buy health insurance, forced us into their retirement plan (SS), forced us to pay for others' sub par education, fabricated money out of thin air with nothing to back it, gave billions of dollars to other countries while running trillion dollar deficits, denied us the use of a plant with many beneficial properties that they grew themselves. Holding our government accountable and speaking out is exactly what our founders wanted. This government has become nothing more than a corrupt bloated charity where you have no choice but to "donate".
Click to expand...

We have no way of first explaining to them the complexities of modern life and then asking them what they think about how we dealt with it given the words they gave us. Tell them about the particulars and I will wager that they wouldn't quite have the same opinion the right does about things.
 
Mellowman2112 said:
Ditto, I would like them to read the damn constitution and follow it to the letter instead of usurping states rights and soveriegnity with bullshit total bullshit like the commerce clause. They used the commerce clause to totally obliterate state sovereignty.
Click to expand...

Oh OH ! follow it to the letter eh? Tell me if you would how we follow a prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, "to the letter".
 
doc111 said:
...........says the guy clinging to Obama's nutsack like a baby possum.:roll:
Click to expand...
Some things I like about Obama ..some things not so much ..but he is better then McCain or Bush...I take up for Obama when I hear stupid shit like Kenyan born, Muslim, socialist, communist or BS from idiots that say shit that is far from the facts ( keep government out of my Medicaid :shock:..things teabaggers say) ...Now do you have someone that is better that is running ???? and please don't say Ron Paul for he is not running nor would the Repukes give him the nod if he was...so again who do you suggest we look at ( thats running )..
 
canndo said:
We have no way of first explaining to them the complexities of modern life and then asking them what they think about how we dealt with it given the words they gave us. Tell them about the particulars and I will wager that they wouldn't quite have the same opinion the right does about things.
Click to expand...
I only wish we could bring them back! I would wager that they would tell us that ever since the progressive movement of the early 20th century the federal government has way overstepped its bounds and would be shocked at how much it is involved in our daily lives. We took a great concept and have completely fucked it up over the last hundred years. Is it really that difficult to understand that our founding fathers wanted a very limited federal government? I'm betting they would be the first ones calling for a revolution.
 
groovedaddy said:
I only wish we could bring them back! I would wager that they would tell us that ever since the progressive movement of the early 20th century the federal government has way overstepped its bounds and would be shocked at how much it is involved in our daily lives. We took a great concept and have completely fucked it up over the last hundred years. Is it really that difficult to understand that our founding fathers wanted a very limited federal government? I'm betting they would be the first ones calling for a revolution.
Click to expand...

I go with Groovedaddy thats what I mean
 
groovedaddy said:
I only wish we could bring them back! I would wager that they would tell us that ever since the progressive movement of the early 20th century the federal government has way overstepped its bounds and would be shocked at how much it is involved in our daily lives. We took a great concept and have completely fucked it up over the last hundred years. Is it really that difficult to understand that our founding fathers wanted a very limited federal government? I'm betting they would be the first ones calling for a revolution.
Click to expand...


They lived in an almost completely agrarian society, cities housed only a very small percentage of the population. What would you propose they might say about this change? We are completely dependent upon each other for our way of life. What would they say about that turn of events?
 
Windsblow said:
What does this mean????
Click to expand...

What it mean is that the Constitution needs to be interpreted according to the times. What is cruel and unusual now was not then. This is only one example of our not being able to ... conform to the constitution exactly the way it was written. Furthermore, it happens that the document was designed to change over time so it was never intended to be a static document.
 
canndo said:
What it mean is that the Constitution needs to be interpreted according to the times. What is cruel and unusual now was not then. This is only one example of our not being able to ... conform to the constitution exactly the way it was written. Furthermore, it happens that the document was designed to change over time so it was never intended to be a static document.
Click to expand...
...............through the amendment process, not through interpretation.:sad:
 
Granted, however anyone knows that looking to the future, interpretations may change simply based on an entirely different set of circumstances... such as quartering troops in our homes.... Hardly a thought about that today... but it is in the document... The legislative branch knows this. Many times, a majority ruling will be accompanied by written findings. They usually caution against broad interpretation, however they are also very careful not to open new doors, such as declaring that a police officer cannot approach your porch with a drug dog and get a warrant based on the dog alerting at your front door. The opinion stated that technology affords us many new crime fighting weapons, however one must expect privacy behind the four walls of their homes. A dangerous view that countered that opinion was anyone breaking the law should not be expected to expect ANY level of privacy.... Now that is interpretation of Orwellian proportions.

doc111 said:
...............through the amendment process, not through interpretation.:sad:
Click to expand...
 
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by canndo
What it mean is that the Constitution needs to be interpreted according to the times. What is cruel and unusual now was not then. This is only one example of our not being able to ... conform to the constitution exactly the way it was written. Furthermore, it happens that the document was designed to change over time so it was never intended to be a static document.

...............through the amendment process, not through interpretation.
icon_sad.gif



As the others have said - both. My point in using that particular portion of the Constitution was to illustrate that it is not static. There are no amendments to my knowlege describing what cruel and unusual punishment is yet that phrase now rules out lashing and stocks but it did not always do so. Hence, the document, much as I know you are going to hate this - "lives". It is as others say, an interpetation by SCOTUS. In fact I recall shortly after Thomas took to the bench, he ruled in a case where a prison inmate was struck so hard by a guard that his dentures broke in his mouth. He sued the state for the price of the teeth. Thomas ruled that although the behavior of the guard was indeed cruel, it was not unusual, being that the two conditions were inclusive, he therefore didn't believe the prisoner deserved his $1100.

In short, we couldn't and can't abide by the Constitution word for word.
 
londonfog said:
I really wouldn't tell anyone that you voted for Palin...kinda says alot about you...but hey at least you can complain..
Click to expand...
I hope to have the chance to vote for Ventura, Paul, Or Duke in 2012 but if their not in it I will vote trump even though I don't like him
 
canndo said:
What it mean is that the Constitution needs to be interpreted according to the times. What is cruel and unusual now was not then. This is only one example of our not being able to ... conform to the constitution exactly the way it was written. Furthermore, it happens that the document was designed to change over time so it was never intended to be a static document.
Click to expand...

Only through the amendment process. Where did you here it was supposed to change over time? Fox or ABC news probably.
 
canndo said:
What it mean is that the Constitution needs to be interpreted according to the times. What is cruel and unusual now was not then. This is only one example of our not being able to ... conform to the constitution exactly the way it was written. Furthermore, it happens that the document was designed to change over time so it was never intended to be a static document.
Click to expand...
You don't understand the idea of a Constitutional Republic and the Amendment process.
 
londonfog said:
I'm a firm believer in " If you can vote and don't you have no right to complain"
Click to expand...


This is America, you have the right to complain, even if you don't vote. I encourage people not to vote, every vote you don't participate in means all the more power over our government I get.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top