US Federal Judge: US Constitution has no value

desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
I am pretty sure my SAT scores were better than yours, and my grades as well, and I actually graduated college. I can't remember, Buckake, did you graduate college?
 
Flaming Pie

Flaming Pie

Well-Known Member
tangerinegreen555 said:
Bull shit. If ever a document needed updated, that's it. It's not 1780...a black man is not 3/5 of a white man anymore...slavery is now illegal...women and minorities can vote...and many who signed that document would be in prison for life today for pedophilia and rape...

The real 'stand up' guys didn't come along till the 19th century and had to fight a war over racist constitutional concepts...and it wasn't till FDR that the country started to develope a conscience...and not till 1964 did this country start to change for the greater good of everyone...with assholes fighting against it with constitutional crutches...

Of course it should be updated. Definitely not worshiped...except by Fox Spews who would like the 1780's version totally restored...
Click to expand...
It has been updated, dumbass.

They're called amendments.

Did you fail history class?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
Before CU, labor unions could spend freely to support their political party, while the opposing political party was disenfranchised. After CU, both can spend freely.

That darned first amendment is so bothersome. And old. Who cares what a bunch old white men thought in the 18th century. We need new laws and the right people creating them on an as-needed basis. The Constitution lives!
Click to expand...
The 1st amendment is just fine. We need to fix that interpretation is all. Money isn't the same as speech and corporations aren't people. Soon enough this irrational ruling that makes money equivalent to speech and corporations with the same rights as people will be changed to a rational interpretation.

You see, @desert dude, in a democracy, the majority should have the most say in affairs of the nation, not the wealthiest 1%. Did I use too many large words or was that clear enough?
 
Last edited:
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
The 1st amendment is just fine. We need to fix that interpretation is all. Money isn't the same as speech and corporations aren't people. Soon enough this irrational ruling that makes money equivalent to speech and corporations with the same rights as people will be changed to a rational interpretation.

You see, @desert dude, in a democracy, the majority should have the most say in affairs of the nation, not the wealthiest 1%. Did I use too many large words or was that clear enough?
Click to expand...
In a constitutional republic, the rule of law trumps majorities.

The simple fact is, it takes money to be heard. If we "take money out of politics" one of the effects of that will be to give incumbent politicians an insurmountable advantage. Being perpetually ruled by the same tired families has already severely damaged the US. Making it illegal for anybody else to be heard will make that problem profoundly greater.

How would FogDog run for congress, much less the presidency, if he is prohibited from buying media exposure?
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
I am pretty sure my SAT scores were better than yours, and my grades as well, and I actually graduated college. I can't remember, Buckake, did you graduate college?
Click to expand...
Of course he didnt graduate college, he is a failure. He is hanging windows supposedly... I thought he was going to run his father in law's multi-million dollar business. Is this how you train for that job?? LOL!!!
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
Of course he didnt graduate college, he is a failure. He is hanging windows supposedly... I thought he was going to run his father in law's multi-million dollar business. Is this how you train for that job?? LOL!!!
Click to expand...
When does he find time to hang a window, he is always on RIU?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
In a constitutional republic, the rule of law trumps majorities.

The simple fact is, it takes money to be heard. If we "take money out of politics" one of the effects of that will be to give incumbent politicians an insurmountable advantage. Being perpetually ruled by the same tired families has already severely damaged the US. Making it illegal for anybody else to be heard will make that problem profoundly greater.

How would FogDog run for congress, much less the presidency, if he is prohibited from buying media exposure?
Click to expand...
This can be corrected. It will be too. In the very next congress, which will be domnated by the Democratic Party, thanks to the GOP for putting up a total loser as candidate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top