The Constitution Of The USA Is A Flawed Document! [Archive]

View Full Version : The Constitution Of The USA Is A Flawed Document!

Fat_Sunny

03-17-2007, 10:58 PM

Fat Noticed On Another Thread, And Always On The News And In Politics, That People On Both Sides Of Every Issue Refer To The Constitution.  Have Any Of You Ever Even Read It?  It Is A Flawed Document.  Do You Realize That It Sanctioned Slavery?  Do You Realize That It Counted Slaves As 3/5 Of A White Person For Purposes Of Representation?What The Constitution Did Do Well, Was Put In A SYSTEM Of Government With Three Co-Equal Branches Assuring "Checks And Balances".  That System Is Fantastic.But Please, Do Not Throw In Fat's Face That The Constitution Contains A "Right Of Privacy" Or That "GW Flaunts Constitutional Liberties", Or Any Other Hokum.  Read It First.  Then, Lecture Fat About Wiretapping And Alberto Gonzales And All Your Other Trivial Nonsense That Is NOT Mentioned In The US Constitution.Don't Get F_S Wrong: He Is The Most Gung-Ho Patriotic America-First Person You Will Ever Meet.  Just Be Aware, That If You Throw The Constitution In His Face, He Is Gonna Throw It Right Back At You!1 Black = 60% Of A White.  That Is What They Wrote.  So Take The Rest With A Grain Of Salt! 

This message was edited by Fat_Sunny on 3-18-07 @ 3:01 AM

patsopinion

03-17-2007, 11:01 PM

your refrencing my anti bush anal cancer thingim taking a class that focuses completely on the constitution and court cases that have stemmed from it so........... yea______insert 60% is okay comment here____________ not to go agaisnt the fat of course fine sir

Fat_Sunny

03-17-2007, 11:05 PM

patsopinion wrote: your refrencing my anti bush anal cancer thingim taking a class that focuses completely on the constitution and court cases that have stemmed from it so........... yea______insert 60% is okay comment here____________ not to go agaisnt the fat of course fine sir Yes My Good Man, But Just Among Many Other References.  F_S Would Just Like People To Read And Understand It Before They Quote It.  He Is Happy As Heck That Pat Is Studying It!

patsopinion

03-17-2007, 11:07 PM

welp im glad we had this talki was going to bust out my midterm to prove that i knew shit but now we can leave it in the past

Fat_Sunny

03-17-2007, 11:10 PM

patsopinion wrote: welp im glad we had this talki was going to bust out my midterm to prove that i knew shit but now we can leave it in the past You Are A Sensible Young Man, And Fat Respects You.  Some Day He Hopes To Have A Drink With Pat, So Pat Can Explain How It Came To Be That There Were 12 Strange People In His Apartment!

Yerdaddy

03-17-2007, 11:18 PM

boeman

03-17-2007, 11:21 PM

That's why they put the ability to change the document into place. The founders of this country knew the document was fallible, the knew that society would change... That doesn't excuse the inhumanity shown to the slaves... The Forth Amendment does grant us privacy rights. Wiretaps amount to a form of "search and seizure" as deemed in 1967 by the Supreme Court in the case of Katz v. United States. Remember that the Constitution is more than just words, it's also interpretation and precedence.

This message was edited by boeman on 3-18-07 @ 3:24 AM

led37zep

03-17-2007, 11:28 PM

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f272/goldhornet28/b22bc3ba.gif

patsopinion

03-17-2007, 11:35 PM

boeman wrote: That's why they put the ability to change the document into place. The founders of this country knew the document was fallible, the knew that society would change... That doesn't excuse the inhumanity shown to the slaves... The Forth Amendment does grant us privacy rights. Wiretaps amount to a form of "search and seizure" as deemed in 1967 by the Supreme Court in the case of Katz v. United States. Remember that the Constitution is more than just words, it's also interpretation and precedence. This message was edited by boeman on 3-18-07 @ 3:24 AM that was the just of my midtermbut it had court cases and amendments and fluffy stuff like thatbut since we arent at war and we are in a policing action when the president wants to be and at war when he wants us to be, he is violating rights left and right(sp?)

RogerPodacter

03-18-2007, 12:20 AM

Fat_Sunny wrote: Fat Noticed On Another Thread, And Always On The News And In Politics, That People On Both Sides Of Every Issue Refer To The Constitution. Have Any Of You Ever Even Read It? It Is A Flawed * Do You Realize That It Sanctioned Slavery? Do You Realize That It Counted Slaves As 3/5 Of A White Person For Purposes Of Representation?What The Constitution Did Do Well, Was Put In A SYSTEM Of Government With Three Co-Equal Branches Assuring "Checks And Balances". That System Is Fantastic.But Please, Do Not Throw In Fat's Face That The Constitution Contains A "Right Of Privacy" Or That "GW Flaunts Constitutional Liberties", Or Any Other Hokum. Read It First. Then, Lecture Fat About Wiretapping And Alberto Gonzales And All Your Other Trivial Nonsense That Is NOT Mentioned In The US Constitution.Don't Get F_S Wrong: He Is The Most Gung-Ho Patriotic America-First Person You Will Ever Meet. Just Be Aware, That If You Throw The Constitution In His Face, He Is Gonna Throw It Right Back At You!1 Black = 60% Of A White. That Is What They Wrote. So Take The Rest With A Grain Of Salt!  This message was edited by Fat_Sunny on 3-18-07 @ 3:01 AM And what's your point?  The document was written in 1780's or something like that.  It was written relative to the time period.  The civil war didnt occur for another 100 years or whatever, when slaves were finally freed.  Dont get me wrong, slavery was a horrible thing.  But to act like the constitution was more evil/wrong than what was happening at that time is a fallacy.  Thankfully the civil war DID occur and we are now at a point we are today.   The document and the those who wrote it were LIGHTYEARS ahead of anybody in that time.  And i think they are ahead of 99% of our current politicians even to this day.  Just my 0.02$

Fat_Sunny

03-18-2007, 12:30 AM

RogerPodacter wrote:  And what's your point?  The document was written in 1780's or something like that.  It was written relative to the time period.  The civil war didnt occur for another 100 years or whatever, when slaves were finally freed.  Dont get me wrong, slavery was a horrible thing.  But to act like the constitution was more evil/wrong than what was happening at that time is a fallacy.  Thankfully the civil war DID occur and we are now at a point we are today.   The document and the those who wrote it were LIGHTYEARS ahead of anybody in that time.  And i think they are ahead of 99% of our current politicians even to this day.  Just my 0.02$Fat's Point Was What It Is: That Both Left And Right Refer To The Constitution To Justify Their Arguments Without Having A Clue As To What Is In It!And What's Your Point?

bigtim666

03-18-2007, 01:34 AM

This message was edited by bigtim666 on 3-18-07 @ 5:38 AM

Mike Teacher

03-18-2007, 02:36 AM

You learn these things in the sixth grade.

Doomstone

03-18-2007, 02:39 AM

Fat Sunny is a stupid, stupid man.

Yerdaddy

03-18-2007, 04:00 AM

Fat_Sunny, I'm just curious: are you posting this from a Bomb_Shelter by any chance? Or maybe an Armed_Compound or a Secluded_Shack? Do you have issues with the A_T_F?

Yerdaddy

03-18-2007, 04:06 AM

<img src="http://www.network23.com/hub/msfine/reno.gif" border="0" width="176" height="243" /> Does this face scare you... ...more than it does the rest of us?

KnoxHarrington

03-18-2007, 05:43 AM

That's why any "legal scholar" who speaks of the "intentions of the founders" and wants to read the Constitution literally is a moron. Of course it's rooted in the politics of the late 18th century. But it's open-ended and flexible enough to still work today.

The sad part is that the Bush administration has packed the courts with Constitutional originalists.

Drunky McBetidont

03-18-2007, 05:58 AM

my favorite part of the constitution: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.  Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes."Proletarians of all countries, unite!

ralphbxny

03-18-2007, 06:26 AM

patsopinion wrote: boeman wrote: That's why they put the ability to change the document into place. The founders of this country knew the document was fallible, the knew that society would change... That doesn't excuse the inhumanity shown to the slaves... The Forth Amendment does grant us privacy rights. Wiretaps amount to a form of "search and seizure" as deemed in 1967 by the Supreme Court in the case of Katz v. United States. Remember that the Constitution is more than just words, it's also interpretation and precedence.This message was edited by boeman on 3-18-07 @ 3:24 AM  that was the just of my midtermbut it had court cases and amendments and fluffy stuff like thatbut since we arent at war and we are in a policing action when the president wants to be and at war when he wants us to be, he is violating rights left and right(sp?) Thats why the whole process they created is in place. We vote, the three parts and the constitution!Its to help remove or limit power to a president when they start doing such things. It got Mr. Nixon to quit and if W. doesnt get smarter he is on that path.

Bulldogcakes

03-18-2007, 06:32 AM

Well, why dont you just post it and let people make up their own minds. <h2 class="r"><a href="http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution.html">Constitution of the United States of America</a></h2>

El Mudo

03-18-2007, 06:43 AM

Fat_Sunny wrote: Fat Noticed On Another Thread, And Always On The News And In Politics, That People On Both Sides Of Every Issue Refer To The Constitution. Have Any Of You Ever Even Read It? It Is A Flawed * Do You Realize That It Sanctioned Slavery? Do You Realize That It Counted Slaves As 3/5 Of A White Person For Purposes Of Representation?What The Constitution Did Do Well, Was Put In A SYSTEM Of Government With Three Co-Equal Branches Assuring "Checks And Balances". That System Is Fantastic.But Please, Do Not Throw In Fat's Face That The Constitution Contains A "Right Of Privacy" Or That "GW Flaunts Constitutional Liberties", Or Any Other Hokum. Read It First. Then, Lecture Fat About Wiretapping And Alberto Gonzales And All Your Other Trivial Nonsense That Is NOT Mentioned In The US Constitution.Don't Get F_S Wrong: He Is The Most Gung-Ho Patriotic America-First Person You Will Ever Meet. Just Be Aware, That If You Throw The Constitution In His Face, He Is Gonna Throw It Right Back At You!1 Black = 60% Of A White. That Is What They Wrote. So Take The Rest With A Grain Of Salt!  This message was edited by Fat_Sunny on 3-18-07 @ 3:01 AM  First of all, the word "slavery" is not mentioned at all in the Constitution....it refers to "persons now held in bondage", but does not mention slavery expressly, nor does it condone or speak against it.   The Constitution was amended in 1865 to prohibit slavery anyway, so your argument on that front is moot.  Furthermore, the "blacks are 3/5 of a white person" argument you make is flawed.  The 3/5 Compromise does not say blacks are 3/5 of a white person.  It says that 3/5 of the POPULATION of slaves were counted in terms of taxation.  The Northern states justifiably did not want to count the slaves as being part of the Southern States populations, as that would lead to the Southern States having more representation in Congress. In this same vein, you could say the Declaration of Independence is "flawed" too because it says "all men are created equal" while the country still practiced slavery.  Or you could say Woodrow Wilson's declaration of war in 1917 where the world had to be made "safe for democracy" was "flawed" because democracy wasn't threatened. Hindsight = 20/20

Crispy123

03-18-2007, 07:57 AM

Fat_Sunny wrote: Fat Noticed On Another Thread, And Always On The News And In Politics, That People On Both Sides Of Every Issue Refer To The Constitution. Have Any Of You Ever Even Read It? It Is A Flawed * Do You Realize That It Sanctioned Slavery? Do You Realize That It Counted Slaves As 3/5 Of A White Person For Purposes Of Representation?What The Constitution Did Do Well, Was Put In A SYSTEM Of Government With Three Co-Equal Branches Assuring "Checks And Balances". That System Is Fantastic.But Please, Do Not Throw In Fat's Face That The Constitution Contains A "Right Of Privacy" Or That "GW Flaunts Constitutional Liberties", Or Any Other Hokum. Read It First. Then, Lecture Fat About Wiretapping And Alberto Gonzales And All Your Other Trivial Nonsense That Is NOT Mentioned In The US Constitution.Don't Get F_S Wrong: He Is The Most Gung-Ho Patriotic America-First Person You Will Ever Meet. Just Be Aware, That If You Throw The Constitution In His Face, He Is Gonna Throw It Right Back At You!1 Black = 60% Of A White. That Is What They Wrote. So Take The Rest With A Grain Of Salt!  This message was edited by Fat_Sunny on 3-18-07 @ 3:01 AM 1. The Constitution does not mention anywhere the words Black, White, or Slave.2. It does say that the president will swear under oath to "defend the Constitution of the United States"3. while GWB has not himself directly done anything more than look and sound stupid, he has allowed his staff and supporters to try and subvert the 3 party system and the rights of the citizens of this country and others on numerous occosions and is a corporate, evangelical puppet.4. F_S has based his argument on inferences of racism that come from his own interpretation of the constitution. The only Race explicitely mentioned are Indians and you make no mention of them at all. You need to take your own advice and shut the fuck up.

Drunky McBetidont

03-18-2007, 08:05 AM

CPW3 wrote: Fat_Sunny wrote: Fat Noticed On Another Thread, And Always On The News And In Politics, That People On Both Sides Of Every Issue Refer To The Constitution. Have Any Of You Ever Even Read It? It Is A Flawed * Do You Realize That It Sanctioned Slavery? Do You Realize That It Counted Slaves As 3/5 Of A White Person For Purposes Of Representation?What The Constitution Did Do Well, Was Put In A SYSTEM Of Government With Three Co-Equal Branches Assuring "Checks And Balances". That System Is Fantastic.But Please, Do Not Throw In Fat's Face That The Constitution Contains A "Right Of Privacy" Or That "GW Flaunts Constitutional Liberties", Or Any Other Hokum. Read It First. Then, Lecture Fat About Wiretapping And Alberto Gonzales And All Your Other Trivial Nonsense That Is NOT Mentioned In The US Constitution.Don't Get F_S Wrong: He Is The Most Gung-Ho Patriotic America-First Person You Will Ever Meet. Just Be Aware, That If You Throw The Constitution In His Face, He Is Gonna Throw It Right Back At You!1 Black = 60% Of A White. That Is What They Wrote. So Take The Rest With A Grain Of Salt! This message was edited by Fat_Sunny on 3-18-07 @ 3:01 AM  1. The Constitution does not mention anywhere the words Black, White, or Slave.2. It does say that the president will swear under oath to "defend the Constitution of the United States"3. while GWB has not himself directly done anything more than look and sound stupid, he has allowed his staff and supporters to try and subvert the 3 party system and the rights of the citizens of this country and others on numerous occosions and is a corporate, evangelical puppet.4. F_S has based his argument on inferences of racism that come from his own interpretation of the constitution. The only Race explicitely mentioned are Indians and you make no mention of them at all. You need to take your own advice and shut the fuck up. <img src="http://aamovement.net/viewpoints/viewpoints_images/george-w-bush.jpg" border="0" width="353" height="357" />

TheMojoPin

03-18-2007, 08:06 AM

Fat_Sunny wrote: RogerPodacter wrote:  And what's your point?  The document was written in 1780's or something like that.  It was written relative to the time period.  The civil war didnt occur for another 100 years or whatever, when slaves were finally freed.  Dont get me wrong, slavery was a horrible thing.  But to act like the constitution was more evil/wrong than what was happening at that time is a fallacy.  Thankfully the civil war DID occur and we are now at a point we are today.   The document and the those who wrote it were LIGHTYEARS ahead of anybody in that time.  And i think they are ahead of 99% of our current politicians even to this day.  Just my 0.02$Fat's Point Was What It Is: That Both Left And Right Refer To The Constitution To Justify Their Arguments Without Having A Clue As To What Is In It!And What's Your Point?Your underlying point since the beginning, though you'll deny it since you worded it very carefully, is that none of us here know what we're talking about and God forbid we have opinions in the face of Fat_Sunny's scary-staggering super-genius because he read his grade school history text book like most everyone else.

furie

03-18-2007, 08:27 AM

[quote]Fat_Sunny wrote: Fat Noticed On Another Thread, And Always On The News And In Politics, That People On Both Sides Of Every Issue Refer To The Constitution. Have Any Of You Ever Even Read It? It Is A Flawed Document. Do You Realize That It Sanctioned Slavery? Do You Realize That It Counted Slaves As 3/5 Of A White Person For Purposes Of Representation?What The Constitution Did Do Well, Was Put In A SYSTEM Of Government With Three Co-Equal Branches Assuring "Checks And Balances". That System Is Fantastic.But Please, Do Not Throw In Fat's Face That The Constitution Contains A "Right Of Privacy" Or That "GW Flaunts Constitutional Liberties", Or Any Other Hokum. Read It First. Then, Lecture Fat About Wiretapping And Alberto Gonzales And All Your Other Trivial Nonsense That Is NOT Mentioned In The US Constitution. 

you know what IS mentioned in the constitution; due process. want to tap my phone, fine. they are well within their rights to do so, PROVIDED they follow proper due process.
it's not what the administration is doing, it's the failure to follow their own procedures to protect my civil liberties.

RogerPodacter

03-18-2007, 03:35 PM

Fat_Sunny wrote: RogerPodacter wrote: And what's your point? The document was written in 1780's or something like that. It was written relative to the time period. The civil war didnt occur for another 100 years or whatever, when slaves were finally freed. Dont get me wrong, slavery was a horrible thing. But to act like the constitution was more evil/wrong than what was happening at that time is a fallacy. Thankfully the civil war DID occur and we are now at a point we are today.  The document and the those who wrote it were LIGHTYEARS ahead of anybody in that time. And i think they are ahead of 99% of our current politicians even to this day. Just my 0.02$Fat's Point Was What It Is: That Both Left And Right Refer To The Constitution To Justify Their Arguments Without Having A Clue As To What Is In It!And What's Your Point? Well I agree with him about the left and right referencing the document without having a clue.  But my point was that bringing up the slavery issue is a lost argument by default.  As someone mentioned, the document was set in place to be revised, which is what happened.  Today's politicians are pretty clueless it seems.

Chigworthy

03-23-2007, 05:23 AM

When someone talks about the constitution, I am willing to guess that most of the time it is about the ammendments, not the articles.  Fat, you should read the 13th and 14th ammendments.

Midkiff

03-23-2007, 05:32 AM

It may be flawed, but it is also sacred. So if they hayseeds amend it to ban fag weddings, they will have committed sacrilege and must be put to death.

Midkiff

03-23-2007, 05:35 AM

By the way, when hayseeds say "this country was founded as a Christian country.... that's the way the founding fathers intended..." there is nothing more stupid. That's the evangelicals cop-out for everything. If they meant it that way, they would have written it that way.