Oh, really? What has been changed in the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Has Congress gone in their and changed words?
Well, no. It makes it an amendable document. Which is spelled out in the document itself.
Non sequitur.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The facts about Trump policy of separating families at the border
- Thread starter FollowTheWay
- Start date
- Status
Oh, really? What has been changed in the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Has Congress gone in their and changed words?
Well, no. It makes it an amendable document. Which is spelled out in the document itself.
Non sequitur.
Joseph Story Commentaries on the Constitution 1821--24
Article 5: Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1821--24
1821. Upon this subject, little need be said to persuade us, at once, of its utility and importance. It is obvious, that no human government can ever be perfect; and that it is impossible to foresee, or guard against all the exigencies, which may, in different ages, require different adaptations and modifications of powers to suit the various necessities of the people. A government, forever changing and changeable, is, indeed, in a state bordering upon anarchy and confusion. A government, which, in its own organization, provides no means of change, but assumes to be fixed and unalterable, must, after a while, become wholly unsuited to the circumstances of the nation; and it will either degenerate into a despotism, or by the pressure of its inequalities bring on a revolution.
Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States is a three-volume work written by Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Joseph Story and published in 1833. In these Commentaries, Story defends the power of the national government and economic liberty. "My object will be," Story wrote, "sufficiently attained, if I shall have succeeded in bringing before the reader the true view of its powers, maintained by its founders and friends, and confirmed and illustrated by the actual practice of the government."[2]
Justice Story wrote this commentary about 40 years after the Bill of Rights was adopted. It was dedicated to the Chief Justice he served with, John Marshall.
John James Marshall (September 24, 1755 – July 6, 1835) was an American politician, Founding Father, and the fourth Chief Justice of the United States from 1801 to 1835.
I'd say these men had a far better sense of the original intent of the framers of the constitution than Justice Scalia.
If you don't accept change in the Constitution then there is no Bill of Rights and therefore no 2nd Amendment.
Yep, two programs that you are forced to participate in. If Socialist Security is so good as they say it is, it should be made voluntary and then we will see how many sign on. Funny how the Congress won't join the system, so maybe it isn't that good. Remember, socialism is for the people, not the socialists.
No one can argue that the Constitution cannot be changed, it can, but it must be done in the legal constitutionally proscribed way. Our big problem is that it has been completely ignored for far too long and by both political parties even.
No, the "living document" theory propounded by the left is meant to mean that it is interpreted differently, not constitutionally changed by the amendment process as you have so rightly said has been done numerous times.
The "living document" theory promotes activism, and the best example is the Roe v Wade decision. Never before in our history had the "right to privacy" concept been construed as the right to eliminate the life of a baby growing inside a woman.
There was no constitutional amendment to allow this, it was just decided out of whole cloth that somehow in these modern times this was now to be accepted as the law of the land. This was unelected Judges literally making a new law, a process that really belongs to the legislative body, the Congress.
This was judicial activism on steroids and to my mind completely unconstitutional itself.
Last edited:
Once again--the Constitution isn't a document that is edited, it is amended.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
You don't understand Social Security. You can chose to not participate when you pay me pack what my employers and I have paid in in my 40 year career.
I went through the list of all the AMENDMENTS to the Constitution. Duh.
I fully understand the Socialist Security system. Hey, I have been paying in since I started working in High School in the 1970"s myself. At this point at age 61 I have no choice either as I am stuck in this rotten pyramid scheme too. It needs to reformed for the younger workers coming up and the present system ended.
If they opt out or chose to invest "their money" in the stock market you'll be out of luck. I just hope to get grandfathered in. Then you can make it optional.
But America already has the worst senior citizen monetary and medical support system of any developed country. I suppose you want to take us down to the level of the third world.
We actually had the premier medical system in the world, before it got hammered into crappy Obama Care!
People brag so much on socialized medicine as being great, but why is it when they need major surgery, come here instead?
Not true. We've been doing the wrong things with our medical care for the nation for a long time.
Define wrong things?
We've made it less efficient but more expensive.
That is largely due to people thinking we can pay for everyone to get treatment, to have a socialized medical state!
Once the government gets a hold of something it is all downhill from there. Initially, SS was just for seniors and then before you know it the program expanded to include everyone including minor children of those who died, people on disability and so on and so forth. So there is no wonder it is a failing system and those who have an option to not participate usually don't.
take a look at other developed countries like Canada, the UK, and France. They provide far better medical services to their people at a much lower cost. Your answer demonstrates why we've gotten into this situation.
You need to look into their great systems, as they take forever to get surgeries approved, and they practice medical rationing!
Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 10 PM Pacific.
This thread will be closed sometime after 10 PM Pacific.
- Status