The US Constitution: What's the Point Anymore?

Seriously. We have unconstitutional laws up the yin yang in this country. Many of them are good laws, such as copyright. Yet copyright flies right in the face of the first amendment. I know we NEED many of these laws. I also know the Constitution can be amended... Why wasn't it amended in each case? Or why weren't many of these laws handled on the state level where they're A-OK (The first amendment doesn't say shit about states restricting free speech).

I mean, right now it seems to be "fuck the Constitution when we have to". Doesn't that throw the whole thing out the window? Who is to say "when we have to"?

Just off the top of my head:
*FCC broadcast licenses
*A standing army
*The TSA handing out unreasonable search and seizure with a side of sexual assault like it's going out of style.
*Any Air Force at all
*This mess that nullifies a good part of the Constitution for 2/3 of the population.
*Presidents declaring war


It really goes on and on. So... Either fix the laws or fix the Constitution! Both can be changed.

America, fuck no?

What's the problem with the Air Force?

Copyright is your example of a good law?

It's the perfect example of a government sucking the dick of a corporation to a ridiculous degree.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...t_term.svg.png

Guess what happened in the 1920s? Mickey Mouse was created. Every 20 years, they get another copyright extension act passed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Josh

What's the problem with the Air Force?

---

The Constitution says what the government can do. For very obvious reasons, the Constitution does not say the government can have an air force. It could have been amended. Instead, they just went "fuck it, let's have an air force".

When you get right down to it, the Constitution makes an effort to prevent a federal army anyway. It was originally drawn up (and still is written) as each state depending on private citizens to arm themselves and then the federal government banding these good ol' boys together in two-year stretches only during an outside invasion and then breaking the whole thing up again.

When was the last time any of you read the Constitution? It's surprisingly short. It sets up a small and relatively powerless government with the intent on states and citizens running things themselves. Somewhere along the line we decided that wasn't the best idea and opted for a very large government with weaker states. We just never changed the Constitution to match.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheebs

When was the last time any of you read the Constitution? It's surprisingly short.

---

When was the last time you took a course in Constitutional Law? It surprisingly covers about two centuries of constitutional case law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dave is ok

Copyright is your example of a good law?

---

Even though I think we need some form of copyright law, I'm not getting into what is wrong with copyright law (and God knows it has glaring faults). That's not what this is about.

The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Right there. Black and white. No wiggle room for interpretation. Congress shall make no law. Not "congress shall make no law unless it is really obvious or most likely a good idea". No law. I should be able to run into a crowded airport and shout "bomb! bomb! terrorist! anthrax!" and federal law shouldn't be able to do a damn thing about it. It's written right there. And it gets ignored over and over. Notice however that the first amendment doesn't say a damn thing about the states making laws. Pennsylvania can certainly make a law preventing me from shouting "bomb" in a crowded airport. That's how it was supposed to be handled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nash

When was the last time you took a course in Constitutional Law? It surprisingly covers about two centuries of constitutional case law.

---

That's what I'm on about.

We very clearly have a system where we are allowed to ditch even the most unbreakable rules and retroactively make it OK by way of a judge setting precedent.

You know what else wasn't in the constitution? Dynamic range reduction!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheebs

That's what I'm on about.

We very clearly have a system where we are allowed to ditch even the most unbreakable rules and retroactively make it OK by way of a judge setting precedent.

---

It's not a judge. It's five out of nine judges. Of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Constitution has historically been malleable. I'm not trying to be a snob, but you really need to take a course on the subject matter before you start discussing this stuff, because it's not as simple as you think it is.

Because people let them? Most people think politics are "boring". So the politicians pass laws and do things without repercussion. Not that I think everything is all skull and bones in the country - there's been plenty of positive progress made, too. America was born in blood, but people in the modern era can't even spare a drop of sweat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nash

It's not a judge. It's five out of nine judges. Of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Constitution has historically been malleable. I'm not trying to be a snob, but you really need to take a course on the subject matter before you start discussing this stuff, because it's not as simple as you think it is.

---

I'm not saying we fucked it up yesterday. Just because we've been fucking it up for over 100 years doesn't make it OK.

And of course it's more complicated than anybody who doesn't dedicate their life to it could possibly comprehend. The bullshit that has gone down could not stand on any simple explanation because anything simple would also have to be rational.

Tell me how any rational person can be alright with a violation of the Constitution no matter how many Justices caught the activist bug that day? I'm not saying the laws that violate the Constitution are inherently evil or useless. I'm saying that there is a mechanism available for changing the text of the Constitution. Why isn't the damn thing updated to allow these laws to exist?

As it stands, if one part can be thrown out the window, any part can be thrown out the window. So it can't protect anybody.

First, as to copyright, there is a specific clause giving Congress the power to do that. (Art. 1, Sec. 8)

Second, yes, the Constitution isn't literally enforced. It says whatever the Supreme Court says it says. It creates a weak federal government, but we need a fully functional national government. So whenever the federal government needs to act but lacks the power (slavery, New Deal, Jim Crow, full and immediate war powers), the courts "reach the right result" by letting the feds do whatever they want, thereby reducing the relative power of the states.

Why isn't the Constitution amended when there are problems? Because it's very difficult to do. The difficulty was intended to prevent change, but it actually permits radical change by the judiciary, preventing the majority from changing laws "interpreted" to say whatever is fashionable. So changes need to be made, they can't plausibly be made through the amendment process, so the SCOTUS does it by fiat.

The states wanted the benefits of a national government without the drawbacks. It's just not realistic, especially in today's fast paced and interrelated world. So we have a full-powered national government. The same process is happening to the EU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drewbacca

America was born in blood, but people in the modern era can't even spare a drop of sweat.

---

Damn that was well said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

Damn that was well said.

---

Aren't you an at home number cruncher? You're not exactly sweatin to the oldies.

He's not being literal, genius. Playing EA Sports Active isn't really contributing to the nation's GDP.

Or is it?

Did you know the United States Constitution was printed on Monster Cables?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoleTroll

First, as to copyright, there is a specific clause giving Congress the power to do that. (Art. 1, Sec. 8)

Second, yes, the Constitution isn't literally enforced. It says whatever the Supreme Court says it says. It creates a weak federal government,

---

More like "weak" federal government. Remember, the Constitution wasn't this country's first stab at a governing document.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc Holliday

Did you know the United States Constitution was printed on Monster Cables?

---

Is that why it's held up so well?

No, I suppose that wouldn't be.

Watch out US government!

Cheebs sees through you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheebs

Notice however that the first amendment doesn't say a damn thing about the states making laws. Pennsylvania can certainly make a law preventing me from shouting "bomb" in a crowded airport. That's how it was supposed to be handled.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Fourteenth Amendment

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

---

In layman's terms, if the Constitution says the Feds can't take a given right away from you, neither can any state. As for the idea that terroristic threats ought to be considered protected speech... wow, just wow.

Stop using Amendments to point out Cheebs lack of knowledge about Amendments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Gas

In layman's terms, if the Constitution says the Feds can't take a given right away from you, neither can any state. As for the idea that terroristic threats ought to be considered protected speech... wow, just wow.

---

The 14th doesn't say a thing about speech. It was interpreted that way.

I'm not saying I think terrorist threats should be considered protected speech. I'm saying the Constitution considers it protected speech. Point to any place anywhere that gives any qualifiers to only protecting useful or non-destructive speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoleTroll

Why isn't the Constitution amended when there are problems? Because it's very difficult to do. The difficulty was intended to prevent change, but it actually permits radical change by the judiciary...

---

So you support "It's too hard, fuck it" as a method of government? It would take one amendment to make it easier to amend the Constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheebs

The 14th doesn't say a thing about speech. It was interpreted that way.

I'm not saying I think terrorist threats should be considered protected speech. I'm saying the Constitution considers it protected speech. Point to any place anywhere that gives any qualifiers to only protecting useful or non-destructive speech.

---

it's really not hard to "interpret" it that way. It's actually more difficult not to, from where I sit. Just stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheebs

The 14th doesn't say a thing about speech. It was interpreted that way.

---

Click for full size

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Gas

In layman's terms, if the Constitution says the Feds can't take a given right away from you, neither can any state. As for the idea that terroristic threats ought to be considered protected speech... wow, just wow.

---

The issue isn't issuing terrorist (terroristic? wtf) threats. It's the broadening definition of what constitutes a terror threat - and that definition has become a parody. Anything deemed offensive is becoming more and more a reason to invade someone's personal rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheebs

*Any Air Force at all
*Presidents declaring war

---

Since when did an airforce (not possible when the Cons. was written) require some kind of amendment?

Since when did a President actually declare war? Unless you mean "send in troops to bomb (usually brown) people" as declaring war then.....?

I guess because it's not mentioned specifically beside the Army and Navy?? The Air Force was put through by an Act of Congress which is permitted under the powers section I-8 and not limited by any means under I-9? I don't know where's he's going with this.

Plus the AirForce always helps invent and test the coolest shit. And there were no airplanes back when the ol' document was crafted.

The Air Force is part of the "Army" within the meaning of the Constitution. It used to be the Army Air Corps, after all. The only people I've heard say the USAF is unconstitutional are John Birch Society types.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheebs

So you support "It's too hard, fuck it" as a method of government? It would take one amendment to make it easier to amend the Constitution.

---

I'd support an amendment saying that no law passed by a majority of both houses of congress and signed by the president can be found unconstitutional. But there's no prospect of passing it. It might be just one amendment but the votes aren't there. A lot of people like having judges sit over us like a superlegislature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoleTroll

The Air Force is part of the "Army" within the meaning of the Constitution.

---

It's not, though. Yes, when it was the Army Air Corps, it fell under the Department of the Army in the same manner that the Marine Corps falls under the Department of the Navy. When President Truman created a separate Department of the Air Force, they became an independent branch of service having nothing to do with the Army.

That's not to say it's unconstitutional, just that it's not the same thing.

The Marines are still under the Navy right, Squall?

This is correct, although I wouldn't word it exactly like that in front of one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoleTroll

I'd support an amendment saying that no law passed by a majority of both houses of congress and signed by the president can be found unconstitutional. But there's no prospect of passing it. It might be just one amendment but the votes aren't there. A lot of people like having judges sit over us like a superlegislature.

---

This is such a stupid idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bojack

Since when did a President actually declare war? Unless you mean "send in troops to bomb (usually brown) people" as declaring war then.....?

---

There was a real grumpy German and a few wily Japs about 70 years ago who forced your hands to declare war - since then... not so much.

damn wily Japs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoleTroll

I'd support an amendment saying that no law passed by a majority of both houses of congress and signed by the president can be found unconstitutional. But there's no prospect of passing it. It might be just one amendment but the votes aren't there. A lot of people like having judges sit over us like a superlegislature.

---

Didn't we try this with abortion already? Also with terror suspects in Guantanamo. But the judges said, oh wait, we can review this cause the constitution said so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spent

There was a real grumpy German and a few wily Japs about 70 years ago who forced your hands to declare war - since then... not so much.

---

LOL.

Don't forget about 60 years ago ... The Korean War(Conflict).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spent

There was a real grumpy German and a few wily Japs about 70 years ago who forced your hands to declare war - since then... not so much.

---

The president to my knowledge has never/can't declare(d) war. Congress does that. The Pres can send troops whereever and fight here or there but unless Congress declares war it's a conflict. So we get things that very much resemble wars w/o them being true "wars". WWI and II were both declared wars by congress if memory serves. Korea, Vietnam, Desert Shield etc. were/are not. Unless some one can prove otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bojack

The Pres can send troops whereever and fight here or there but unless Congress declares war it's a conflict. So we get things that very much resemble wars w/o them being true "wars".

---

Right. It would be like if I could cut somebody's head off and then not go to jail as long as I called the act a "blade workout" instead of "murder".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Advocate

LOL.

Don't forget about 60 years ago ... The Korean War(Conflict).

---

This wasn't an actual declaration of war though, was it? It was a "police action."

They can draft without a declaration of war? Crazy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melf

This wasn't an actual declaration of war though, was it? It was a "police action."

---

That's why I have in parentheses Conflict. Wiki stated that it is considered a war, but its also considered a police action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

The declaration of war is meaningless really. Congress is supposed to have that power but really their only control is whether or not to fund the action. Which is congress' real power anyway. If they ever decided to defund anything other than a social program. Lucky for them, the poor and uneducated don't vote.