The United States Constitution (1 Viewer)

[Big Papi]

Daniel Jenifer of St Thomas Mr. Jenifer is a Gentleman of fortune in Maryland; -he is always in good humour, and never fails to make his company pleased with him. He sits silent in the Senate, and seems to be conscious that he is no politcian. From his long continuance in single life, no doubt but he has made the vow of celibacy. He speaks warmly of the Ladies notwithstanding. Mr. Jenifer is about 55 years of Age, and once served as an Aid de Camp to Major Genl. Lee.

Is that a nice way of saying that he was a pillow biter?

 

[McJose]

Try reading it again and then look how often we tread on it. Quite sad...

If it is indeed a "living" document then it's dying a death by a thousand cuts.(P.S. It's NOT a living document - literally or figuratively.)

The subject is the execution of those great powers on which the welfare of a nation essentially depends. It must have been the intention of those who gave these powers, to insure, so far as human prudence could insure, their beneficial execution. This could not be done, by confiding the choice of means to such narrow limits as not to leave it in the power of congress to adopt any which might be appropriate, and which were conducive to the end. This provision is made in a constitution, intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs. To have prescribed the means by which government should, in all future time, execute its powers, would have been to change, entirely, the character of the instrument, and give it the properties of a legal code. It would have been an unwise attempt to provide, by immutable rules, for exigencies which, if foreseen at all, must have been seen dimly, and which can be best provided for as they occur. To have declared, that the best means shall not be used, but those alone, without which the power given would be nugatory, would have been to deprive the legislature of the capacity to avail itself of experience, to exercise its reason, and to accommodate its legislation to circumstances.

Marbury v. Madison?

*ding* Give that man a giant Scooby Doo.

For being wrong?

Oh snap. It's the other MvM. I can't read.

 

[Zow]

Try reading it again and then look how often we tread on it. Quite sad...

If it is indeed a "living" document then it's dying a death by a thousand cuts.(P.S. It's NOT a living document - literally or figuratively.)

The subject is the execution of those great powers on which the welfare of a nation essentially depends. It must have been the intention of those who gave these powers, to insure, so far as human prudence could insure, their beneficial execution. This could not be done, by confiding the choice of means to such narrow limits as not to leave it in the power of congress to adopt any which might be appropriate, and which were conducive to the end. This provision is made in a constitution, intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs. To have prescribed the means by which government should, in all future time, execute its powers, would have been to change, entirely, the character of the instrument, and give it the properties of a legal code. It would have been an unwise attempt to provide, by immutable rules, for exigencies which, if foreseen at all, must have been seen dimly, and which can be best provided for as they occur. To have declared, that the best means shall not be used, but those alone, without which the power given would be nugatory, would have been to deprive the legislature of the capacity to avail itself of experience, to exercise its reason, and to accommodate its legislation to circumstances.

Marbury v. Madison?

*ding* Give that man a giant Scooby Doo.

For being wrong?

Oh snap. It's the other MvM. I can't read.

that's the one i meant too with Marshall - although had some con law prof arguing Marbury v. Madison really is the key judicial review case and blah blah

 

[Tubalcane]

I have read it countless times, and have even wrote a review of it on Amazon. I carry a personal pocket copy in my vehicle so I can show it to traffic cops when they step over the line. I even carry a pocket copy into work in my work bag.

The most glaring thing about the constitution is that it never even once mentions the word "democracy". That's because the founders hated democracy as a form of government. Instead they gave us what you find in article 4 section 4. And sadly since barely anybody knows the difference anymore between a Republic and a Democracy you begin to see why the US is going the way of Rome.

I personally believe that every law enforcement officer should be made to memorize the Constitution before they are allowed to carry firearms on their respective jobs.

One more thing...if you read the Constitution you really should read the Federalist papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers.

 

[Zow]

I have read it countless times, and have even wrote a review of it on Amazon. I carry a personal pocket copy in my vehicle so I can show it to traffic cops when they step over the line. I even carry a pocket copy into work in my work bag. I personally believe that every law enforcement officer should be made to memorize the Constitution before they are allowed to carry firearms on their respective jobs. One more thing...if you read the Constitution you really should read the Federalist papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers.

1. I'm confused as to what exactly you point to to show the cops. 4th Amendment law is really caselaw based since the 4th amendment is incredibly broad and interpretive language... do you have a crim pro hornbook in the car with you as well?2. A lot of jurisdictions are working with their cops to make them more educated on con law. 3. Agree completely with you on the federalist and anti-federalist papers. I'd toss in Jefferson's notes on the state of virginia as well.

 

[Orange Crush]

I have read it countless times, and have even wrote a review of it on Amazon. I carry a personal pocket copy in my vehicle so I can show it to traffic cops when they step over the line. I even carry a pocket copy into work in my work bag. The most glaring thing about the constitution is that it never even once mentions the word "democracy". That's because the founders hated democracy as a form of government. Instead they gave us what you find in article 4 section 4. And sadly since barely anybody knows the difference anymore between a Republic and a Democracy you begin to see why the US is going the way of Rome. I personally believe that every law enforcement officer should be made to memorize the Constitution before they are allowed to carry firearms on their respective jobs. One more thing...if you read the Constitution you really should read the Federalist papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers.

Just what are you doing to get pulled over so often?

 

[Fennis]

I have read it countless times, and have even wrote a review of it on Amazon. I carry a personal pocket copy in my vehicle so I can show it to traffic cops when they step over the line. I even carry a pocket copy into work in my work bag. The most glaring thing about the constitution is that it never even once mentions the word "democracy". That's because the founders hated democracy as a form of government. Instead they gave us what you find in article 4 section 4. And sadly since barely anybody knows the difference anymore between a Republic and a Democracy you begin to see why the US is going the way of Rome. I personally believe that every law enforcement officer should be made to memorize the Constitution before they are allowed to carry firearms on their respective jobs. One more thing...if you read the Constitution you really should read the Federalist papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers.

Just what are you doing to get pulled over so often?

He must be a real joy, waving his pocket copy of the Constitution at the poor cop who pulls him over for running a red light.

 

[kaa]

Sometimes I wonder if the democrats have read the Bill of Rights.

They like to argue that freedom of religion means freedom FROM religion. They like to argue that freedom to own guns means freedom FROM guns. If the democrats translated every other right in the same fashion you would get:

freedom FROM free speech

freedom FROM the press

freedom FROM the right to assembly

freedom FROM due process

freedom FROM trial by jury

freedom FROM states rights (well I suppose they believe this one too)

 

[McJose]

Sometimes I wonder if the democrats have read the Bill of Rights.They like to argue that freedom of religion means freedom FROM religion. They like to argue that freedom to own guns means freedom FROM guns. If the democrats translated every other right in the same fashion you would get:freedom FROM free speechfreedom FROM the pressfreedom FROM the right to assemblyfreedom FROM due processfreedom FROM trial by juryfreedom FROM states rights (well I suppose they believe this one too)

Where in the B of R does it say 'freedom of religion' or 'freedom to own guns'?

 

[the moops]

at the people who carry a copy of the bill of rights or the entire constitution in their pocket.

Your friends must mock you endlessly.

 

[Headbutts]

The next year I was back in Public Schools (another story), and I had American Government. I aced the class.

Brilliant!

 

[madviking10]

Maybe a better question would be...Do you believe that the United States Constitution should be respected and still be the LAW of the United States of America?

 

[McJose]

at the people who carry a copy of the bill of rights or the entire constitution in their pocket.Your friends must mock you endlessly.

Assuming they have friends.

 

[Zow]

at the people who think they can interpret the current law solely by reading the constitution.

 

[Shutterbug]

at the people who think they can interpret the current law solely by reading the constitution.

Would you interpret the current laws for us so we can be sure we are not breaking any? TIA.

 

[Zow]

at the people who think they can interpret the current law solely by reading the constitution.

Would you interpret the current laws for us so we can be sure we are not breaking any? TIA.

You're trying to make fun here based on the seemingly goofiness of my statement, but don't think you realize the truth behind my statement. But nonetheless, Scalia has already done was you ask quite well

 

[Shutterbug]

at the people who think they can interpret the current law solely by reading the constitution.

Would you interpret the current laws for us so we can be sure we are not breaking any? TIA.

You're trying to make fun here based on the seemingly goofiness of my statement, but don't think you realize the truth behind my statement. But nonetheless, Scalia has already done was you ask quite well

 

[Zow]

at the people who think they can interpret the current law solely by reading the constitution.

Would you interpret the current laws for us so we can be sure we are not breaking any? TIA.

You're trying to make fun here based on the seemingly goofiness of my statement, but don't think you realize the truth behind my statement. But nonetheless, Scalia has already done was you ask quite well

yeah, that was some awful grammar - oof

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Constitution....Constitution....

is that the one about a young kid growing up on the Missouri River with a rapscallion friend an a slave named Jim? That was a very entertaining book, all those hi-jinx and whatnot.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Any questions?

The only thing I would like to change is the part that allows for a much bigger House.

I'd like to see us get back to something more like a city council seat - about 50,000 per constituent. You should be in a district small enough to know your Congressman and even call or meet him in person if need be.

Oh yeah - end all gerrymandered districts.

 

[Apple Jack]

Yes, in person at the Smithsonian as a young lad. Or was it at the Library of Congress? Hmm, either way, it was in DC somewhere.

Neither, actually. It's at Archives along with the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence.