Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

DUers, Can you really love America and want to modify the constitution?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
Billy Burnett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 07:28 PM
Original message
DUers, Can you really love America and want to modify the constitution?
Not sure if I want to kick it old school, or new school.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
1. I dare say Adams and Jefferson would want to modify...
after seeing today's RETHUGS and teabaggers....(not to mention what has become of our system of justice).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hawkowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 07:34 PM
Response to Original message
2. Anti War Profit Amendment
I would like to see the next amendment outlaw any company from making any profit, or paying any dividends that supplies the "Defense Department" in time of war. Furthermore, I would limit all private salaries of said companies to the government civil service pay scale. So for example the CEO of GE could not make any more than the President of the USA and no backdoor stock options. Although I guess he could have a private jet and limo with some dark shaded security guys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DinahMoeHum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 07:36 PM
Response to Original message
3. Ahem, we have constitutional amendments for that purpose.
Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Billy Burnett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Yes, but I've heard some arguments posing the question ...
Edited on Mon Aug-16-10 07:50 PM by Billy Burnett
.. of Repugs claiming their love for America (in that "strict constitutional constructionist" way) but yet hate America as it currently is (the GOPer cretins seeking to alter the 1st and 14th Amendments, supported by some public opinion polls as sweeping the nation).

Interesting argument.

I've heard Thom Hartmann and some other of the "professional left" try out this malconstruction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiva Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. It's about how the constitution is being interpreted and enforced.
In period between the end of reconstruction and the modern civil rights movement, many people who supported equal rights would likely have said that they loved the American Constitution (especially the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments) but hated the country as it was at that time.

The Constitution was written to be amended, hence the process listed within the Constitution itself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #5
20. There is no conflict.
Strict constructionism is how you interpret the text; it is not living, it is not all that malleable.

The strictest of constructionists would argue that the text describing how to amend the Constitution is, in fact, part of the text and should be taken at essentially face value.

So, here's a question. The Equal Rights Amendment. Did its sponsors love America?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The_Commonist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
4. Absofrikkinlutely!
That's what the amendment process is all about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vixengrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
6. I think the Teabagger relationship with the Constitution
is a little like that of a woman who falls for a rebel, then procedes to change him. "No more smoking, be home by eleven--and you can't elect your own senators anymore."

They like the idea of it all, and to some extent the playing dress-up and feeling like a Revolutionary War hero. The messy reality of the Bill of Rights, though--too scary. Sure, Americans have made positive changes to the Constitution, so it's possible to be a real American and work for changes--

But I think the trend should be towards "more perfect union", more freedom, stronger democracy. And I'm not sure how many of them have the historical perspective of why these changes aren't whimsically made.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 08:07 PM
Response to Original message
7. Term limits for the House members
Not a popular position here, but it's how I feel. The committee system is a mess, too many members are joined at the hip with favored industries or interest groups. I say limit House members to 10 years and keep the blood flowing.

The Senate should be left alone. I see value in having the Senate serve as the institutional memory and more staid, deliberative body.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. My first thought was term limits, too.... for all positions, though.
From Supreme Court to Dog-catcher, leaving people in positions of power encourages abuse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #8
19. I generally agree
I always found it strange how opposition to term limits became the default "liberal" position, with a few exceptions like Jerry Brown and pre-shark jump Ralph Nader.

The US Senate is the one place where I tend to see some value in longevity. There's something to be said about having a Ted Kennedy or a Dick Lugar around. These people bring a sense of perspective and rationality to the place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Shorten Senate terms to four years and limit it to three terms.
I think the House having elections every couple of years is good enough. The American House of Lords has been more of a problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 09:22 PM
Response to Original message
10. Yes. It's a living document--there's a reason 27 Amendments have been made since.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Morbius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #10
18. Absolutely. America is not about the Constitution.
The Constitution is a document designed to allow people to govern themselves. As times change, governments should be redesigned to suit the times. That's why the Constitution has provisions to allow changes to itself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 09:28 PM
Response to Original message
12. Yes.
Duh!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 01:01 AM
Response to Original message
13. Hell no! Votes for women and repealing slavery are unamerican! N.T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 08:38 AM
Response to Original message
14. Modifying the constitution and replacing it with GOP talking points are two different things
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 08:43 AM
Response to Original message
15. I could get behind a Constitutional Convention to
make some modifications -- provided we here at DU get to choose the delegates.

That seems fair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryAmish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
16. Sure. Everyone who wanted the ERA did not love America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alcibiades Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 08:56 AM
Response to Original message
17. Yes, it's in the Constitution
Read Article Five.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crazylikafox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
21. Yes. Eliminate the House of Lords. Uhhh.... Senate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CBGLuthier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
22. Yes, of course you can.
What a silly notion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 01:57 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC