Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Friday, Jan. 4, 2013 | 2:01 a.m.
Another view?
View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:
• Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.
• Columnists - local and syndicated writers.
• Letters to the editor - readers' views.
Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.
Cesar Lumba’s Tuesday letter, “Constitution shows lack of wisdom,” criticizes the lack of wisdom on the part of our Founding Fathers for their “mistakes” in writing the Constitution and suggests we should either correct it or write a new one altogether. Can anyone in their wildest dreams imagine this Congress and president getting together to write a new Constitution? With a 2,700-page Obamacare bill that “we have to pass it to see what’s in it,” a 2,300-page Dodd/Frank bill that no one can understand, a 73,000-page tax code and the circus we just went through with the “fiscal cliff,” do you really think these people in charge of running the country could write a new Constitution? It makes my head spin just to think about it.
There’s nothing wrong with our current Constitution if our lawmakers and president would just abide by it.
Spot on with analysis
Look at the mess in Egypt which is now under cleric law
Under the liberals The first Amendment would be the right for live abortion
The second liberal amendment would be open borders and free citizenship for anyone
The third liberal amendment would be to take ALL guns away
I disagree with those that hold the mistaken belief that the Constitution is the reason things in this country have gone so horribly wrong or that doing away with it or amending it will fix what has gone wrong.
People running for office and our two major parties need millions (soon to be billions) of dollars to be elected and/or re-elected. This makes them vulnerable to be lobbied by powerful, monied interest groups who want legislation that benefits them. We need public financing of campaigns and lobbying reform.
Being a Senator or House member has become one of the best, most powerful 'careers' an American can have. It has also proven to be very lucrative. Once in, people don't want to leave and they are re-elected over and over again, due to a fundraising advantage, name recognition and the advantages of the office itself. This is NOT what was intended by the Founders who envisioned 'citizen legislators' who would 'serve their country' temporarily and then return to private life. We need term limits, just like we have for the President.
At least half of us heaved a sign of relief when Presidents Reagan, Clinton and GW Bush, respectively were not able to run for a 3rd term. Why don't we feel the same about Senators and House members.
If we changed those two things, we'd go a long way toward making things in America better.
Michael
Just to add to my previous comment, most of the people who currently want to amend the Constitution do not want to deal with 'term limits' or 'campaign financing', both of which would probably require an amendment. They don't like the fact that the House can so successfully resist the will of the President and the Senate or that the Supreme Court has so much power. These and other things that people who support the party in power at the time want, are exactly the things we should NOT change.
Michael
I opine that the Founders did a yeomans' job as the writers of the Constitution. The best evidence is that it has survived the test of time despite all those, wise and dumb, who have come after it and still does.
CarmineD
The founding fathers had immense wisdom and foresight and vision. Their work was both an intellectual and spiritual journey of incredible proportions. The outcome was an in depth product guided by wisdom and keen judgement. While the constitution has and may well again require updating by amendment, the foundation is a masterpiece of sweat,intellect and wisdom which should be retained and followed with confidence. It is cavalier to suggest a redo of the constitution.
"Can anyone in their wildest dreams imagine this Congress and president getting together to write a new Constitution? . . . do you really think these people in charge of running the country could write a new Constitution? . . . There's nothing wrong with our current Constitution if our lawmakers and president would just abide by it."
Schrader -- that's the point, the regime currently in power has shed any policy whatsoever of being self-reforming or following the rule of law. As I posted at that Discussion--
"For the Executive, an excellent example is throughout the recent gun control Discussions here virtually nothing was posted about the "Fast and Furious" scandal. Despite all the hand-wringing and cries ad nauseum for more gun control laws, the biggest criminal by far on buying and distributing assault weapons is the very same regime We the herd just voted back into office.
"So long as those who swear oaths to support, protect and defend our Constitutions continue to perjure their oaths with impunity, nothing will change."
Elections are being won on who puts on the best show, and that is entirely the voters' fault. So long as We the People act like livestock, that's exactly how deserve to be treated.
"...a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law." -- Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803)
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Taking KillerB's little quote book away from him would be like tieing his hands behind his back & putting a strip of tape across his mouth....
The argument we hear on this thread concerning the Constitution is as old as the Constitution itself.
Actually, that's how our present two party system came to be....
The Founders knew that they had not written a 'perfect document" and that's why they allowed the document to include the amendment process.
Keep in mind that when the Constitution was written, approximately 4 million people lived in the new Republic. Today, we have approximately 300 million people.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the Constitution needs to be tweaked from time to time. A Constitution that was written for 4 million people can not meet the situation adequately for a nation of 300 million....
With that being said, we must be very careful about the changes that we want to make to the Constitution.
As I stated on an earlier thread, the Constitution is exactly what the Supreme Court says it is at any given point in time....
El_Lobo said:
"As I stated on an earlier thread, the Constitution is exactly what the Supreme Court says it is at any given point in time...."
I say:
Amen, the primary reason to keep Romney and Scalia out of the White House.
Scrap the new or amended constitution idea; why not just make a new country.
We can once again limit who we allow into our newly created country.
GunslingerA10,
The Democrats tried that about 150 years ago without much success.
boftx said:
"The Democrats tried that about 150 years ago without much success."
Hmmmmmm........boftx! I must ask! Are you saying that it was the Democrat Party that caused the Civil War?
El_Lobo,
No, I wouldn't go that far. :)
"Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Taking KillerB's little quote book away from him would be like tieing [sic] his hands behind his back & putting a strip of tape across his mouth...."
El_Lobo -- such ignorance. That isn't from any "little quote book," it's from a very old and still much-quoted case you'll find in the very first U.S. Supreme Court reporter, page 177. That court quoted from it 3x in 2012. Our Supreme Court last quoted from it 2006.
As you posted "the Constitution is exactly what the Supreme Court says it is at any given point in time...."
Still want to play?
"The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right." -- Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 163 (1803)
KillerB.....
What's your point? I agree that the United States is a nation of laws, but when it comes to the interpretation of the Constitution, conservatives look at the document a great differently than liberals do....
More times than not, a decision handed down by the Court depends largely upon whether or not the conservatives are in the majority or the liberals are in the majority....
Surely you recognize that???
Hmmmmm....maybe not????
boftx...
What's your point then? Why did you bother to go down that road if you don't really believe that?
I'm assuming that you're talking about the CIvil War. Do I have that correct?
If so, keep in mind that the Democrats split right down in the middle as a party in 1860. The Southern Democrats did attempt to break from the Union and they did form a new government, but the Northern Democrats stayed loyal to the Union.
Also keep in mind that the Southern Republicans joined the Southern Democrats in 1860 whereas the Northern Republicans joined the new Whig Party...
"What's your point?"
El_Lobo -- you just made it. Moo on, I'm finished with you here.
"...how little does the common herd know of the nature of right and truth." - Socrates in Plato's "Euthyphro" (399 B.C.E.?)
boftx....
My last post should have said:
"Also keep in mind that the Southern Whigs joined the Southern Democrats in 1860 whereas the Northern Whigs joined the new Republican Party..."
Sorry about that....
KillerB.....
Just about what I would expect from you. You're all quote & no go! No surprise there!
There are no federal elected officials in this forum, nor are there any Constitutional lawyers, that I am aware of. The only thing expressed here are unqualified opinions.
With that in mind, I enjoy reading what is in people's heads.