• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Government shutdown

Crude said:
How do you figure the 2nd is ambiguous? I think the constitution is near perfect. It isn't meant to regulate every aspect of life. It's design is to give the people to power to keep their government working for the people. The real problem are lawyers that try to twist and skew what the constitution says.
Click to expand...

The issue with the 2nd is this: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
 
Crude said:
How do you figure the 2nd is ambiguous? I think the constitution is near perfect. It isn't meant to regulate every aspect of life. It's design is to give the people to power to keep their government working for the people. The real problem are lawyers that try to twist and skew what the constitution says.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like one party is trying to muscle change and the other party is trying to muscle for political gain? Do elections have consequences? I honestly do not know what the hold up is but I find that a hold up is better then business as usual.
Click to expand...

I will tackle the 2nd Amendment in a separate post.

I understand the Constitution isn't perfect and that it isn't meant to regulate every aspect of life but it does leave some major areas largely undefined and people end up searching for the infamous "Framer's Intent", whatever that is. How many people in this country, realistically, think the government works for the people?

As a lawyer, we are trained to look at facts and derive meaning from the words on the page. A lawyer's job is to defend the rights of their client and there are many in the profession who try and skew language to benefit their clients.

A document that condoned slavery, ignored minorities and the rights of women for so many years is far from a perfect document in my eyes. I sense we will disagree on how complete or perfect the document is and perhaps because I am a lawyer I am trying to frame certain issues to support my statements.

I just feel that when a document leaves so much open to interpretation that is where trouble starts with each branch trying to grab as much power as they can that is not enumerated inn the Constitution. Or perhaps having had to take two semester of constitutional law in law school and having endless debates such as these has changed my perception of the document.
 
Potvin63 said:
A document that condoned slavery, ignored minorities and the rights of women for so many years is far from a perfect document in my eyes. I sense we will disagree on how complete or perfect the document is and perhaps because I am a lawyer I am trying to frame certain issues to support my statements.
Click to expand...

Are we talking about the same constitution? Show me evidence to support this claim!
 
Potvin63 said:
A document that condoned slavery, ignored minorities and the rights of women for so many years is far from a perfect document in my eyes. I sense we will disagree on how complete or perfect the document is and perhaps because I am a lawyer I am trying to frame certain issues to support my statements.
Click to expand...

Specific examples, please.

Bob
 
Bob Maxey said:
Specific examples, please.

Bob
Click to expand...

A fair request deserves a fair answer Bob.

I point you to the 13th Amendment passed in 1865 that abolished slavery, a full 78 years after the Constitution was ratified. Until that time slavery was unofficially condoned in the United States.

The 19th Amendment passed in 1920 finally gave women the right to vote. Until that time women were not allowed to vote, even though they make up more than 50% of this country's population.

The poll tax, which prevented people who could not pay to vote, from voting, in certain jurisdictions, was not outlawed federally until 1964 in the 24th Amendment.

I just think for a country that prides itself on fairness and justice, a democratic form of government and allowing people to choose their own elected officials, it took us a long time to get to that point.
 
dan330 said:
maybe the absence of not saying it is NOT allowed....is like saying it is ok.

:P
Click to expand...

Potvin63 said:
A fair request deserves a fair answer Bob.

I point you to the 13th Amendment passed in 1865 that abolished slavery, a full 78 years after the Constitution was ratified. Until that time slavery was unofficially condoned in the United States.

The 19th Amendment passed in 1920 finally gave women the right to vote. Until that time women were not allowed to vote, even though they make up more than 50% of this country's population.

The poll tax, which prevented people who could not pay to vote, from voting, in certain jurisdictions, was not outlawed federally until 1964 in the 24th Amendment.

I just think for a country that prides itself on fairness and justice, a democratic form of government and allowing people to choose their own elected officials, it took us a long time to get to that point.
Click to expand...

i think you are unfair... because how could they think of all aspects and issues.. in their time and mind set?

should they also put in there the rights of aliens (ET) just in case they do land someday?
 
Bob Maxey said:
then who decides who is correct when you need to solve a problem? We need lawyers and they ain't so bad.
Click to expand...

You don't suppose defendant and plaintiff could just present their case to the judge and have the judge decide? Legal counsel makes sense in criminal proceedings but not in civil.

My personal opinion is that if we as a nation want to be free of the money making lawyers we need to grant defendants a reasonable sum paid by the plaintiff(s) to cover the costs of unreasonable law suits in the case that the judgment is in favor of the defendants. I live my life in constant fear that as a upstanding citizen I will become the victim of some "we don't get paid if you don't get paid" scam, and loose my house, etc.


Potvin63 said:
A fair request deserves a fair answer Bob.

I point you to the 13th Amendment passed in 1865 that abolished slavery, a full 78 years after the Constitution was ratified. Until that time slavery was unofficially condoned in the United States.

The 19th Amendment passed in 1920 finally gave women the right to vote. Until that time women were not allowed to vote, even though they make up more than 50% of this country's population.

The poll tax, which prevented people who could not pay to vote, from voting, in certain jurisdictions, was not outlawed federally until 1964 in the 24th Amendment.

I just think for a country that prides itself on fairness and justice, a democratic form of government and allowing people to choose their own elected officials, it took us a long time to get to that point.
Click to expand...

I'm looking at the constitution right now and I cannot find any referance one way or the other that mentions "slaves", "women" or "minorities".

Heh, minorities...I'm pretty sure that word didn't even exist until we all went political correct....
 
Crude said:
My personal opinion is that if we as a nation want to be free of the money making lawyers we need to grant defendants a reasonable sum paid by the plaintiff(s) to cover the costs of unreasonable law suits in the case that the judgment is in favor of the defendants. I live my life in constant fear that as a upstanding citizen I will become the victim of some "we don't get paid if you don't get paid" scam, and loose my house, etc.
Click to expand...

i totally agree!!

i would even say... if it was ruled to be beyond unreasonable...
the sum could be as high as the amount asked by the plaintiff.
 
Potvin63 said:
A fair request deserves a fair answer Bob.

I point you to the 13th Amendment passed in 1865 that abolished slavery, a full 78 years after the Constitution was ratified. Until that time slavery was unofficially condoned in the United States.

The 19th Amendment passed in 1920 finally gave women the right to vote. Until that time women were not allowed to vote, even though they make up more than 50% of this country's population.

The poll tax, which prevented people who could not pay to vote, from voting, in certain jurisdictions, was not outlawed federally until 1964 in the 24th Amendment.

I just think for a country that prides itself on fairness and justice, a democratic form of government and allowing people to choose their own elected officials, it took us a long time to get to that point.
Click to expand...

True enough, but the fact is, we did abolish slavery. Women did get the right to vote, and the poll tax is no more. We did this because we can amend the constuitution; the founders thought this was important.

We can change the document when there is a compelling need. Although it is difficult to do so, as it should be.

Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom