ElasticNinja
Android Expert
It was not Lord who alleged Trolling Early, it was I... not based entirely on that post.
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Proof that the Democrats are Socialists
- Thread starter FreakyLocz14
- Start date
- Status
Perhaps - but the Constitution's beauty is the power it gives to the people to modify it as required.
Plus, we have the wisdom of the SCOTUS and their tendency to follow what I believe is Earl Warren's maxim - The wheels of justice grind slow, but they grind exceedingly fine.
(And a nod to Mr. Churchill's speech of 1941, there.)
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
It would be funny except they gain power regularly and leave no space for an alternative
They do have good people tho, I'm sure
lordofthereef
Android Expert
That's fine. I am not against you in saying we shouldn't be throwing the word troll around. The fact that Dems as a whole stand for rescinding our rights to bear arms is still a fallacy though.
You said it, sure, but it's my experience often that when one says it, probably several are thinking it, so I chose to address it as a generality, seeing no need to argue personally with you, and addressing only one side of the quote specifically linked on my part.
It's not like I'm chicken or anything.
lordofthereef
Android Expert
EDIT: Just see below... don't know what happened 
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
of course
I an generally against bloated constitutions - set out Governmental system, fairness, human rights, democracy and nothing else (vast simplification on my part)Gun laws and abortion laws should not be in a Constitution IMO
[Dumb me]I have no idea how what you just said applies to my post
lordofthereef
Android Expert
I disagree. Modifications to the Constitution at this point are so difficult to achieve (since it's so difficult to get enough of a consensus), that politicians dare not even go there anymore. That design sounds great, but it isn't so good in practice.
The latest change was in 1992, which isn't that long ago, all things considered... but then look what it was repealing... The Twenty-seventh Amendment (Amendment XXVII) prohibits any law that increases or decreases the salary of members of the Congress from taking effect until the start of the next set of terms of office for Representatives.
Of course you are going to get a large enough consensus when asked "do you want your raise effective immediately, or only after the start of the next term?"
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
tell me about it - in Ireland we have to have a referendum on _everything_
I wouldn't mind but people wont educate themselves - we have held up the EUs progress by at least a year TWICE
I would rather have an issue such as treatyies sorted by Parliament - the Lisbon Treaty had 95% Parliamentary support yet got voted against by the electorate
TL,DR: Referendums suck
of course
Gun laws and abortion laws should not be in a Constitution IMO
The 2nd Amendment is there because we've disagreed.
I meant the SCOTUS moves at a slower and safer rate than the whims of our elected demagogues, and preserves justice on the issue of arms, and its definition.[Dumb me]I have no idea how what you just said applies to my post
As for constitutional amending being no longer relevant, I think that idea is hogwash. Amending ought go at a slow pace, and public response is a pendulum, not an arrow.
That's A Good Thing. Though yes...Ireland does have too many referendums but the Lisbon Treaty was one referendum we were promised in the UK and never got. Politicians breaking promises? Who'd have though that could happen?
Parliament are elected by the people to serve the people. They should not be there to serve their own agendas against the will of the people.
lordofthereef
Android Expert
Such is the case with all leadership. It may start out grand, and it may stay grand for a while, but with time comes corruption.
At which point we kick them out at the ballot box. We have just had a big clear-out at the last election because too many MPs were fiddling their expenses.
Some have gone to jail over it.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
but... most voted for the Euro-Federalists (Fine Gael), and Fianna Fail, Green Party and Labour who are all strongly pro Europe - the only elected opposition was a Independent or two and Sinn F
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
And that is a good thing. Can you imagine if the Constitution was easy to change? Those founders, quite smart.
I do wonder about the Supreme Court, however. Once a bad judge is put in place. that is it. You can't fire a bad one, they serve for life.
True enough, still, I'm reminded of one of the best political speeches of all time:
Klaatu, The Day The Earth Stood Still, 1951
gadgetmonster
Android Enthusiast
Always love how one side always calls the other ignorant.......Where is the truth? That is the question to ask.
How would you define a "bad judge"? As long as we've had courts there have been so-called bad judges but really the only requirements of a judge, especially on the Supreme Court, is to uphold the Constitution and be impartial.
You can point to many decisions over the years where the court overstepped its bounds and then sometimes later corrected itself. I am talking specifically of Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, Citizens United, and other cases where you can make the argument that their either was no constitutional basis/justification for the decision, the court made up law, or even tried to correct a previous wrong or injustice.
lordofthereef
Android Expert
One that makes an unconstitutional or unlawfull decision... this can be spun either way... as it has been spun already in this thread that democrats don't believe in the US constitution.
A lot of Republicans don't either.
Happy? Hope so, it's the truth - many politicians do not believe in the US Constitution - probably the ones that claim loudest that they do are the ones to question on that.
I've said it before, and I'll just say it often -
https://market.android.com/details?id=com.sunlightlabs.android.congress
Exercise your right to vote, use that app, track what your congress-critters are really doing, and reach out and touch them by voice or email.
Hold them accountable. It's easy, it's fun, it's the right thing to do.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
junkets
lordofthereef
Android Expert
It's not about me being happy. It's about talking smack about a whole group of people just because you (not YOU) don't believe in the same things they believe in. Why attack the group and not the ideas?
This ties into the "bad judge" thing. So many people say the judge was bad simply because he/she didn't rule the same way THEY would have. "Oh that judge ruled in favor of John Doe? She is just a bad judge then." - the mentality of many.
This ties into the "bad judge" thing. So many people say the judge was bad simply because he/she didn't rule the same way THEY would have. "Oh that judge ruled in favor of John Doe? She is just a bad judge then." - the mentality of many.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
The Dems have a lot of Conservative support (⅓ of their federal representation I think?)
Still, often parties are judged by their leaders rather than their membership and actions
(eg looking at the Dems I'd put them Center Right - Liberal, yet idealogically they ate Center Left - Liberal)
Pretty sure political demonizing has been going on here in the US since about the time of George Washington - further back if you go elsewhere. I guess the council at Athens was a scream a few thousand years ago.
lordofthereef
Android Expert
And that makes it acceptable?
I guess I simply expected some tact from fellow members. Not sure why though. You yourself pointed out it's been going on 'forever', why expect anything else, right?
I guess I will just take statements like that and dismiss them as unintelligent and unwarranted attacks to try and get a rise out of people - which they almost always seem to be anyway, sadly.
- Status