now they are floating the idea to prosecute parents of fat kids for "cruelty"

[sirs]

Missing the point is an understatement.  We're a society of laws.  It's one of the reasons we're such a great nation, that despite our flaws, including those in the justice system, because of our Constitution, and the freedoms we have from it, along with the more important concept, that of the limitations Government has, makes this country an envy of so many.

Our Constitution, is literally a rule book.  If one is playing poker, there are rules to it.  Those rules are in place so that everyone knows how it played, and the rules can be applied fairly, whether you're rich or poor, connected or not.  A straight flush beats 2 pair, every time.  Yet, there are those in this country, who would declare how "old" that rule is, and decide "today, 2 pair beats a straight flush, because....well, one person has won too many hands"

The reason so many on the left despise our constitution, and try to declare how outdated it is, is precisely because of the limitations and rules it places on our Government.  But here's the kicker, our founders put in place the mechanism to change the rules, if "human society" believed that they were outdated.  Gotta love that phrase....I think human society translates into "those of us that simply know better, than the rest of you".  In any case, if those folks believe the rules need to be changed, such as making our Government a more parental form vs a defensive form, then by all means.....AMEND the Constitution.  What you don't do is make up rules along the way, and/or decide these rules don't apply any more, and/or ignore rules that are an impediment to some ulterior agenda.

So no, my post had just the opposite point to the deflection that "God Wrote it, so it can't be changed".  Of course it can be altered in shape or form.  It's called the amendment process, so by all means, if folks think it needs altered, then they know what to do...its already established in the rules.  Hint, it doesn't mean you ignore the Constitution or the rule of law.  A straight flush still beats 2 pair   

[Xavier_Onassis]

I have said nothing to suggest that I favor the government monitoring individuals.

The 18th Amendment seemed like a great idea at the time. To understand why entirely, you would need to have lived at that time and place.

From my perspective, it indicated TWO problems with out government, not just one. The first was that it was largely enacted by a rural White Protestant population that wanted to make the foreigners (beer swilling Germans and wine guzzling Italians, for example) to become proper Americans and to stop leading decent God-fearing real Americans into their unwholesome customs. People with the same attitude as the leaders of the Temperance movement today would be at the forefront of laws to bann the government from ever respecting Sharia Law and bitching about how much they hate pressing One for English.

The second problem that it demonstrates is how incredibly slow and sluggish the process for passing legislation is: it was clear by 1925 that Prohibition was not working, but it took another 7 years to repeal the damned thing. We have a government that is designed to be dysfunctional.  Many constitutions were patterned after the US Constitution in the Americas and elsewhere, but not one included the idiotic Electoral College. I believe that every nation in the Americas that was independent by 1835 is now under a new, improved constitution.  Mexico started with the Constitution of 1824, then enacted another in 1857 and is now under the Constitution of 1917.

The US Constitution was just fine in 1790. It is now obsolete and backward and the government does not work for the benefit of the people any longer.

The amendment process is awful and sucks. The proof is that we still have the idiotic Electoral College.

[sirs]

I have said nothing to suggest that I favor the government monitoring individuals.

Who said you did?  However you "feel", the FACT remains that regardless of who wrote it, such as rural white folks, is irrelevant.  If you and your ilk don't like the limitations placed on Government, then you AMEND IT, as was designed.  You don't ignore it.  You don't make up rules along the way.  It's not "living or breathing" to rationalize new rules being made up.  You amend the Constitution, if its supposedly outdated  The LEGAL mechanisms are right there. 

We are a nation of laws.  You don't ignore laws you don't like.....that includes the Constitution.  If you & your ilk wish to change the rule of law, by all means, it can and has been done in the past, LEGALLY & CONSTITUTIONALLY

[Plane]

I have said nothing to suggest that I favor the government monitoring individuals.

  It is kind of implied.

   Monitoring our diets will require something of the sort.

[Plane]

The second problem that it demonstrates is how incredibly slow and sluggish the process for passing legislation is: it was clear by 1925 that Prohibition was not working, but it took another 7 years to repeal the damned thing. We have a government that is designed to be dysfunctional. 

    Quite the contrary, To the soldiers returning from France it seemed like a sneaky punch.

    The 18th amendment was handed to them as a feint accompli that would never be repealed, there was some benefit and a strong constituency in favor, but it didn't seem to be winning the heart of the whole nation so it got unamended.

    Do you think the 14th amendment was too hastily adopted? that one didn't take long either.


     I think the first ten were adopted all at once after all.

     The only thing that prevents a new amendment is that there is not enough popular support, the 18th one is a demonstrator that the process needs to be slow so that it avoids being capricious.

[sirs]

Precisely

[Xavier_Onassis]

You should watch that Ken Burns documentary on Prohibition. It spent very  long time being considered. Prohibition has worked in some places. There are still a number of dry counties, particularly in Oklahoma.  The problem was that it was passed with minimal input from the younger citizens, and no thought to the fact that telling people they cannot have something makes them want it more.

[sirs]

If the Constitution is "so outdated", then amend it, as it was designed to be.  This isn't rocket science, however we are a Rule of Law nation.  Alot of laws we don't like...Obamination care for one.  RvW for another.  But we don't ignore them, we abide by them, despite how irresponsible they are.  The Constitution, and how it can be amended, is no different.  You don't like?, tough.  Rule of law trumps your feelings & opinion on the matter

[Xavier_Onassis]

I still have a right to my feelings.

The Constitution is antiquated, the Amendment process sucks, and the government of this country is dysfunctional because of it.

[sirs]

Your 99% erroneous opinion is again duly noted

[Plane]

I still have a right to my feelings.

Of course you do, there is no standard of accuracy for feelings.

Is there an objective measure for how malleable and capricious the governments basic rules should be?

   Probably  not. What we have is trial and error , with fewer than one trial per decade most decades, of all decades never more than ten .

    Baseball rules change more, Golf rules change less, and a change in cricket rules just isn't cricket.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I do not believe that a government should be organized in such a way as to be incompetent and for sale to the highest bidder.

Our government is not responsive to the efficient functioning of this country and is getting worse every year.

I see no way that it is ever likely to improve.

[sirs]

Not to mention there are legal & more importantly, constitutional mechanisms to change what you and your ilk think is wrong.  Your choice for you folks to do something about it, or just squawk.  What you are NOT going to do is to try and hijack this country and the Constitution that supports it.  The 1st & 2nd amendments puts a kabosh on that tactic

[Plane]

I do not believe that a government should be organized in such a way as to be incompetent and for sale to the highest bidder.

Our government is not responsive to the efficient functioning of this country and is getting worse every year.

I see no way that it is ever likely to improve.

   Well do you want efficiency or do you want responsiveness to the people?
    This seems like two very different goals.

     Efficiency might be well served by barring Democrats from all legislative and executive jobs, but I don't think I need smooth function badly enough to shut down the few choices that the people really get.

    Giving the people more choices by having more direct democracy is notoriously inefficient and gets moreso with greater numbers, there has to be a compromise.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I would prefer getting rid of the Tea Party clowns and those who refuse to compromise.

When McConnell said that his main objective was to make Obama a one term president, he revealed himself to be unqualified to serve this country. He also revealed that he was a huge asshole. I hold fools like him responsible for this country being fucked up.