VoidTerraFirma
Live to wine
Word salad rating 10/10
OMG Politics, I'm over it already.
- Thread starter sunvalleylaw
- Start date
- Status
Word salad rating 10/10
Flamencology
You don't deserve koa.
And this is where blind patriotism obscures pragmatism.
Flipside, Washington and Hamilton would've been like "states rights? Fuck that shit."
sunvalleylaw
Yep.
@mongooz Now hold on there 
, I did not say the Const. should be changed willy nilly every five minutes by a simple popular vote or anything like that. I don't really think that is practical, and I like the idea of a framework of rights, along with a system of government with checks and balances as set forth. And rights are not subject to popular vote. There obviously can be amendments, but that is pretty hard to get done. Can you imagine getting something like a Const. Amendment done in today's political climate, much less an entire rewrite as suggested by @Flamencology ?
It is SCOTUS'S job to interpret it given new factual situations before it, based on precedent (written legal decisions) as decided over time. Its power to do that was established in Marbury v. Madison, under Article III of the US Const., a very long time ago. So it is a living and evolving document, as interpreted by the high court. But it is anchored in its original language. That is how I personally think it should be. It is also why I dislike the idea of appointing supreme court justices based on perceptions of their political views. The job really should be about legal analysis. Granted, a person's beliefs and politics may affect that analysis, but generally, even justices viewed as one side of the political spectrum vs. the other have voted against a perceived party line at least once in a while, mostly. That is also why the process of judicial appointments has not always been so politicized. A guy like Bork, who never made it on, or Rehnquist, held more strict constructionist views, and in theory stuck pretty close to the law as written. Scalia had his originalism theory, but as applied, that seemed to mean whatever he wanted it to. Warren and Marshall were more willing to look at desired social outcomes. But in none of those cases were the votes clearly along party lines all the time. Tended to depend on the issue at hand.
When you have a panel of 9, one tends to have a mix of views. That mix moves one way or the other depending on the people on board. But generally you have a mix.
And so the Constitution evolves over time.
, I did not say the Const. should be changed willy nilly every five minutes by a simple popular vote or anything like that. I don't really think that is practical, and I like the idea of a framework of rights, along with a system of government with checks and balances as set forth. And rights are not subject to popular vote. There obviously can be amendments, but that is pretty hard to get done. Can you imagine getting something like a Const. Amendment done in today's political climate, much less an entire rewrite as suggested by @Flamencology ?It is SCOTUS'S job to interpret it given new factual situations before it, based on precedent (written legal decisions) as decided over time. Its power to do that was established in Marbury v. Madison, under Article III of the US Const., a very long time ago. So it is a living and evolving document, as interpreted by the high court. But it is anchored in its original language. That is how I personally think it should be. It is also why I dislike the idea of appointing supreme court justices based on perceptions of their political views. The job really should be about legal analysis. Granted, a person's beliefs and politics may affect that analysis, but generally, even justices viewed as one side of the political spectrum vs. the other have voted against a perceived party line at least once in a while, mostly. That is also why the process of judicial appointments has not always been so politicized. A guy like Bork, who never made it on, or Rehnquist, held more strict constructionist views, and in theory stuck pretty close to the law as written. Scalia had his originalism theory, but as applied, that seemed to mean whatever he wanted it to. Warren and Marshall were more willing to look at desired social outcomes. But in none of those cases were the votes clearly along party lines all the time. Tended to depend on the issue at hand.
When you have a panel of 9, one tends to have a mix of views. That mix moves one way or the other depending on the people on board. But generally you have a mix.
And so the Constitution evolves over time.
Last edited:
OGG
Master of the Meh
I can't even begin to imagine how FUBAR the process of trying to make a new amendment to the Constitution would be in today's world.
Anybody who even suggested such a thing would get crucified regardless of what the intent was.
Funny thing the Constitution. It is at once a perfect document, and a perfectly flawed document. It only depends on whom is feeling infringed upon and in what fashion that determines such.
It's ironic that the populous most vocal about strict adherence to, most vocal about its black and white nature, most outspoken about its sacredness and the protections it provides, are the ones least willing to amend it... or even acknowledge the amendments already in place that don't specifically cater to them and their beliefs.
If not for the amendments in place, we would be a very different, unarmed nation.
Anybody who even suggested such a thing would get crucified regardless of what the intent was.
Funny thing the Constitution. It is at once a perfect document, and a perfectly flawed document. It only depends on whom is feeling infringed upon and in what fashion that determines such.
It's ironic that the populous most vocal about strict adherence to, most vocal about its black and white nature, most outspoken about its sacredness and the protections it provides, are the ones least willing to amend it... or even acknowledge the amendments already in place that don't specifically cater to them and their beliefs.
If not for the amendments in place, we would be a very different, unarmed nation.
Peen Simmons
Let’s Get Obtuse!
All of the founding fathers were jerks. Even that guy in the hip hop musical. They were elitist enlightenment weirdos whose world view has been pitched over the side several times over.
And that goes double if we want to dabble in presentism--they didn't like Black Sabbath, they didn't own cell phones, they let their young children drink alcoholic beverages for breakfast, they thought changing their shirt was a good substitute for a hot shower, etc. In short, they aren't the sort of leaders the MWGL forums need.
Help!I'maRock!
Mediocringly Derivative
Ted Cruz will ban Black Sabbath and bomb the tritone back into the Stone Age.
335clone
Living the dream
Gonna have to disagree. Reagan didn't put the fear of annihilation into the hearts of the Iranians. On the contrary, he secretly negotiated with them to further his political ambition, which directly led to the hostages being held longer than they would have. He undermined a sitting president and aided our enemies. The conservative messiah was a real piece of work.
micwalt
Too Controversial To Have An Athleisure Line
This.
OGG
Master of the Meh
I have read this theory many times. Sounds legit. Of course, there's no proof. Either way, it speaks to his cowboy like cavalier mentality. What I do know for sure, beyond the shadow of a doubt as a kid at the time who was very aware, and was an insatiable news junkie and voracious reader... Reagan scared the buhgeezis out of me and a whole lot of others.
Sure, Brezhnev was terrifying.
Andropov? Absolutely.
In fact, the period of years wherein Soviet leaders were dropping like flies, was incredibly stressful and scary. But not because of the Soviets, because of Ronnie.
As hard line crazy as the string of Soviet Leaders were, they were still predictable and almost certain to stay the course that was in place. Reagan was always the wild card with a reputation for basically inciting our foes to give him a reason to pull the trigger.
His dichotomous practice of going from extreme to extreme opposite was scary as fuck. For every sappy, flower power gushing "tear down this wall" speach, or his speach following the Challenger disaster that lulled us into falsely assuming he wasn't a complete psycho, he would turn around and lash out with absolute disregard.
I was certain that I would never see the 1990s. I was certain none of us would. And that certainty went by the name of "Dutch".
mongooz
.
not to play the "who can one up the other".....but i didn't think i'd see the end of the 60's.
brezhnev, andropov, etal.....were NOTHING compared to Nakita Kruschev. when he was pounding his SHOE on the podium screaming how they (USSR) were going to destroy Amerika....and then they installed nuclear missles in cuba....and then.....holy jeebuz we were scared. we did nuclear drills in school. several friends dads had fall out shelters in the back yard.
Ronnie was a loose cannon for sure. but the showdown between Nakita and JFK was earth shaking.
just sayin'wave0
335clone
Living the dream
He was an actor, and played his part with gusto. I agree he was a loose canon but a lot of that was just for show, and it worked. But don't think for a minute that Iran shit their pants over his bombast, when his future VP was already in negotiations with them before the election. If you do the research, the truth is there.
rhino
Kick Henry Jackassowski
Yup
OGG
Master of the Meh
Yeah. There's definitely plenty of smoke there. Whether he scared the Iranians or secretly sold the military farm to them in a brokered deal before taking office, the rest of the world was still scared shitless.
Yeah, I can't imagine that. As powerfully stifling as the Cold War was in the 80s, I know it doesn't compare to the outright hysteria of the Kruschev years. The 80s was more resignation than hysteria. By that point, we just all assumed a nuclear exchange was inevitable. I guess that was somewhat liberating compared to the uncertainty of the early 60s.
sunvalleylaw
Yep.
Living in Tacoma, near McChord AFB, Ft. Lewis, Bremerton Naval Shipyard, Bangor Nuclear Sub base, and etc., and on the coast closer to Russia, I just figured at least it would be over quick and I probably would not even know that it happened. Pretty much all during the Cold War growing up, once I became aware. Never really bothered thinking about bomb shelters or duck and cover. I figured if my Naval Reserve Dad didn't think it was worth it to do, I wouldn't worry about it either.
rhino
Kick Henry Jackassowski
I'd like to thank everyone for keeping this thread (mostly) civil. We have a "no politics" rule here on the forum because typically political and religious threads turn into complete shitstorms on any and every forum I've ever participated in but the fact that you guys can disagree so vehemently on some things and still discuss them civilly in this thread makes me happy. Officially this thread is against the rules but I wanted to see how it worked out since we live in such politically charged times and at the core of it this is a community of friends and acquaintances who meet almost regularly....I see you guys online more than I see my own friends or extended family.
So thank you again for keeping it cool and carry on.
So thank you again for keeping it cool and carry on.
mongooz
.
yea.....who'd have thought we get 37 pages and no flames. :madpoke:
Flamencology
You don't deserve koa.
Thanks, Mark, for allowing it.
Especially in an election year, IMHO, limiting discourse leads almost inevitably to the bottling-up of intense thoughts and feelings, and that's not healthy.
Especially in an election year, IMHO, limiting discourse leads almost inevitably to the bottling-up of intense thoughts and feelings, and that's not healthy.
- Status