Alright Constitutional Scholars...

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I had some super fresh and super tasty fish last week in Malibu..

Malibu, FTW!

My brother's family has a beach house just past the county line. The wife and I stay there everytime we visit LA.

wow you are lucky

it was my first time in Malibu.. I loved it there.. definitely want to go back.. we camped at the Leo Carillo Campground.. it was really nice

You were not too far away from the beach house. If you saw a 48 year old man riding a Boogi Board, that would be my brother. Everybody else that age has graduated to a surf board long ago.

[ThaitoUSA 15]

Looks like this Constitutional scholar showed up a day late! Would love to discuss it further if anyone else is still interested.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Looks like this Constitutional scholar showed up a day late! Would love to discuss it further if anyone else is still interested.

This thread was started because I challenged Bat Guano's reasoning re the issue of "general welfare" in the context of the US Constitution on another thread. However, when an issue becomes too complex, the thread digresses into something easy to discuss. This thread is an example of that happening. I gave up on the topic already. Not enough knowledge among the posters to sustain it. FYI: Topics of substance don't do well on the OT.

[scandal 951]

Looks like this Constitutional scholar showed up a day late! Would love to discuss it further if anyone else is still interested.

I'd be happy to Pete. I get a real kick out of serious discussions of the relevance of the Constitution to the serious issues of our day.

I don't know if you've read through the entire thread until this point, there's quite a lot here.

A quick crib note of the who's who and what's what --

* there are the usual left/right folks. The "left" has folks like me, Steve (Colonel Bat) and Spookyturtle (I think I can categorize you guys as "left"?) The right has lots of evil villains who spout their horrible lies (<- please note the emot!!!!!! that's a joke, ppl!)

* there are folks who don't seem to cut to a true left/right. Madame Cleo and Mr.Bill for example.

* there's Gary - who apparently stakes out the position that key federal programs such as Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional and takes the notion of strict constructionist to an extreme (at least that's my take on him). I don't classify him as "right' because he goes way beyond the conventional "right" on this. He's in a camp of his own (well, maybe along with Ron Paul and similar ....)

* there's constellation - who thinks America is a ####### country and everything sucks here, and it sucks because we waste our time discussing an irrelevant 200 year old piece of parchment instead of fixing the potholes in Detroit. Or something like that....

So, to start off, how's about this for a topic:

We're likely to get a pick from Obama this week for the Supreme Court. Should Obama pick a conventional jurist from the circuit courts like Diane Wood? Or will he go for an outsider like Jennifer Granholm or Janet Napolitano?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Looks like this Constitutional scholar showed up a day late! Would love to discuss it further if anyone else is still interested.

I'd be happy to Pete. I get a real kick out of serious discussions of the relevance of the Constitution to the serious issues of our day.

I don't know if you've read through the entire thread until this point, there's quite a lot here.

A quick crib note of the who's who and what's what --

* there are the usual left/right folks. The "left" has folks like me, Steve (Colonel Bat) and Spookyturtle (I think I can categorize you guys as "left"?) The right has lots of evil villains who spout their horrible lies (<- please note the emot!!!!!! that's a joke, ppl!)

* there are folks who don't seem to cut to a true left/right. Madame Cleo and Mr.Bill for example.

* there's Gary - who apparently stakes out the position that key federal programs such as Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional and takes the notion of strict constructionist to an extreme (at least that's my take on him). I don't classify him as "right' because he goes way beyond the conventional "right" on this. He's in a camp of his own (well, maybe along with Ron Paul and similar ....)

* there's constellation - who thinks America is a ####### country and everything sucks here, and it sucks because we waste our time discussing an irrelevant 200 year old piece of parchment instead of fixing the potholes in Detroit. Or something like that....

So, to start off, how's about this for a topic:

We're likely to get a pick from Obama this week for the Supreme Court. Should Obama pick a conventional jurist from the circuit courts like Diane Wood? Or will he go for an outsider like Jennifer Granholm or Janet Napolitano?

Notice he left me out. He likes to act as though I don't exist due to his prejudice against Arab Muslims.

[My Name Is Nobody 3]

We're likely to get a pick from Obama this week for the Supreme Court. Should Obama pick a conventional jurist from the circuit courts like Diane Wood? Or will he go for an outsider like Jennifer Granholm or Janet Napolitano?

Oh god help us.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

We're likely to get a pick from Obama this week for the Supreme Court. Should Obama pick a conventional jurist from the circuit courts like Diane Wood? Or will he go for an outsider like Jennifer Granholm or Janet Napolitano?

Oh god help us.

Speculation over who Obama will or should pick has nothing to do with the Constitutional question that began the topic.

[Heracles 417]

Looks like this Constitutional scholar showed up a day late! Would love to discuss it further if anyone else is still interested.

This thread was started because I challenged Bat Guano's reasoning re the issue of "general welfare" in the context of the US Constitution on another thread. However, when an issue becomes too complex, the thread digresses into something easy to discuss. This thread is an example of that happening. I gave up on the topic already. Not enough knowledge among the posters to sustain it. FYI: Topics of substance don't do well on the OT.

Just a bit of fun. But in all seriousness, why is it so hard for anyone here to accept any criticism of the constitution? If Australia's constitution was not appropriate in certain areas I would welcome and accept feedback. I don't think many Aussie's would have this similar how dare you attitude. Change is essential to make something great. Failure to change has led to the collapse of many countries.

There are quite a few clauses in the constitution that are not only too vague but also inappropriate for the 21st century. For example, the constitution provides way too many rights for criminals. To the point that they have more rights than that of good honest people here. I don't believe the founding fathers of this nation would have ever fathomed a country or that there would be a time when groups like MS-13, the mafia and gangs like the crips would be terrorizing the community and using the laws to their advantage. a time when American after American is ending up lying in their own blood, while police have to tippy toe around 12,001 rules and regulations in order to ensure they are not sued.

Here is an example of a difference in laws. Melbourne is starting to experience an upswing in violence amongst the youth, who are carrying weapons . Therefore the federal constitution and state's laws allow the state government to pass the appropriate legislation allowing the police to carry metal detectors and conduct random on-the-spot checks of anyone deemed suspicious. Now that is what I call power to the people. While it is not an indefinite rule of law, it allows the police to search those deemed a hazard in order to protect the community. Whereas, the thought of such measures in the United States, even in cities where people are killed each and every day, would never ever happen, ever. The ACLU and so on would sue sue sue using the various amendments in the constitution. Therefore, while the courts get to decide what is or is not constitutional, Americans continue to die on the streets and in their homes.

For anyone to sit there and attempt to suggest this similar rate of crime happens everywhere, well you're wrong. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but it does not. Furthermore, for anyone to suggest that we'll we are extremely free and that is all that matters. You are wrong there two because you are not free to go anywhere. If you end up in the wrong place, you can and will be killed. I highly doubt this is the America the founding fathers envisioned.

[Heracles 417]

* there are the usual left/right folks. The "left" has folks like me, Steve (Colonel Bat) and Spookyturtle (I think I can categorize you guys as "left"?) The right has lots of evil villains who spout their horrible lies (<- please note the emot!!!!!! that's a joke, ppl!)

That explains a lot actually.

Out of curiosity, would you classify yourself as a liberal?

[scandal 951]

There are quite a few clauses in the constitution that are not only too vague but also inappropriate for the 21st century. For example, the constitution provides way too many rights for criminals. To the point that they have more rights than that of good honest people here. I don't believe the founding fathers of this nation would have ever fathomed a country or that there would be a time when groups like MS-13, the mafia and gangs like the crips would be terrorizing the community and using the laws to their advantage. a time when American after American is ending up lying in their own blood, while police have to tippy toe around 12,001 rules and regulations in order to ensure they are not sued.

Oh goody goody! :dance:

Time for more fun constellation? I actually get a kick out of having this out with you.

Please point out those sections of the Constitution that provide "too many rights for criminals". My take on it is that the Constitution, and more specifically the Bill of Rights, 4th and 5th amendments, attempt to provide a reasonable balance for the rights of the accused and the rights of the state to apprehend criminals. Due process, fair trials, search and seizure, rights against self incrimination, etc.

You are right that the founding fathers did not live in a time of organized crime, street gangs, and the terrorist threats of our times.

But you are wrong that our laws have remained static and cannot confront these threats.

We have the RICO statute, a federal law passed in 1970 specifically to allow law enforcement to bust up organized crime and the Mob. It's also been an effective tool against terrorist activity.

And we have the FISA statute, passed in 1978, which recognized the urgent national security need for secret wiretaps that would be constitutional and enforced by a court order, and yet still allow Law Enforcement to tap the communications of the bad guys without tipping them off had they gotten the court order in open court.

Those are just examples. There are many other laws which give our local police forces, state police, FBI, DEA, etc. the enforcement tools they need and yet still protect our civil liberties.

It's a very dynamic and evolving system which is hardly stuck in the 18th century. It derives its power from a large body of legal precedent accumulated over the years, and fundamental principles of the need to balance the rights of the collective and the rights of the individual.

[scandal 951]

* there are the usual left/right folks. The "left" has folks like me, Steve (Colonel Bat) and Spookyturtle (I think I can categorize you guys as "left"?) The right has lots of evil villains who spout their horrible lies (<- please note the emot!!!!!! that's a joke, ppl!)

That explains a lot actually.

Out of curiosity, would you classify yourself as a liberal?

By and large, yes. I tend to be moderate on most issues. I am a registered Democrat and usually vote Democrat, although I have voted for Republicans and have taken "conservative" positions on certain issues when I feel they are right in principle.

I like to think that I am independently minded, willing to listen to all sides of an issue and give credence to all reasonable views. I can't stand extremists of any sort.

There are many conservatives that I respect greatly in US political life, even when I don't agree with them on all issues. For example, I think Lindsay Graham, the Republican Senator from South Carolina, is a fine man. Obviously I disagree with him on issues such as abortion. I don't expect to agree with everyone on everything! But he is intelligent, articulate, and makes reasoned arguments for his positions. I may surprise some of my "left' friends by saying that I respect Newt Gingrich! I oppose him also on many policy matters, but I think he's intelligent, and advocates his side of the debate well. He is extremely shrewd politically and has a no-holds-barred attitude for political fights (recall the Lewinsky impeachment) - but anyone playing in the arena with Newt should expect that kind of treatment. I like Newt - he has a sense of humor and can admit mistakes, which can't be said for the dour/sour types like Rove and Cheney.

[Heracles 417]

...

The first aspect is to discuss whether there is a problem. You obviously think not. Therefore, trying to show or prove otherwise is almost an impossible task. Furthermore, you will go on the defensive. As guns owners do with regards to the second amendment. It doesn't really matter what evidence, research, statistics and so forth anyone shows or proves about the logic in restricting guns, they will still disregard it on the grounds that it goes against their ideology. It is the same deal with the constitution. It is the same deal with liberal Americans and the first amendment or the separation of church and state; which might I add, I'm still trying to find in the constitution. Any hints where that phrase is?

No, I have not studied every state's individual laws or carried out a study to see how the constitution directly affects or exasperates crime. On face value I can look at Australia, the UK, Singapore etc and then look at the United States and make logical assumptions. I know that in countries like Saudi Arabia I can leave a child on a street corner and know very well that the chance of them being kidnapped is quite slim. Whereas carry out the same experiment in any US city and I highly doubt the child will be there after a few hours or ever be found again. While we can debate the reason to why that is, or how much people hate their tough law enforcement, the results and their extremely low crime rate speaks for itself. Something people will ignore and disregard simple because they have laws stricter to that of our own. Or because we don't agree with their lifestyle.

I have a range of avenues which allow me to, on face value, notice the differences. Avenues such as newspapers, the news, anecdotal evidence and so forth. When I see the police trying to proactively protect a community that has people murdered in it every single day yet see the ACLU suing because it's unconstitutional, it's quite easy to make the connection between why crime thrives here in comparison to other developed countries. While guns are part of the problem, they are neither the cause nor the solution. People have access to guns downunder but you don't see drive by shootings. Why do you think that is? Instead of 10 guns Aussies will have 2 guns, nonetheless, I don't see anywhere near the same homicide rate that I do here.

The biggest failure is the failure for people to make the connection. As well as the failure to acknowledge the real issues.

Edited May 25, 2009 by Constellation

[Heracles 417]

Melbourne is a city of 3.6 million. I challenge you to find me a place, a street actually that you cannot walk down out of fear of being murdered. Can you say the same for Chicago?

Why do you think that is? First off, the police would have setup base camp there and targeted any offenders head on. Couldn't happen here as it would be considered profiling, unconstitutional or probably racist. Our police are also run by the state, therefore they have the appropriate resources to tackle crime. They are not restricted by the limitations and inefficiency of a county or city run police. Common sense, the poor areas will have the worst police due to lack of funding. Ironically this inefficiency is something actually protected by the constitution here (cities / counties rights).

We the people stand behind our police and the right of others to live in a crime free society. Now that is what our constitution protects.

Edited May 25, 2009 by Constellation

[Marilyn. 340]

interesting reads here...

http://enc.slider.com/Enc/Crime_in_Melbourne

http://enc.slider.com/Enc/Crime_in_Sydney

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_m...ia#20th_century

Edited May 25, 2009 by *Marilyn*

[Heracles 417]

You won't see families having to sleep in the center of their homes each and every night out of fear of being shot. that is, to ensure they are not killed by stray bullets.

Once again I hate to be the bearer of bad news but that is not something common in other developed countries. Guns are not to blame for that either. It is the fact that the police are helpless to do anything about it. It is the fact the the constitution mandates cities and counties manage their police force ensuring they are inefficient. It is the fact that random road blocks or police checks are considered unconstitutional. It is the fact that the police have no right to pull over a car, without probably cause, and ask what four guys are doing cruising around at 3am.