View Full Version : I was told the problem with America is... The constitution is outdated.
HBARleatherneck
12-08-2010, 16:48
delete
a cop that doesn't know the law? say it aint so.
the foundation of the country is strong. it just has a lot of dust, cobwebs and crud built up on it that needs to be scoured off.
pickenup
12-08-2010, 16:57
I would not have been able to keep my mouth shut.
BushMasterBoy
12-08-2010, 17:00
The Government would be perfect if it followed it own laws. It doesn't do that. It is an elitist organization, based on George Orwells novel "Animal Farm" not the Constitution.
I never argue with law enforcement except in court. And I have always won every case against me. I don't believe the Constitution is outdated, just that some conveniently choose to abuse our rights. God protect us from the abusers. Goddamn those that abuse us...
hurley842002
12-08-2010, 17:22
Must cool down before discussion can occur
[Bang][Bang][Bang][Bang][Bang][Bang]
OneGuy67
12-08-2010, 17:54
I'd really like the name of that particular officer. I've probably dealt with him in the past...
I believe the original Constitution is a solid piece of work and is valid today as it was when it was written.
I have a bit of a differing opinion when it comes to the Bill of Rights. When those were written it was a different time. The American people were different; Willing to fight for their rights, appreciated their freedoms and understood the intent of the Bill of Rights.
However, in the intervening years, I think alot of it has been interpreted by attorneys who have changed the intent to mean more in some cases and less in others.
I don't think we should scrap it, but clarify it. BUT in this day and age where you have to account for everyone's opinion and be politically correct, it would only get worse...
Bailey Guns
12-08-2010, 18:12
I think he meant the bill of rights was outdated. A 30+ year law enforcement officer told me this. We had been discussing searches, guns, etc. He also thought I needed an FFL to own a 50bmg. Discuss.
his solution was to get rid of it and start over with new stuff. i just kept my mouth shut. barely.
The elitist liberals tell us this all the time. It's one of their lead talking points..."The Constitution is a living, breathing document open to interpretation in the context of our modern society."
In my opinion, the Constitution is very easy to understand, doesn't need to be "interpreted" and means the same thing today as it did 200 years ago.
Why would anyone think that someone who works in law enforcement would have a better or more useful opinion about the law than anyone else? Work in a landfill and you begin to believe everything produced by people is garbage.
I have never been allowed to serve on a jury. I would love to serve on a jury; any jury for any type of crime. No defense attorney will ever allow me or anyone else who works in law enforcement to sit in judgment of another citizen. We tend to see life through "crap tinted" glasses.
I personally like our Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. When I find something better, perhaps I will swear allegiance to defend it and put my life on the line for it. I have to say, it's not looking too likely to happen in my lifetime.
ChunkyMonkey
12-08-2010, 20:20
After 30+ year, he probably is on his powertrip and think that the laws themselves are restricting him now. I have seen plenty of those who has served in leadership position in many different fields for too long. I.E. that's why we are limiting presidency term to 2 terms.
OgenRwot
12-08-2010, 20:49
There is a reason we have the oldest constitution in the world. Cause it's pretty damn good.
theGinsue
12-08-2010, 21:34
In my opinion, the Constitution is very easy to understand, doesn't need to be "interpreted" and means the same thing today as it did 200 years ago.
Agree 100%. We need to quit attempting to "interpret" the constitution and take it literally.
There is a reason we have the oldest constitution in the world. Cause it's pretty damn good.
+1
BPTactical
12-08-2010, 22:08
There is a reason we have the oldest Constitution in the world. Cause it's pretty damn good.
+2
You know I heard something during the 08 Presidential campaign that caused me to really take a hard look.
Remember when Obama said "It is time to fundamentally change America"?
WTF? America's fundamentals are sound but it's principals and players what need to change.
The continued assaults on our rights and our Constitution is what I see this "fundamental change" consisting of.
Be from a 30+ LEO veteran or our CIC, it needs to stop.
NOW
nontactical
12-08-2010, 22:26
... but since I don't have time to go through all ten ammendments, I will edit the first two in order to illustrate my point.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall it allow political correctness to single out the oldest and most well established religion of our country in favor of overly vocal fringe-leftist assholes. It shall not abridge the freedom of speech even pertaining to campaign finance, or of the press. The press shall, however, be held responsible for the accuracy of it's reporting, and shall not hold op-ed material out as accurate reporting. The right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances shall never be infinged.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State shall not be infinged. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be compromised in any way, by legislation nor by decision of the courts. Specifically tax stamps, magazine capacity limits, ugly gun bans, semi-automatic weapons bans, imported gun bans and silencer bans shall not be lawful. The right of the people to peaceably carry weapons upon their persons shall never be legislated against.
Now mind you, these are rough drafts. For posterity's sake, we may need to get rid of the term "fringe-leftist assholes". Just sayin.
But people love "change."
It is an advertising slogan like, "New and Improved."
One of the very most important characteristics of any politician is the ability to raise money. Raising money and advertising revenue are very similar. Its about branding and motivation. When was the last time you heard a product advertised as never changed, the same old thing? Eisenhower was the last US President who campaigned on the "stay the course" or we're doing fine, no need to change slogan.
Hitler sold the German people on the promise of change from the Weimar government. Change is not always good. Sometimes people need to be reminded of that, and that is what they have been learning for the past two years.
I really hope in another year as the next presidential campaign begins that someone in the media finds a few of the people who were so excited about President Obama and the idea that he was going to fix everything and all of their bills would be paid. As many on the left are finding out now, no politician is perfect and they all fall short of our expectations. Right, Left, in the end, We the People are responsible and we are the ones who will make this country what we want it to be. We will do that by teaching our children and maintaining our property and neighborhoods. We will do that by working and saving and being productive. We will do that by standing up for what we believe to be worth defending.
Our Constitution is fine. We need to have faith and determination in ourselves and those we know we can trust. What other options do we have?
theGinsue
12-08-2010, 22:41
Change is not always good. Sometimes people need to be reminded of that, and that is what they have been learning for the past two years.
Naw, you're assuming that msot of the folks have the capacity to learn anything anymore. All that's happened among the populace over the past two years is those of us who KNEW what was going to happen with this "change" received out proof.
We the People are responsible and we are the ones who will make this country what we want it to be. We will do that by teaching our children and maintaining our property and neighborhoods. We will do that by working and saving and being productive. We will do that by standing up for what we believe to be worth defending.
Sounds good but it's a pipe dream - it'll never happen. Far too many people will accept anything they have to in order to continue to have the government take care of them.
Our Constitution is fine. We need to have faith and determination in ourselves and those we know we can trust. What other options do we have?
Simply prepare yourself and your family for the worst possible scenario. I suspect we'll see some degree of it. Those of us who are prepared may get the opportunity to put the pieces back together and apply some of that "faith" you mention. Oh, and remember to pray!
the foundation of the country is strong. it just has a lot of dust, cobwebs and crud built up on it that needs to be scoured off.
I think you meant it's covered with a pile of shit a thousand miles high and wide but never the less,
The part that makes me sad isn't the destruction of freedom, those in power have been doing that since the beginning of time, it's the complacency of the average citizen. When everything comes down to the wire I fear there will not be enough left who care enough to be labeled traitors and terrorists for the sake of preserving our god given freedoms and doing what is right no matter what the government says.
clublights
12-08-2010, 22:43
There is a reason we have the oldest constitution in the world. Cause it's pretty damn good.
The Folk's from San Marino might argue that point with ya ... they got us beat by about 189 years.......
Tho Our's is considered the shortest ( at 4400 word's)
And I'll state that Our's IS the best :-)
ChunkyMonkey
12-09-2010, 00:41
The Folk's from San Marino might argue that point with ya ... they got us beat by about 189 years.......
Tho Our's is considered the shortest ( at 4400 word's)
And I'll state that Our's IS the best :-)
San Marino is independent only by name and title. It's budget is heavily subsidized by the Italian. It's also a well known tax haven and has symbolic govt. To call San Marino a country is to call Puerto Rico a nation. Both have its own rules and local govt - even consulates from different countries etc.
Just my 2 cent. [Beer]
2ndChildhood
12-09-2010, 05:44
Another issue where we need to go back a couple hundred years is the concept of a corporation.
Originally corporate law was focused on protection of the public interest, and not on the interests of corporate shareholders. Corporate charters were closely regulated by the states. Forming a corporation usually required an act of legislature.
Eventually, state governments began to realize the greater corporate registration revenues available by providing more permissive corporate laws. New Jersey was the first state to adopt an "enabling" corporate law, with the goal of attracting more business to the state. Delaware followed, and soon became known as the most corporation-friendly state in the country.
Nowadays we have situations where corporate management when it goes bad neglects the interest of not only the public, but the shareholders and employee pension holders as well. This results in Enron-like situations where management loots the corporation until it collapses. The recent mortgage crisis is an example of financial corporations doing exactly this.
MuzzleFlash
12-09-2010, 06:22
A corporation exists for one purpose - to generate wealth for the people who have pooled their fortunes to create it. This is the essence of capitalism. The owners may reap fantastic rewards if their enterprise meets the need of consumers better than competitors. On the other hand, if it misses the mark, they can lose everything and this is NOT a rare occurrence.
However, even a business that eventually fails provides jobs for a time, pays sales and property taxes, and creates additional demand for goods and services that help others.
Somewhere in the past 50 years, a perverted notion has arisen that a corporation is supposed to be some sort of sugar-daddy social benefactor that provides full employment, health care, and paid time off for self-discovery, child birth and retirement. Corporations have gone along because they have to in order to achieve their real purpose - to create wealth for their owners.
American corporations pay the second highest tax rates in the world behind only Japan. The people who put 100% of their money at risk and actually succeed at making a profit are rewarded by watching 35% skimmed off the top by Uncle Sam. If the owners withdraw some of the profits, they could be hit with long term capital gains taxes to the tune of an additional 15% or short term gains taxed as high as 36%. Obama wanted to let the Bush cuts expire so the owners would see their long capital gains rate go to 20% - a 33% increase and their short term gains tax as high as 39%. Then there's state and local taxes including Colorado's stupid tax on business equipment.
If you had a big pile of cash, would you put it all on the line for a 20% profit that would get reduced down to 10% or less by corporate and personal income taxes? Investing is risky and when the government raises taxes, it reduces the potential reward without lowering the risk. The result is less willingness to invest and therefore less economic activity.
Even socialist economies like those in Europe get this point and most tax coporate income and capital gains at much lower rates than we do.
MuzzleFlash
12-09-2010, 06:52
... The recent mortgage crisis is an example of financial corporations doing exactly this.
I don't think corporations are interested in committing suicide. The perps at Enron thought they would never get caught. They were parasites that concealed their illicit embezzlement of the corporate treasury. They weren't trying to kill Enron. That would expose their crimes.
The recent financial crisis has many contributing causes but by far, the biggest problem was the toxic turd sandwiches that were being created by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - both government backed entities that bundled shitty mortgages into "structured investment vehicles". A lot of the toxic crap came from so called no-doc, no-down mortgages designed for illegal aliens and for poor people because denying them would expose the lenders to accusations of discrimination and redlining of neighborhoods. Brokers who had no skin in the game after the loan closes would push people into ARMs and convince them they could always refi before the rate jumped. Risk was everywhere but everyone, including Freddie and Fannie were in denial.
These mortgage backed securities were negligently overrated by Moodys and other rating agencies and found their way into insurance and banking portfolios as supposed high-grade investments. Once the real-estate bubble burst, the whole house of cards tumbled down, panic ensued and the lending institutions freaked. They stopped lending because they didn't have enough ASSETs in reserve to cover new loans after taking the big write downs.
It wasn't like no one saw it coming:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63siCHvuGFg
Bailey Guns
12-09-2010, 08:47
actually in some of our conversations he has said that exact thing, Bailey. I think word for word. scary. he is a republican.
Unfortunately, calling yourself a republican doesn't mean you're not liberal. Ask John McCain.
Reminds me of a liberal who told me the Declaration of Independence was 'just happy words'. [Rant1][Rant1][Rant1]
... but since I don't have time to go through all ten ammendments, I will edit the first two in order to illustrate my point.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall it allow political correctness to single out the oldest and most well established religion of our country in favor of overly vocal fringe-leftist assholes. It shall not abridge the freedom of speech even pertaining to campaign finance, or of the press. The press shall, however, be held responsible for the accuracy of it's reporting, and shall not hold op-ed material out as accurate reporting. The right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances shall never be infinged.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State shall not be infinged. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be compromised in any way, by legislation nor by decision of the courts. Specifically tax stamps, magazine capacity limits, ugly gun bans, semi-automatic weapons bans, imported gun bans and silencer bans shall not be lawful. The right of the people to peaceably carry weapons upon their persons shall never be legislated against.
Now mind you, these are rough drafts. For posterity's sake, we may need to get rid of the term "fringe-leftist assholes". Just sayin.
Dont forget automatic weapon restrictions, but maybe you covered that in your tax stamps.
Looks good to me.
ChunkyMonkey
12-09-2010, 11:07
Another issue where we need to go back a couple hundred years is the concept of a corporation.
Originally corporate law was focused on protection of the public interest, and not on the interests of corporate shareholders. Corporate charters were closely regulated by the states. Forming a corporation usually required an act of legislature.
Eventually, state governments began to realize the greater corporate registration revenues available by providing more permissive corporate laws. New Jersey was the first state to adopt an "enabling" corporate law, with the goal of attracting more business to the state. Delaware followed, and soon became known as the most corporation-friendly state in the country.
Nowadays we have situations where corporate management when it goes bad neglects the interest of not only the public, but the shareholders and employee pension holders as well. This results in Enron-like situations where management loots the corporation until it collapses. The recent mortgage crisis is an example of financial corporations doing exactly this.
You cannot be more wrong. In a free enterprise system, corporations must do good for the public in order to survive - as simple as that. The least intervention and regulations the better. No fed, no state regulations. There was a moment in The US history when the corporations and the unions are doing their own check and balance - Now, both of them are managed by crooks! You gave a great example - Enron was corrupt and hence its downfall. At the end, Conoco, Amoco, Phillips, and Chevron were able to gain market share.
As far as the mortgage crisis - you should look at your own government and regulations. Look up why the banks (backed by Freddie, Fannie, and FHA) MUST lend subprime loans. Look up 'redlining' rules. In short - as a lender, I am not allowed to say NO, You are just too much risk for us if I want to lend money to the Well qualified, +networth individuals. Banks were forced to be 'equal.' Noone and no free enterprises in US would ever intentionally lend money to someone who cannot pay them back.
One extremely obvious proof is 95% of all foreclosures are Freddie, Fannie, and FHA loans. Portfolio loans (Private Bank held) see extremely little default. Locally here, you can see how many freddie/fannie/HUD(FHA) foreclosure listings, but if you walk up to local portfolio bank like Citywide Bank and ask for their foreclosure list - they probably would laugh at you. They have had ONE foreclosure in the last 3 years. ONE!
IMHO you are mistaken speculation by Wallstreet with Corporate America - as many politicians connect those two together. The last crisis is a perfect example how govt regulation can ruin the market.
The last crisis is a perfect example how govt regulation can ruin the market.
+1 and Amen. Bailouts should not be an option. In a free market, if you can't manage your own finances appropiately, then you fail and someone else takes your customers/market/etc. You learn and move on. Granted, it's a very painful lesson, but one that is needed most times.
How do you feel about FDIC and government backed deposit insurance for banks and savings and loans?
I am not for bailouts in general as I really don't like the phrase; "Too big to fail." If anything, it is the smaller investor/depositor who can least afford to take the loss. A million to a billionaire is a small loss. A hundred to an unemployed, single parent is devastating.
I believe most people in the US want there to be some type of safety net. I think where the tension begins is how big should the net be and who should be responsible for that net. When the government (local/state/federal) take responsibility for providing services, they displace most if not all of the organizations that once provided those services.
Most of us on this board (I'm making an assumption here) seem to be relatively self sufficient. We want to and do take care of business. We expect little of others and do for ourselves what we can. Many of us even pitch in and do for others when we can and we see a need. Most of also probably know someone who through no fault of their own, need help. In my perfect world, those needs would be met by family, friends, and religious communities who are called to be our brother's keeper.
Government in any form is cold and bureaucratic. The individual employees are limited by the structure the serve within and over time they see the people they serve as less than individual human beings and more as tasks to be accomplished.
Just my opinions.
Our Constitution is like a well worn boat: Basically sound, but in need of having the barnacles and other parasites scraped off of the structure to allow it to function as designed.
More than 90% of the federal budget is devoted to "essential" programs and entitlements that are in no way, shape, or form mandated by the Constitution, yet are considered untouchable when it comes time to try to cut spending. More than 1 person in 4 in the US works for the government directly at one level or another. Governments produce nothing (other than paperwork), and my personal opinion is that there is virtually noting that the government does that cannot be done better, faster, cheaper, and more effectively by the private sector. The exceptions might be national defense and courts, although there are good arguments for privatizing those as well.
/rant
How do you feel about FDIC and government backed deposit insurance for banks and savings and loans?
I am not for bailouts in general as I really don't like the phrase; "Too big to fail." If anything, it is the smaller investor/depositor who can least afford to take the loss. A million to a billionaire is a small loss. A hundred to an unemployed, single parent is devastating.
I believe most people in the US want there to be some type of safety net. I think where the tension begins is how big should the net be and who should be responsible for that net. When the government (local/state/federal) take responsibility for providing services, they displace most if not all of the organizations that once provided those services.
Most of us on this board (I'm making an assumption here) seem to be relatively self sufficient. We want to and do take care of business. We expect little of others and do for ourselves what we can. Many of us even pitch in and do for others when we can and we see a need. Most of also probably know someone who through no fault of their own, need help. In my perfect world, those needs would be met by family, friends, and religious communities who are called to be our brother's keeper.
Government in any form is cold and bureaucratic. The individual employees are limited by the structure the serve within and over time they see the people they serve as less than individual human beings and more as tasks to be accomplished.
Just my opinions.
Is this directed at me? I'll try to answer as best as I can. This may sound hypocritical but it's how I feel. I think that FDIC for individual accounts is fine. Everything else should be "user beware". My reasoning is that the individual is using his account to secure money, however the bank uses that money to make it's own money. So, the bank can fail (and should if mismanaged) but the individuals account should be protected by good faith. Even then I recommend most people use a Credit Union as the people themselves are mostly directly responsible for the management and running of the establishment.
The rest of your post I agree with. Hope that makes sense...
I try not to direct my posts at anyone. "Always keep my opinion pointed in a safe direction." This thread and the other recent thread are just topics I normally enjoy discussing. I just like playing devil's advocate from time to time.
I was on active duty when a savings and loan (S&L) my money was in failed. Fortunately for me, my mom also had money there and she stood in line and got most of our money out before they closed. Sort of like the bank crashes in 1929, but actually the S&L crisis of 1985. I was responsible to the point that I didn't really do much research into the S&L other than it was paying really nice interest rates on accounts. At the time, almost no S&Ls were covered by any type of depositor insurance. I was an E-4, so losing my life's savings (not a lot) was going to have a great impact on me. Congress (another name for the tax payers) later stepped in and bailed out all of us depositors, so we did get all of our money back. If I haven't thanked everyone of the American taxpayers in the 1980's, Thank You!
The guy who ran that S&L into the ground eventually went to jail, along with his wife and a few members of the board. This didn't save the taxpayers any money, in fact housing criminals cost the tax payers a lot of money. Ironic in so many ways.
This is my mindset when I hear about bail outs. In general, I don't like them. At a personal level, it is hard to criticize something I have benefited from.
Just for the record, I am all for punishing the wicked. [Coffee]
Rgr, good story and I'm glad it worked out for you. I believe it worked the way it "was supposed too ideally". The individual (you) were able to get your money back, while the company (S&L) should've failed and those responsible go to jail...
I agree with your "just for teh record" statement too. Make an example out of people and it WILL give others second thoughts about doing the same thing.
Sharpienads
12-09-2010, 18:21
The Constitution is a living and breathing document... through the ammendment process. Article V explains the ammendment process.
No matter how benevolent the reason, anything our federal government does outside of its enumerated powers is pure evil. We're becoming a nation ruled by men, not ruled by law. This is exactly why the Declaration of Independence was written, why our Constitution was written, and why our forefathers fought the Revolution.
Unless of course you site the elusive "Good and Welfare Clause" of our beloved Constitution like Rep John Conyers, then I guess you can do pretty much whatever you want.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/mar/23/conyers-makes-constitutional-law-citing-good-and-w/
ChunkyMonkey
12-09-2010, 18:40
This is my mindset when I hear about bail outs. In general, I don't like them. At a personal level, it is hard to criticize something I have benefited from.
Just for the record, I am all for punishing the wicked. [Coffee]
I think we are mixing up corporate bail outs with consumer protectionism. Consumer protection in the Fed level to me is part of the federal mandate to protect the free market. Corporate bail out is not.
In a true free market economy, when I invest or deposit my money with an expectation of earning interest, I do so with the idea that there is always some risk involved. Whether I as an individual or as a corporation put my money into any investment, it is done at my own peril. I do not expect nor am I entitled to any insurance by the tax payers of the USA. If the tax payers, through their elected representatives choose to insure me for my losses, and I take that payment, then I am grateful and have little to say about others (including corporations) who do likewise.
The real problem with taking the money is when you decide that it was wrong, there is no way to give it back.
2ndChildhood
12-10-2010, 06:21
Regarding corporate fraud in the current crisis-
Does anyone remember the Savings and Loan crisis in the 1980's?
The one where the feds went in and convicted thousands of bank executives who were looting the system?
The one where the fed created the resolution trust Co. that went in and made money for the government by buying up the assets and writing off the bad ones and selling the good ones?
Well, one of the head investigators for that crisis was William Black and he's been screaming his head off about this one.
He says;
-This was fraud at the highest level in the most prestigious financial institutions in the country.
-Bailing out the banks was the exact wrong thing to do.
-There have been very few prosecutions and 1000's are needed.
-Too big to fail means too big to be allowed to continue in business.
-Summers and Geithner should never have been allowed to be in charge of the bailouts, they are wolves guarding the henhouse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld5tERIBvsg
https://webdisk.lclark.edu/econ/steinhardt2010/steinhardt2010.html
The elitist liberals tell us this all the time. It's one of their lead talking points..."The Constitution is a living, breathing document open to interpretation in the context of our modern society."
In my opinion, the Constitution is very easy to understand, doesn't need to be "interpreted" and means the same thing today as it did 200 years ago.
this is how I feel
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.