Everyone's favorite federal bench, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, has now ruled that threatening the life of the President of the United States is now protected free speech. Yes. Really. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152934,00.html Also, a group of folks are meeting at Yale to discuss ways to shred, oh, excuse me, "re-interpret" and "expand" the Constitution (because it is, after all, a "living document" that must change and flex with the times! :dis: ) http://constitutionin2020.blogspot.com/ http://islandia.law.yale.edu/acs/conference/index.asp Reason to be concerned? Yes, with this group: The Open Society Institute was founded by George Soros, billionaire financier, avowed enemy of George W. Bush, American military power, and Judeo-Christian culture, and an ardent transnationalist and believer in the ideal of one-world government. The Institute pretty much reflects his beliefs on the Constitution and what the U.S.'s role in the world should be. No doubt Yale Law School and this conference does as well. I'm sure many lovely ideas about the Constitution came out of that meeting.
Well, the Bush thing is obsurd. No way that charge should have been dropped, combined with his earlier comment. We've done a lot more to people who have done a lot less. Does anyone think the Constitution SHOULDN'T be a flexible document that changes in the future? The speed of progress on so many fronts has picked up so much in the past 100 years, in the next 100, most of the document won't even apply to society. Plus, there is totally nothing in there regarding flying cars. . .
This is frightening thinking on a lot of levels. Who gets to decide whether or not segments of the Constitution are relevant to today's world? What parts wouldn't be? Why eliminate them in any case? Technology changes. Basic, God-given rights don't.
Not at all, Thomas Jefferson himself made two important statements which apply here: First, he said that to ensure that each generation have a say in the framework of the government, he proposed that the Constitution, and each one following it, expire after 19 or 20 years. And secondly, he declared "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive...(of the rights of the people)...it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.…" Now i'm not in ANY form saying American Goverment as it is, or as it ever was, was destructive, but I think by updating it (real updates, not minimal single topic changes like most of the amendments), we can go a long way from allowing that to happen.
Red and GMan are both right though. God-given rights as citizens don't and shouldn't change. The interpretation of them with current situations is how our Constitution evolves.
i see no problem. what is supposed to be the problem? isnt the constitution supposed to change? i agree with red, things are supposed to adapt and evolve. i can think of many huge changes i would like.
I've found some very interesting internet viewpoints that are pro-change: http://www.abesindignationleague.org/justification.html (Very Conservative slant) http://www.newusconstitution.org/usc21d.html (umm, part liberal, part psycho slant)
the threat against the Pres. should be handled just as though it were a threat against anyone else. What would ya'll want if someone seriously threatened to kill you? Most any change nowadays to the constitution will be to the detriment of our rights. As the country becomes more urban and populated, we will all spiral down into the smothering quicksand of the "Greater Good"...but the funny thing is, no one will know anyone really basking is the "good". But at least will see it on TV
Negative, I don't think the two situations are similar whatsoever. There should be differences in the way both are dealt with and punished. And I love my life and I don't even like Bush :hihi:
