Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bush considered restrictions to the first ammendment!
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 37 (501891)
03-08-2009 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by kuresu
03-08-2009 12:55 PM


you said changing the constitution in any way, changing any piece of it, should not be considered wrong.
Nope, I said it should not be considered treason.
Edited by Jon, : Blasted dB

You've been Gremled!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by kuresu, posted 03-08-2009 12:55 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by kuresu, posted 03-08-2009 1:34 PM Jon has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 32 of 37 (501892)
03-08-2009 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Jon
03-08-2009 12:38 PM


Overthrowing the Constitution should not be considered treason, nor should attempting to modify/restrict it in any way.
The whole power of the document is that it was meant to be changed; entire sections discarded, even down to the last. It is this power that makes rule by the Constitution free and not dictatorial.
What good is such an amazing power if we attempt to round folk up and stick 'em jail if they even so much as contemplate exercising it?
Yes, it was meant to be amenable to change. Article Five of the Constitution covers this. I think the point of the scandal is that the former President was planning on essentially ignoring a very important part of the Constitution, without the prior approval of two-thirds of Congress.
I'm not a Constitutional Lawyer, but I detect that this bypassing of Congress might have constituted (heh) a bit of a problem

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Jon, posted 03-08-2009 12:38 PM Jon has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 33 of 37 (501893)
03-08-2009 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by kuresu
03-08-2009 12:55 PM


I think you're putting words into Jon's mouth.
He didn't say any of those things would be good. He was making the point that any of those things could be done to the Constitution without it being treason, which is correct. I absolutely agree with you that the changes you describe would be terrible, but an Amendment doing those things, or a proposal to amend the Constitution to do those things would not be treasonous.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by kuresu, posted 03-08-2009 12:55 PM kuresu has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 34 of 37 (501896)
03-08-2009 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Jon
03-08-2009 12:59 PM


quote:
Nonsense, many of us do things everyday that fly in the face of the Constitution.
Nonsense. Very little of what's in the Constitution acts as a restriction of the rights of private citizens. The fact that you had to go back 80years to an Amendment that's no longer in effect demonstrates my point.
The only people who are in a position to do things every day that fly in the face of the Constitution are those in some capacity of government. And, while the government is bloated far in excess of what the framers had in mind, there is still only a small percentage of the population that works for the government.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Jon, posted 03-08-2009 12:59 PM Jon has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 35 of 37 (501900)
03-08-2009 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Jon
03-08-2009 1:00 PM


Right. And how did you use treason? As if it was something undesirable to do. Something wrong to do.
People are thrown in jail for doing something others consider wrong. In your example, that wrong action was changing the constitution. Changing the constitution was considered treasonous.
Putting words in your mouth? I don't think so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Jon, posted 03-08-2009 1:00 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 36 of 37 (501928)
03-08-2009 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Jon
03-08-2009 12:38 PM


How NOT to modify the Constitution
Overthrowing the Constitution should not be considered treason, nor should attempting to modify/restrict it in any way.
Overthrowing the Constitution is the definition of treason. Maybe you should choose your words more carefully because down below you talking about "altering" it which is VASTLY different from "overthrowing" it.
The whole power of the document is that it was meant to be changed; entire sections discarded, even down to the last. It is this power that makes rule by the Constitution free and not dictatorial.
What good is such an amazing power if we attempt to round folk up and stick 'em jail if they even so much as contemplate exercising it?
That's fine and dandy but the problem is that there are RULES about how the Constitution can be changed and they are contained within....the Constitution.
To change the Constitution you need 2/3 majority of Congress and 3/4 of the states to adopt changes. Either that or a new Convention.
The reason that the actions of Bush, Yoo, and company are treason is precisely because they were throwing out the Constitution without deference to the rules about how you go about doing that. There is NO provision for unilateral rejection of the Constitution by the Executive Branch. In fact, they take an oath just like all public officials to FOLLOW and PROTECT the Constitution.
dictionary.com writes:
Treason: 3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
Breaking their oath to protect and defend the Constitution, blatantly disregarding the rule of law, disregarding the Constitution when they have no right to, is why they are traitors.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Jon, posted 03-08-2009 12:38 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 37 of 37 (501929)
03-08-2009 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Jon
03-08-2009 12:59 PM


Were the bootleggers of Prohibition hanged as traitors?
No, bootleggers during Prohibition were criminals. All traitors are criminals but not all criminals are traitors.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Jon, posted 03-08-2009 12:59 PM Jon has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024