General Discussion

rustydog

(9,186 posts)

53. It isn't the document as much as it is the ability to change interpretations

Mon Oct 14, 2013, 11:48 AM

Oct 2013

of that document and the ability to add to the document, strengthening it and what it stands for.

your 60 vote complaint is in regards to beating a filibuster. the super majority rule. Well, the filibuster is not in the Constitution. Get rid of it. Of course it would take a Democrat with a true set of balls and none really exists today.

The foundation we have as a nation is sound. it is the reinforcement of that foundation that is required every few generations.

Today, America has a deranged group of people financed by people so wealthy that every DU member would have to win the lottery, twice AND the publishers clearing house and EVEN THEN we would not have their financial clout.

They want no taxes for themselves, fuck us. They want to genetically modify your foods while being free from the threat of lawsuit even if the food kills us. They want to privatize the water supply system. they are offended that "regular americans can attend school rather than work in fields picking fruits and vegetables for corporate farmers. They want our children to go back to work in coal mines so they can ship more coal to China...

Our foundation has been weakened and is threatened by today's GOP. We need to reinforce America's foundation and it needs to be done soon. Damn, the Repugnants changed house rules the other day giving the power to call a vote to the floor to ONE GODDAMN MAN!

With the political leadership we have in the Democratic Party today, I don't see that happening too soon, that does scare me.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

67 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

At what point can we say the Constitution has been a failure? [View all] Cali_Democrat Oct 2013 OP

Civic religion. That's really the long and short of it. NuclearDem Oct 2013 #1

Never. It's a living document. ScreamingMeemie Oct 2013 #2

It's nearly impossible to amend it now Cali_Democrat Oct 2013 #3

Amendment process has not changed. MicaelS Oct 2013 #7

There have been five Constitutional amendments in my lifetime. hack89 Oct 2013 #48

Sorry, disagree with you here, Ranchemp. Oct 2013 #4

I don't think anybody's going to kick down your door and drag you away for posting that OP. rrneck Oct 2013 #5

The Constitution is no match for Wall Street. Rex Oct 2013 #6

Good point Cali_Democrat Oct 2013 #14

No. Its the polititians and courts Wall St owns... HooptieWagon Oct 2013 #38

What might you suggest replacing it with, and how would you get it accomplished?? madinmaryland Oct 2013 #8

+1 onenote Oct 2013 #10

Don't replace it all. Change the Legislature to a unicameral body like Nebraska where it's worked hooverville29 Oct 2013 #17

Good idea Cali_Democrat Oct 2013 #18

Or if we're going to radically alter Congress, keep both bodies NuclearDem Oct 2013 #23

Anything is better than the dysfunction we have now. GreenPartyVoter Oct 2013 #28

1861. Nt. Warren Stupidity Oct 2013 #9

A huge problem is the big disparity in state size taught_me_patience Oct 2013 #11

Split California into North and South California; combine North and South Dakota, etc. FarCenter Oct 2013 #16

Do that and we're a lot less potent Democratic force n/t melody Oct 2013 #19

It would benefit the Democrats -- the margin in the senate would increase by 2 FarCenter Oct 2013 #45

The whole fight isn't about Congress melody Oct 2013 #46

The great failure in this country is education. DURHAM D Oct 2013 #12

I think it's basically good but needs a couple modifications treestar Oct 2013 #13

If I am not mistaken, some of the framers Downwinder Oct 2013 #15

You think a parliamentary system would be better? Azathoth Oct 2013 #20

Of course we should not allow the kind f gerrymandering we see today Cali_Democrat Oct 2013 #21

In Florida, a few Dem incumbents aided and abetted... HooptieWagon Oct 2013 #41

Racist drivel with, thankfully, no recs. Skip Intro Oct 2013 #22

What's racist about my OP? Cali_Democrat Oct 2013 #25

Oh please. Skip Intro Oct 2013 #30

It was written by older white men. NuclearDem Oct 2013 #32

They were white men.... Cali_Democrat Oct 2013 #33

Wow. Skip Intro Oct 2013 #36

Because those old white men didn't give women the vote or treat African Americans as actual people? NuclearDem Oct 2013 #37

No they didn't. It was the times they were living in. SomethingFishy Oct 2013 #60

How did I use race and gender in a derogatory way? Cali_Democrat Oct 2013 #44

It was written by white racist slave owners. morningfog Oct 2013 #54

how many white people were kept in slavery because of the constitution? CreekDog Oct 2013 #65

How on earth did you construe that as racist? NuclearDem Oct 2013 #27

Cali is trashing the Constitution, and uses race, age and gender Skip Intro Oct 2013 #31

And you're absolutely proving the point CD was making. NuclearDem Oct 2013 #34

Notice how he goes after me for mentioning the founding fathers were white men Cali_Democrat Oct 2013 #35

The lack of inclusion goes to the fallibility of the document. morningfog Oct 2013 #56

Actual racist often only see the reverse racism morningfog Oct 2013 #55

Reverse racism doesn't exist... Decaffeinated Oct 2013 #61

Yes, I know that. That is very much my point. morningfog Oct 2013 #62

So it's OK to scream "racist" when people point out that the Constitution was written by white men? ProSense Oct 2013 #39

It's not the constitution that's the problem. It's the idiots misinterpreting it. Initech Oct 2013 #24

Might I suggest you offer something to replace it with? Savannahmann Oct 2013 #26

Too many people treat it with religious relevance Nevernose Oct 2013 #29

I am awestruck that the Constitution is still going strong after 200+ years. Nye Bevan Oct 2013 #40

I don't think the Jamaal510 Oct 2013 #42

There is nothing wrong with the Constitution ProSense Oct 2013 #43

A couple of things. NCTraveler Oct 2013 #47

The problem is how vague and loosely construed it is. NuclearDem Oct 2013 #49

Agree almost 100% with your post. NCTraveler Oct 2013 #52

Well, when I mention radical, it's more in the context of different from how we do things NuclearDem Oct 2013 #57

I'd say, now, probably Spider Jerusalem Oct 2013 #50

When you are no longer allowed to ask that question. Puzzledtraveller Oct 2013 #51

It isn't the document as much as it is the ability to change interpretations rustydog Oct 2013 #53

Don't think the Constitution is really the problem here Proud Liberal Dem Oct 2013 #58

"Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got Waiting For Everyman Oct 2013 #59

The Constitution isn't the failure. The men who misuse it and constantly refer to it... ScreamingMeemie Oct 2013 #63

Given the overall condition of western "civilization" at the time the Constitution was ratified, Zorra Oct 2013 #64

It's not the Constitution that's the problem, it's our lawmakers ecstatic Oct 2013 #66

Parliamentary systems are usually less stable than ours. JVS Oct 2013 #67