2011-03-09, 05:19 PM
Tigeon Wrote:And I'll clarify what I mean. I said I believe the constituion should have had an expiration date, because things change. What mattered to the framers could be totally different of how things are right now. Also would like a total revision of the document since theres some obvious gaps that need filling the framers left wide open for corruption. Just to name very blatent ones
>War Power Act: Oh god, what the hell were the leglaslative branch thinking when they were making this policy? Oh wait, they were think of making Nixon look bad by overriding his VETO. Now the president can pretty much go to war for 90 days without any restraint from congress. GG checks of balance, GG
> Judical branch in the constituion. Seriously, this is the part that was left till the end and never got finished. In the whole document there are three lines for the judicial branch. First line saying that Supreme Court would be a good idea. Second saying that Judges pay can never be cut, they can't be fired, and they got tenure for life. Third that the legislation branch can pick up the pieces from there and take care of it, dictating any number of courts, supreme court justices, or anything else regarding the branch itself. Founders, if your going to devise a system, at least devote . a page or something, don't include just 3 sentences and say someone else should do the work.
Our rights? Namely those came from the bill of rights, which was after the constitution got made. And it was only made because the Anti-federalists sent such an uproar that it would have destroyed the nation before it could heal itself. Nation already had to deal with Shay's Rebellion. Embarrassed from that event due to proving Britain was right about us...I can understand why George Washington called us a disgrace as a nation.
And if attacking the constitution is wrong, I don't want to be right. I can advocate change as long as I don't try to force people into thinking my way. Your free to ignore my statements as I am free to advocate mine and ignore yours.
Ok, so I feel it is needed here. The Bill of Rights was made due to unrest from the states as they felt that the constitution as it was writen would create a strong centralized government that would turn to tyranny. But I do believe that you have not really read both documents at least not in its entirety. First, the bill of rights is an extention of the constitution. Both documents go hand in hand and can not be seperated. You stated that the judicial branch only has three lines and it isnt mentioned till the end, that simply is incorrect. Artical III of the constitution states the judicial powers and that is right smack in the middle of the constitution. Also, that artical is 3 sections long and has a lot more than just 3 lines and is quite a long way from "unfinished". By the way, the constitution is 4 pages long and artical III falls on page 3. While the judicial branch does not have quite as much in it as the legislative and executive branches do, it does not make it any less powerful or meaningful.
Attacking the constitution also means attacking the bill of rights and thus attacking the very rights you claim to have.
As for the war power act, this I also see that you failed to read entirely. The president has the ability to send troops into action for only 60 days and can extend that for another 30 days but he must provide congress with proof for the reason of doing so. Congress ultimately has the power to remove said troops from said location at will.