Just another Liberal idiot with no understanding of how this country really works,,,,,,,,
MSNBC Legal Commentator Claims the US Constitution Is 'Kind of Trash'
Elie Mystal, an MSNBC legal commentator, is taking issue with the U.S. Constitution.
Mystal appeared on ABC’s “The View” Friday to discuss his
new book “Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy’s Guide to the Constitution.”
https://ijr.com/msnbc-commentator-us-con...manualpost
Of course. MSNBC is a corporate propaganda arm of the Democrat party and as everyone knows the DemoRATS hate the Constitution.
Who said it? "The earth belongs always to the living generation… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right."
(03-04-2022, 04:02 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Who said it? "The earth belongs always to the living generation… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right."
Thomas Jefferson. But nowhere in that letter to James Madison did he say that the Constitution is trash.
So lets apply some liberal cancel culture logic: Jefferson owned slaves, so I guess according to this commentator, he must be trash as well. So if Jefferson is trash, then all his opinions must be trash as well, and therefore, his letter implying that the Constitution can be changed by each succeeding generation is also trash. Therefore, the Constitution stands, except the part written by Jefferson, which is trash by association.
There you go.
(03-04-2022, 04:02 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Who said it? "The earth belongs always to the living generation… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right."
Good thing there were a bunch on minds working on the constitution instead of just Jefferson.
It's not a living document. It's an amendable document.
Totally different concepts.
(03-04-2022, 04:17 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2022, 04:02 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Who said it? "The earth belongs always to the living generation… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right."
Thomas Jefferson. But nowhere in that letter to James Madison did he say that the Constitution is trash.
So lets apply some liberal cancel culture logic: Jefferson owned slaves, so I guess according to this commentator, he must be trash as well. So if Jefferson is trash, then all his opinions must be trash as well, and therefore, his letter implying that the Constitution can be changed by each succeeding generation is also trash. Therefore, the Constitution stands, except the part written by Jefferson, which is trash by association.
There you go.
Exactly. There are good reasons to think we should change the constitution. Jefferson had one. But this Elie Mystal guy has a particularly bad reason.
(03-04-2022, 04:22 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]It's not a living document. It's an amendable document.
Totally different concepts.
It's not amendable anymore. There's not enough goodwill in society anymore. Maybe there will be again, but not now.
Society changes regardless, and constitutions and laws have to change in response. When both become frozen, as ours are now, the power devolves to administrators and judges to start calling it a "living document" and reinterpreting it.
Just like nature abhors a vacuum, a political system abhors an unchangeable law.
(03-04-2022, 04:20 PM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2022, 04:02 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Who said it? "The earth belongs always to the living generation… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right."
Good thing there were a bunch on minds working on the constitution instead of just Jefferson.
Yeah he was just salty because he was stuck in Paris while everybody else hashed it out.
(03-04-2022, 04:31 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2022, 04:17 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ]Thomas Jefferson. But nowhere in that letter to James Madison did he say that the Constitution is trash.
So lets apply some liberal cancel culture logic: Jefferson owned slaves, so I guess according to this commentator, he must be trash as well. So if Jefferson is trash, then all his opinions must be trash as well, and therefore, his letter implying that the Constitution can be changed by each succeeding generation is also trash. Therefore, the Constitution stands, except the part written by Jefferson, which is trash by association.
There you go.
Exactly. There are good reasons to think we should change the constitution. Jefferson had one. But this Elie Mystal guy has a particularly bad reason.
(03-04-2022, 04:22 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]It's not a living document. It's an amendable document.
Totally different concepts.
It's not amendable anymore. There's not enough goodwill in society anymore. Maybe there will be again, but not now.
Society changes regardless, and constitutions and laws have to change in response. When both become frozen, as ours are now, the power devolves to administrators and judges to start calling it a "living document" and reinterpreting it.
Just like nature abhors a vacuum, a political system abhors an unchangeable law.
A political party hell bent on controlling everyone and turning us into a something the vast majority of us will never accept. Thankfully, we have a set of guidelines that protect us from our internal enemies.
(03-04-2022, 04:17 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2022, 04:02 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Who said it? "The earth belongs always to the living generation… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right."
Thomas Jefferson. But nowhere in that letter to James Madison did he say that the Constitution is trash.
So lets apply some liberal cancel culture logic: Jefferson owned slaves, so I guess according to this commentator, he must be trash as well. So if Jefferson is trash, then all his opinions must be trash as well, and therefore, his letter implying that the Constitution can be changed by each succeeding generation is also trash. Therefore, the Constitution stands, except the part written by Jefferson, which is trash by association.
There you go.
#mbhof
(03-04-2022, 04:22 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]It's not a living document. It's an amendable document.
Totally different concepts.
The living document clap trap gave me my first nudge to conservatism.
(03-04-2022, 04:45 PM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2022, 04:31 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Exactly. There are good reasons to think we should change the constitution. Jefferson had one. But this Elie Mystal guy has a particularly bad reason.
It's not amendable anymore. There's not enough goodwill in society anymore. Maybe there will be again, but not now.
Society changes regardless, and constitutions and laws have to change in response. When both become frozen, as ours are now, the power devolves to administrators and judges to start calling it a "living document" and reinterpreting it.
Just like nature abhors a vacuum, a political system abhors an unchangeable law.
A political party hell bent on controlling everyone and turning us into a something the vast majority of us will never accept. Thankfully, we have a set of guidelines that protect us from our internal enemies.
The political system is bigger than one party. It's all the legislators and judges at all the levels. The guidelines, as you call them, are not being followed as originally intended. You know this. You know there aren't really two kinds of due process. You know that freedom of contract is not listed in the constitution. You know that a lot of what Congress spends money on is not necessary and not enumerated.
Yet you have a pretty good, stable life. You know what to expect from the government, you know what you can do to change it, and you know what your rights are. The same ones who play fast and loose with some of the words written in 1787 are the ones who show restraint and deference to you and make sure that we keep having elections, and public comment periods, local law enforcement, and all the other stuff that keeps this place from turning into Russia. The documents are great, but they're worthless without people.
(03-04-2022, 09:53 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-04-2022, 04:22 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]It's not a living document. It's an amendable document.
Totally different concepts.
The living document clap trap gave me my first nudge to conservatism.
I'd you could add one amendment to the constitution, what would it be?
(03-04-2022, 11:53 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2022, 09:53 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]
The living document clap trap gave me my first nudge to conservatism.
I'd you could add one amendment to the constitution, what would it be?
Congressional districts have to be drawn in a compact way, without regard to race or political leanings. No more gerrymandering.
George Carlin said it best many, many years ago before I was born.
"This country was founded on a double standard. It was founded by a group of slave owners who wanted to be free."
Now, obviously, this country has come a very, very long way since those times. The double standard still applies though. It just tends to favor the ruling class of this country or at least those who have enough money to buy off their favorite politicians or buy their get out of jail card.
You can say whatever you want about this country. That's your right. And it's a beautiful aspect of this place. However, it doesn't absolve the fact that we're being manipulated yearly and our "democracy" is really just a Plutocracy at the end of the day.
The only reason most of us have not ran out into the streets yet and started giving these politicians and crooks "the business" is because we have a job that's tolerable enough to sustain a decent way of life that we deem well enough and acceptable enough to maintain.
Even when it gets tough. I get to go home or go to a store to pick up a sixer or a little smoke to dull my brain, flip on a TV show and dull my brain some more with mindless entertainment. Hate to be "that guy". But, do most of you really feel... FREE? I mean, is this the best we can do?
(03-05-2022, 06:48 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2022, 11:53 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I'd you could add one amendment to the constitution, what would it be?
Congressional districts have to be drawn in a compact way, without regard to race or political leanings. No more gerrymandering.
Term limits for Congress. Power is the root of all evil.
(03-05-2022, 08:28 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2022, 06:48 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Congressional districts have to be drawn in a compact way, without regard to race or political leanings. No more gerrymandering.
Term limits for Congress. Power is the root of all evil.
How long? Wouldn't it be better to just set a maximum age?
(03-05-2022, 06:48 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2022, 11:53 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I'd you could add one amendment to the constitution, what would it be?
Congressional districts have to be drawn in a compact way, without regard to race or political leanings. No more gerrymandering.
If you don't keep an eye on race while drawing the lines, and you have a racial minority that consistently wants candidates that the majority doesn't like, you will consistently disadvantage that racial minority. Is that OK by you? It's not OK by me.
And if you don't pay attention to political leanings while drawing lines, you will randomly give an advantage to one political side over another. You have to actually pay attention to the political leanings on the map in order to make a balanced map.
The problem we have today is that the mapmakers use the race and political data to make maps unfair. The data should be used to make the maps fair.
(03-05-2022, 08:51 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2022, 08:28 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Term limits for Congress. Power is the root of all evil.
How long? Wouldn't it be better to just set a maximum age?
An age limit doesn't fix the problem. Do you want Cortez to have a platform and influence for the next thirty years? I don't.
(03-05-2022, 08:51 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2022, 08:28 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Term limits for Congress. Power is the root of all evil.
How long? Wouldn't it be better to just set a maximum age?
(03-05-2022, 08:51 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2022, 08:28 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Term limits for Congress. Power is the root of all evil.
How long? Wouldn't it be better to just set a maximum age?
(03-05-2022, 06:48 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Congressional districts have to be drawn in a compact way, without regard to race or political leanings. No more gerrymandering.
If you don't keep an eye on race while drawing the lines, and you have a racial minority that consistently wants candidates that the majority doesn't like, you will consistently disadvantage that racial minority. Is that OK by you? It's not OK by me.
And if you don't pay attention to political leanings while drawing lines, you will randomly give an advantage to one political side over another. You have to actually pay attention to the political leanings on the map in order to make a balanced map.
The problem we have today is that the mapmakers use the race and political data to make maps unfair. The data should be used to make the maps fair.
If there is a sizeable minority population in any district, the candidates will have to pay attention to them. As it is now, the Republicans love majority-black districts because it keeps a lot of Democrats out of their district, so they get re-elected over and over. They create nice safe seats for themselves- both parties. Congressional elections are basically uncontested because of that. It contributes to polarization because the real election is in the primary. The general election is a non-event.
And beyond that, why should we guarantee any number of seats to any ethnicity? That presupposes that white voters won't vote for a black candidate. In fact, it actually institutionalizes that idea- that white voters are racist.
My amendment would eliminate gerrymandering of that type.
(03-05-2022, 10:16 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2022, 08:51 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]How long? Wouldn't it be better to just set a maximum age?
If you don't keep an eye on race while drawing the lines, and you have a racial minority that consistently wants candidates that the majority doesn't like, you will consistently disadvantage that racial minority. Is that OK by you? It's not OK by me.
And if you don't pay attention to political leanings while drawing lines, you will randomly give an advantage to one political side over another. You have to actually pay attention to the political leanings on the map in order to make a balanced map.
The problem we have today is that the mapmakers use the race and political data to make maps unfair. The data should be used to make the maps fair.
If there is a sizeable minority population in any district, the candidates will have to pay attention to them. As it is now, the Republicans love majority-black districts because it keeps a lot of Democrats out of their district, so they get re-elected over and over. They create nice safe seats for themselves- both parties. Congressional elections are basically uncontested because of that. It contributes to polarization because the real election is in the primary. The general election is a non-event.
And beyond that, why should we guarantee any number of seats to any ethnicity? That presupposes that white voters won't vote for a black candidate. In fact, it actually institutionalizes that idea- that white voters are racist.
My amendment would eliminate gerrymandering of that type.
How would you draw the district lines?