ernest_t_bass;490692 wrote:They want to change the Constitution, why not change the White House?

What constitutional amendments are they currently advocating?

cbus4life;490951 wrote:What constitutional amendments are they currently advocating?

Politicians began moving away from that pesky little process as soon as the ink was dry. Not much use for the amendment process at all today. Lots of tools availble in the feds tool box to rework the constitution.

Makes one long for the class and grace of Laura Bush.

majorspark;491075 wrote:Politicians began moving away from that pesky little process as soon as the ink was dry. Not much use for the amendment process at all today. Lots of tools availble in the feds tool box to rework the constitution.

Yep. If the people had listened to Obama before the election, they would have learned that he views the Constitution as a document of "negative rights". It only lists what the government can't do...in his mind. Therefore, the converse MUST be true (and this is where the arguments are today). That is, if it isn't specifically excluded by the Constitution, then adding any law, rule, regulation, ObamaKare, et al is completely within the Constitutional boundaries in the mind of the "negative rights" believers.

The founding fathers wanted to make sure this country would never come under rule by tyrannical leaders, so they spent an agonizing amount of time getting all the words exactly as they wanted, crossing all the T's they could find, and dotting every i. They thought by writing down what the national government COULD NOT DO, they would hamper anyone or any organization from becoming tyrranical. Too bad they couldn't predict the future and keep the government out of our light bulb industry, the fast food industry, the car industry, pharmaceuticals, carbon taxing, banks, financialy institutions....you get the point.

BGFalcons82;491097 wrote:They thought by writing down what the national government COULD NOT DO, they would hamper anyone or any organization from becoming tyrranical

You mean the nation's Founders meant for the Constitution to followed literally? But we're being taught that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" subject to interpretation and manipulation by our lawmakers to allow government to control the masses as necessary. No wait a minute...I think I read that in the Communist Manifesto. Sorry....my bad.

BGFalcons82;491097 wrote:Yep. If the people had listened to Obama before the election, they would have learned that he views the Constitution as a document of "negative rights". It only lists what the government can't do...in his mind. Therefore, the converse MUST be true (and this is where the arguments are today). That is, if it isn't specifically excluded by the Constitution, then adding any law, rule, regulation, ObamaKare, et al is completely within the Constitutional boundaries in the mind of the "negative rights" believers.

The founding fathers wanted to make sure this country would never come under rule by tyrannical leaders, so they spent an agonizing amount of time getting all the words exactly as they wanted, crossing all the T's they could find, and dotting every i. They thought by writing down what the national government COULD NOT DO, they would hamper anyone or any organization from becoming tyrranical. Too bad they couldn't predict the future and keep the government out of our light bulb industry, the fast food industry, the car industry, pharmaceuticals, carbon taxing, banks, financialy institutions....you get the point.

In general you and I agree. But let me expound on this a little bit. The main body of the Constitution primarily lays out what the federal government "can do" within its enumerated powers and what the states "can't do" within the enumerated prohibitions of the states. The 10th amendment sums it up. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

The Bill of Rights is an enumerated list of some of the things the federal government "can't do". It is by no means a complete list. As the 9th amendment clearly states. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

To put Obama's "negative rights" comment in context he was not referring to the main body of the Constitution. He was referring to the Bill of Rights. Not that it makes it any better. But it does show the wisdom of those who argued for the Bill of Rights. Check out the arguments for and against the Bill of Rights. Hence the 9th amendment.

Our rights are not derived by our government. They are endowed by our Creator. Inalienable rights. Rights that can't be rightfully assailed by man's government. Nor are they rights that can be provided by government. They our individual rights to secure them for ourselves. Governments are instituted among men to secure our freedom to purse these inalienable rights.

I don't disagree with what you guys are saying, was just asking the question because Ernest's post, the way i read it, implied that they were working to change the constitution through some sort of amendment process, or that Mrs. Obama had said she wanted to change the constitution, and i just wanted to make sure i didn't miss that announcement.

majorspark;491791 wrote:In general you and I agree. But let me expound on this a little bit. The main body of the Constitution primarily lays out what the federal government "can do" within its enumerated powers and what the states "can't do" within the enumerated prohibitions of the states. The 10th amendment sums it up. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

The Bill of Rights is an enumerated list of some of the things the federal government "can't do". It is by no means a complete list. As the 9th amendment clearly states. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

To put Obama's "negative rights" comment in context he was not referring to the main body of the Constitution. He was referring to the Bill of Rights. Not that it makes it any better. But it does show the wisdom of those who argued for the Bill of Rights. Check out the arguments for and against the Bill of Rights. Hence the 9th amendment.

Our rights are not derived by our government. They are endowed by our Creator. Inalienable rights. Rights that can't be rightfully assailed by man's government. Nor are they rights that can be provided by government. They our individual rights to secure them for ourselves. Governments are instituted among men to secure our freedom to purse these inalienable rights.

major - my bad. I tend to mix the Bill of Rights with the Constitution at times, but you are dead on that Obama was indeed referring to the Bill of Rights. We are in total agreement on your post.

believer;491126 wrote:You mean the nation's Founders meant for the Constitution to followed literally? But we're being taught that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" subject to interpretation and manipulation by our lawmakers to allow government to control the masses as necessary. No wait a minute...I think I read that in the Communist Manifesto. Sorry....my bad.

Did the founders “literally” follow the Constitution.? No.
What did founders do as Presidents that went far beyond the literal interpretation of the Constitution?
Washington and Hamilton created the Bank of the United States, Madison created the Second Bank of the United States, both forerunners of the Federal Reserve. Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase. Each of the these acts are considered by most historians to be major accomplishments of their Presidencies and none of them are covered by a literal interpretation of the Constitution. Founders did not allow their actions to be limited by a literal interpretation of the Constitution when making decisions important for the survival and success of our nation.

Oh and I like Mrs. Obama and Mrs. Bush, the younger. They both seem very nice.

isadore;491954 wrote:Oh and I like Mrs. Obama and Mrs. Bush, the younger. They both seem very nice.

Agreed.