Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: January 16, 2016 07:48PM

What a shame the POS never got impeached, nor will he be tried for his treasonous acts. A pay for view of him receiving the appropriate reward for his crimes would break every broadcast record known.

jgoins Report This Comment
Date: January 17, 2016 12:02PM

I would pay to see that.

Onyma Report This Comment
Date: January 18, 2016 02:07PM

Meh, 50% of the US population has wanted to impeach every one of the last 4 presidents. The US doesn't know what it wants. Very politically confused nation... which has led to a clown like Trump now turning the electoral process into a laughing stock. You need a complete governance reboot but no one would be able to agree on what that should look like.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 18/01/2016 02:08PM by Onyma.

Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: January 19, 2016 01:56AM

There's ample agreement and support for a return to strict adherence to the Constitution as written. It's all that needs done.

pulse Report This Comment
Date: January 19, 2016 02:05AM

I don't really see the point in following a several hundred year old document to the letter. It could not possibly have foreseen modern life and requirements.

Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: January 19, 2016 06:19AM

Unless you've read and studied the documents our system of governance was founded upon it's easy to understand your point of view pulse.

While our founders could never have envisioned the complexities of our modern society, that in itself is irrelevant.

Their understanding of humanity and human nature, how power can be used to corrupt and subvert the concepts of righteousness and justice led them to having crafted such a finely tuned system of checks and balances that continually limited the capability of governmental over reach and instead rested the bulk of all power and liberty within the people themselves that all that would be required was adherence to its tenets as a near perfect basis for all that could follow without the need for knowing what that would even be.

You cats from other parts of the world can hold whatever opinion you care to regarding our system of governance as well as the basis it's founded upon, just make sure you grok the fullness of it and truly know and understand what it is you think you're judging 1st.

pulse Report This Comment
Date: January 19, 2016 10:26AM

I absolutely don't pretend to have even more than a very very basic understanding of the core of the US constitution; never studied it, never read it, can't imagine a time that I ever will

I also get that basic ideals should remain the same; basic human rights and the like. But where do you draw the line, taking it back to the original text? Back to a specific amendment?

As I said; not going to debate the US constitution, I'm in absolutely no position to do so. My statement was that I doubt that a 200 year old document is relevant today in its entirety. I still have considerable scepticism.

I'll leave aside the right to bear arms.

jgoins Report This Comment
Date: January 19, 2016 12:56PM

All free governments have some form of a constitution as a basis for their government do they not?

Our constitution has worked for well over 200 years to keep us free and if one part of it can be removed then all of it can be removed and there would be no more rights or freedoms. The main problem we have is how it's interpreted. Just like the bible if 100 people read it you get 100 different interpretations of it. Take the 1st amendment for example.

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It is the one that guarantees our freedom to choose what (if any) religion we want to follow but some see it as freedom from religion only instead of freedom of religion.

If we don't have some form of guarantees we only have anarchy and chaos.

pulse Report This Comment
Date: January 19, 2016 12:59PM

I didn't say throw it out. Kim said strict adherence to it as it's written; my point was that strict adherence to a document that was written 200 years ago can't possibly take into account all modern requirements.

Your very point about interpretation also illustrates how this would not be possible, as strict adherence depends entirely on who is reading it.

jgoins Report This Comment
Date: January 19, 2016 01:08PM

But there are those who say simply because of it's age we should throw it out. interpretation is also the reason we have amendments to the constitution as need to update it. I think we need a change but more toward power of the people not their elected officials. With our technology there should be a way for the people to be heard and big decisions be made by a majority of all the people.

woberto Report This Comment
Date: January 19, 2016 09:26PM

It's ironic that "We the People..." in the preamble of the Bill of Rights is often completely skipped over. So, why is it important? Because it specifically states what the Bill of Rights are actually for. Namely, they exist to protect the American people should the US federal government ever go bad.
No joke.
With this in mind, the Bill of Rights suddenly has context and makes a lot more sense. How do you protect a group of people from a malicious government? Well-- You protect the people's ability to communicate, you keep them armed, you keep soldiers out of their homes, you protect their right to privacy, as well as their right to a fair trial; plus, you grant them the ability to have other rights and grant the State governments some power. Generally speaking, we just listed the complete Bill of Rights. When we look at the uprisings in the Middle-East, we can easily see how important free communication, arms, privacy, and a fair judiciary system are for fighting off tyranny.
- Barbara Gaston

Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: January 19, 2016 11:59PM

The quote 'berto added above sums up the reasoning behind the Bill of Rights pretty succinctly (an with lesser verbage than it would take me!), so thanks dude

The deal is this pulse, the Constitution was written in such a way as to cover "most" contentions that could ever arise, with a clearly defined amendment process to cover any necessary changes that could come to pass once it was adopted as the law of the land.

So, once it was officially accepted as our over arching national system of laws, it was meant to be exactly that, unless and until changes would be made through the only 2 channels enumerated for doing so.

The problem for myself and many others is that we consider the Constitution as the absolute bedrock of our system of law and refuse to accept usurpation of its enumerated powers, nor any over riding of its systems of checks and balances, UNLESS such changes occur through the required process.

Once any one of the 3 branches of the federal government oversteps its authority clearly laid out in the Constitution, we are really no longer a "nation of laws" and it's only a few short steps from that point until the entire basis of our system of governance is subverted, leading to anarchy.

Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: January 20, 2016 04:08AM

For any who would care to know more, here's the Wiki page regarding the US Constitution [en.wikipedia.org]

It's actually shorter in length than most would think it might be and is fascinating reading if only to examine the simplistic complexity with which it was penned. [en.wikipedia.org]

jgoins Report This Comment
Date: January 20, 2016 12:57PM

I really hope I am wrong but the closer we come to the end of Odamna's term the more I keep seeing him setting up a dictatorship. With him buying all that ammunition for homeland and helping to create racial tension it looks that way to me and many others as though he may be wanting to stay in office. I really hope I am wrong about this as it would be a total disaster for this country and all Americans.

pulse Report This Comment
Date: January 20, 2016 01:08PM

You've been saying that for the last 8 years ....

I'll be very surprised

jgoins Report This Comment
Date: January 20, 2016 01:36PM

To be honest I will be surprised to see it too. There were those on here saying the same thing when Bush was in office but with all the executive orders Odamna put through and everything he has been doing on gun control and other things I just don't know. I hope he doesn't declare martial law but if Trump wins the nomination and then the general election it just might happen. It seems that nobody wants Trump in office except the American people.

woberto Report This Comment
Date: February 03, 2016 12:03AM

Here are some amendments...