myata

You've got to be kidding us, that would be because you said so? You just said that it had to be read literally and where in the text did it say that? So you saying it must be read literally except I get to decide what you read? No you can't be serious only promoting your ideological agendas. So you're saying all those people who built and created this system over the centuries they had to be dumb, right? We write this in our Constitution for these events that already happened in 18xx and may or actually, will never happen again in the exact literal sense. Seriously? Because you say so? Or because that would be the only way to prop your agenda: you want to interpret it as such, every time contradicts your ideological agenda just because you can. In any case, not much of a plausible explanation. You want to stretch and massage it as you will, and then accuse others of manipulation. It's quite plain, you know? I think: no. In cases like this, important and critical to the society, interpretation shouldn't be left to a circle of old people voting their ideas and fancies. It should be up to the people: this is our Constitution, and our democracy so we decide what it says and means. A plebiscite. You have a problem with that being all for people's democracy? After a good, diligent discussion of all aspects we the people decide what our constitution means and not some closed circle that isn't even elected by us. So much for love of the people. One change (about Congressional salaries) before the advent of the Internet and the digital social age in a literal, fixed code? Four (excluding routine matters) in the entire post WWII period, 80 years? The last material change in 1971 who even remembers that? Look you don't appear to be serious here. Pushing for your idols and agendas sure but for a rational discussion there's no point in wasting any more time here.

Then, it has to be the scripture because the process for reasonably efficient current updates is non-existent. You're stuck with a bunch of text for eternity, good luck. But then, you have this, do read it literally "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." We are talking about applicability at this point, nothing else. Either you say that it only applies to one specific event in the history and what would be the point of adding it - nonsense. Or now you insist on changing the meaning of it, because it clearly reads as such a person must be first determined as such (presumably, legally), then prevented from running for office on that basis according to the clause, and only after that, the Congress may decide to overturn it, and not the other way around. So you're talking from the both sides of your mouth: you want to have it literally when it suits your interests, and ignore it as irrelevant when it doesn't. Why and how not?

Maybe this question important as it is, does not belong to a small group of old people free to unwind their ideas, beliefs and fancies? What if it can and should be decided by the society itself, the public, the citizens? First, have a public discussion including experts and citizens without distinction of ideology or stripe. Explain the matter, general principles and freedoms or literal scripture and code. Then have a plebiscite where citizens will say how it should be interpreted applied. What could be wrong with that? The Constitution it belongs and is owned by the citizens not any one closed group.

That was before he was elected, or am I missing something?

That is a meaningless statement. Means to who, when? 300 years ago or now or in two centuries? The question is simple and for some reason you want to twist it into some ideological perspective to use in your narrative guessing about unknown motivations for the point you created yourself. It isn't about redefining or rewriting. It is of actuality and relevance in a changing and evolving society. It's simple really: you have a rule, a line of text written three centuries back or five millennia and should we read and follow it literally, word by word, in our world, today? You have to either admit that we have to read and apply it literally (and that would mean that the founding fathers thought themselves the kind of Moses that they were clearly not) or explain what makes you insist on the idea that is both impossible and impractical in any living human society. One cannot write a rule that is both literal and (virtually) immutable to be applied in a modern society. Will you argue that? For some reason you are failing to read what was said earlier in clear text, here the quote: If you have a code that is interpreted literally then you should be able to change it as and when needed without overwhelming effort. This is not the case though. This is not how the Constitution was written originally and no such processes are in place. So in fact, it's you who want to redefine the Constitution from what it was intended to be: a logical system of broad principles of freedoms, rights and democracy that can be interpreted by a living and growing society based on its reality into something that it never was and never intended to be: a literal code, scripture written in a different age to be applied literally word by word today. Absolutely a boneheaded idea that can't coexist with a modern society.

There's no obligation nor point in responding to bullsh*t non-theses. When and if you're ready and would like to discuss issues in good faith let me know (but I can't commit to being interested).

Why are you choosing to lie? Or are you illiterate to read the OP before commenting? Until and unless you decide to follow the practices of an honest discussion there's no point in wasting time on anything you have to say as there's literally unbounded, endless amount of verbal junk on the net. Let me know if and when you're ready to discuss and dispute in good faith.

You begin with a misinterpretation and I can't care at this time is it genuine misunderstanding or another ideologically driven twist. The OP is stated clear enough: - Broad general principles that need to be interpreted in the contemporary context, not literally - Regular and ongoing updating based on each new development Otherwise you've got to choose between ridiculous and lying. Try to write some rules now up to 2254 (optimistically), and insist that people read and followed them literally. No one just can't be serious arguing that.

That or a liar in essence there are many synonyms. Not many other options. Any reasonably intelligent person, regardless of any stripe has to admit that there can be two rational approaches: to define broad and general principles and foundations that can be reinterpreted within specific context that is bound to change with time; or update it regularly and routinely to codify any and all significant new changes. That one could write a complete scripture of rules at one point in time and then apply them literally and for the eternity is beyond credible - it has to be either of the two, utter cluelessness or a lie. What else, really?

The proposition that the meaning of the Constitution was intended to be literal, fixed in time and has to be interpreted as such is based on two assumptions that are entertained by the judges and pundits who adopt and promote it today: First, that formulation of general foundational principles guiding the evolution of the legal framework of the society isn't possible. This postulate is overturned by logic and the factual record in the history: it is obvious to any intelligent being that the state of a society cannot be captured and frozen in time; it changes continuously and so should be any literal and frozen constitutional framework. Then, the US constitution has survived for over two centuries, based mostly on the general principles coined centuries back so an expression of general norms and principles guiding the society was possible back then. So, what the proponents of this idea want to tell us, we are less smart, regressing in time relative to the democracy and constitutional thought of our ancestors and founders: while they, back then, dared to think and form general foundations and principles, we here can only think of coining, copy-pasting them in fixed and literal terms. What would be the point of codifying a rule or precept that is specifically related to a certain unique event that may not happen again, ever? No, doesn't make any sense: if someone, anyone would be non-smart enough (is there a better word?) to think that, they would be saying that our ancestors, the creators of this system that we used for centuries, were no smarter than them. Wrong. Not true. They were intelligent, daring and willing to think and create and history itself is the proof and testament of that. But then, one cannot escape the conclusion that in this interpretation, of narrow, literal, coined meaning of the Constitution there has to be a functional, efficient process of changing an updating it as and when needed. Disagreeing with it would imply that a society can be frozen in time: and how non-smart would that be? One couldn't logically avoid this double dumb dead end: if the founding fathers were no smarter than us, then we have to assume that society doesn't and shouldn't change. Back to horsepower. What is electricity? What Internet? That this non-starter idea could capture such a following itself can be an indication, a symptom of intellectual degradation, regress. Why and how not?

Look at this: Putin says that if he doesn't get what he wants, including complete breakdown, annihilation of the international law and rules-based order there can be n-war. And in a short while, he gets an echo - from who, where? Give Vlad what he wants or it's gonna start the dreaded war. A coincidence? No. Happened not once already. That has to mean something right? Imagine in the height of WWII someone in Britain or America was parroting, publicly and openly, Hitler's points and agendas. That would be new, no it's a fact history tells us as much. No one cannot ignore the reality that's staring at us point blank.

I've no desire to think about Chinas and Russias of this world let them figure it out if they can doesn't look that way though. But here, Western democracies are at a crossroads for citizens involvement and credibility. Without participation of active, reasonable and responsible citizens democracy will not last, it'll be subverted or fall to a tyranny one way or the other. On the other hand, political formats and structures were created ages ago, in a completely different reality and changing them in many cases is very challenging and in some (Canada, US) outright impossible. And that's a real problem, an existential challenge nothing less really. Because an entity, species, society that lost ability to evolve intelligently is doomed by the evolution. There are no miracles.

Bringing media culture into politics implicitly and by default is a big unknown and a risk. Deciding if the country is led by a competent patriot or a loose mouth at the times of critical challenge or uncertainty can make a huge if not deciding difference and it's just not the same kind of consideration and decision as voting and commenting on the next pop album. Can it be helped and how - we'll just have to see.

Funny that you said it, isn't it what the cult mob want? Shut down any issue, rule law included if they just feel like it? Should any criminal go free of all and any charges the moment they claim running for president? No, no but our baby is so special! Is it wrong when Maduro or any authoritarian thug go drawing themselves all the votes they need but not our lying baby he's so cute and deserves a reward! Good that you know the difference, wonder if at least some of them could figure it out too.

That is absolutely not what it is, no matter how authoritatively one tries to argue otherwise. A functional modern democracy has principles, founding laws, regular laws, checks and balances, independent oversight by the society.

could be, and that would be nothing less than a failure of a great, magnificent democracy project. Not a given as yet, but certainly something to think about. Democracy and freedom is never free, repeated and reminded to us throughout history; our laziness of thought and spirit, complacency on the other hand is limited only by us.

Correct 100 times out of 100, 100% accurate.

This would be who, depending on the type of the system of course. A king, dictator, tyrant - or who?

Have you read carefully? What about maintaining it: cleaning, repairing when needed, upgrading and modernizing? Whose responsibility would that be? Where's that service to send orders and opinions? Who monitors and assures the standard?

The most informative response from cult converts is no response or a personal offense. It means that in all their reservoir of knowledge there just isn't anything even remotely connected to objective fact or logic. QED.

maybe just stop there? It has democracy too. And someone thought it could work both ways: no rules, no law and still, freedom.

Coward that lies, liar that gives in and runs away, cowardly liar, lying coward - one can put these words in any number of ways but the essence is always the same: and it's his only essence. No results, zero intelligence, zero integrity, zero courage: that's who he is, and what he does consistently, every time. Nothing here we couldn't have known.

Well no, according to the facts. Someone built this system diligently and intelligently, someone cared to think, reflect and put effort into it. Its very existence is the evidence. But no system, no machine is perfect and is guaranteed to run perfectly for eternity no matter what we do. That just doesn't exist in this Universe, by the law of entropy. So if and when citizens get tired of thinking and assuming responsibility bad things can happen and probably will. The world cannot be blamed it just exists. So if you want to assign it, I suggest looking elsewhere. "Opinions" mean nothing to the Universe. And again you're forgetting this is not a Christmas bazaar here, we can't just order our future online and pick it up at the door. Amazing how it took only some decades of relative peace and prosperity for some folks to completely forget it, push this button and expect it in the mailbox or a tantrum. Did dinosaurs have opinions? How would we know? Will to change as and when needed, reason, responsibility: if we losing or have lost it, who's there to blame? Where to complain to?

Liar and coward cannot stand up to the new dark axis rising. He would do what he did and does always: lie, cower and run away.

The political discourse has all but collapsed indeed. It's not about priorities anymore, but getting to the power and hanging out there as long as at possible. In the extremely polarized political landscape implementing any major changes, even absolutely needed like healthcare with Obama managed to have done after all or border security becomes next to impossible. The more citizens become detached from the power, the less the conversation focuses on common issues and shared responsibility for the present and the future and the more, a fairy tale - Christmas shopping attitude push here and expect a miracle even when you know that in reality it's not possible. Disengaged citizens is a serious problem for democracy and ultimately, it's not the political elites but citizens who own their democracy and so, must assume full responsibility for its condition, and fate.