Send Us Hatemail ! mailbag@conservativecave.com
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
http://www.sunherald.com/forums/?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3ae4a1a541-3822-4110-9fb0-9d3fe7af2d61Forum%3aa4c956a0-9c18-4ccb-829e-dea498108923Discussion%3a36d2d1cb-628c-484e-a90b-d46a3e9cf825&plckCategoryCurrentPage=0ORIGINAL POST BY SUN-HERALD DUMMIE #1 KANSASKRIS:Is the Constitution outdated?posted at 12/7/2008 9:47 AM CST on The SunHerald KansasKrisTotal posts: 277Clause 5: Qualifications for officeNo person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.By the time of their inauguration, the President and Vice President must be:natural born citizens (or citizens at the time of the Constitution's adoption)at least thirty-five years oldinhabitants for at least fourteen years of the United States.With the (supposed) coming of a globalized government, "the new world order", etc, is this clause in the Constitution outdated?THE REPLYReply by Sun-Herald dummy #2Reply by Maxxposted at 12/7/2008 11:01 AM CST on The SunHerald No part of the COnstitution will ever be "outdated". The Founding fathers did not creat a static document, but one that is dynamic, and alive. They were men who argued long and hard about every word, every clause, every right and privilege that is guaranteed within it's framework. They debated and considered the impact it would have on the present (theirs) and the future (ours) and attempted to make it both a guide and a limitation on the power of the government in the governing of the diverse peoples of the United States. Further, they made it difficult for any one entity to alter it without due process, No President, no Congress, no senate, no court.The interperting of how the Constitution would be valid in a changing world was given to the Supreme Court, which was why learned, sensible people were selected to sit on this bench, and the selection was a two fold process that was designed to limit the effects of politics and ambition.First, the President nominates the candidate, and second, Congress either rejects, or confirms this choice.For the most part the system has worked as designed until such time as a political party controls both the executive and the legislative branches of the government. At such a time, people who are more in tune with the ruling party and share their ideology become more important than people with learning, intelligence and of sound temperment and judgement.John Adams perhaps said it best when talking of protecting the minority viewpoint:THE INDIVIDUAL--THE MINORITY--VICTIMIZED BY THE MAJORITY UNLIMITED"If a majority are capable of preferring their own private interest, or that of their families, counties, and party, to that of the nation collectively, some provision must be made in the constitution, in favor of justice? to compel all to respect the common right, the public good, the universal law, in preference to all private and partial considerations. And that the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the whole world. To remedy the dangers attendant upon the arbitrary use of power, checks, however multiplied, will scarcely avail without an explicit admission of some limitation of the right of the majority to exercise sovereign authority over the individual citizen . . . In popular governments, minorities constantly run much greater risk of suffering from arbitrary power than in absolute monarchies . . . [Majority in control of government manipulates public sentiment to suit its aims]."John Adams ("On Government," 1778)As one can see from the readings of the letters and papers authored by those who framed the constitution, much thought was given to how the government, especially with a majority of the people behind a "popular" idea or cause, could easily supress the intent of the constitution.A prime example would be the 18th Amendment where the "popular will" created a law that was basicly an abomination.As we see later on, the checks and balances were restored, and the 18th amendment was repealed.As long as we recognize that the Majority can be wrong (often are!) and that to protect the integrity of the Constitution's intent requires intelligence and sound judgement, and we elect people who respect those ideals, the USA's Constitution will never be outdated, will never lose relevance to the ideals of a free people, self governed.THE REPLYReply by Sun-Herald dummy #1KansasKrisTotal posts: 277 Replying to:No part of the COnstitution will ever be "outdated".I agree, however, there are some who think the "natural born citizen" clause is outdated.I'm not one of them....
This is a newspaper from Biloxi-Gulfport with quite an active contingency of know-nothing liberals who attack anyone resembling a conservative - me being one of them. They also hang out at the Kansas.com discussion forum and do the exact same thing. Other people may not find this amusing but I have been trying to talk some sense into these people for three years now and they just don't get it.
Nice to see you back, Frank!I haven't seen her back there in awhile at least not under her old name ~ DogLady ~ but she could have a different one. She thinks she's a legal expert.
