Isn't It Funny...

It just proves you're wrong.

 

“It’s the dogs fault” argument Has been used way to much in American society

 

@Ethereal I have to wonder if anyone else, besides you, understood that.

 

It proves no such thing. In your world SCOTUS (and likely all of government as well) is your master because you dutifully bend over and accept whatever it does. According to the Declaration of Independence, our founding document (in case you didn't know), The People are the masters of their government. The Constitution (created by The People not by government) is a contract between The People (the masters) and their government (their SERVANTs). It was written to protect the individual rights of The People primarily from their government and others as well. That is the hallmark of a Constitutional Republic. When SCOTUS seized the power to "interpret" the Constitution (Marbury v Madison, 1803), a power never granted in Article III and prohibited by the 10th Amendment, it then granted itself the power to create legislation ("case law"), overriding Congress (Article I) and the President (Article II) and amend the Constitution, overriding Article V, as it sees fit. The Constitution was written to reflect the essence of the Declaration of Independence and this government has done what it could to pervert it by seizing powers never granted to it.

 

You don't really expect the Constitution to be locked in time around the year 1788 eternally do you?

 

Choices made under duress are not legitimate choices. It's a basic legal principle recognized by pretty much everyone.

 

True, but look how much progress is being made on the legalization front, for example. It's very slow going, but I think we're moving in the right direction. We may see full decriminalization within our lifetimes.

 

I agree.

It's time to abolish that old, dusty document.

Let's start with the government's taxation powers. And the supremacy clause. And the interstate commerce clause.

They're so old fashioned and out of touch with modern times.

 

He specifically mentioned nonviolent drug offenses. And I added to that by mentioning nonviolent sex offenses like sex work. Neither are vague at all.

You're just defending a corrupt system that imprisons millions for imaginary crimes. That's who you are.

 

And everyone knows the supreme court is infallible.

 

Tell me what is so "great" about a country that allows its government to waste trillions of dollars on needless wars, totalitarian spying programs, mass incarceration of nonviolent offenders, bank bailouts, and other corrupt practices. What specifically makes the USA so much "greater" than Switzerland or Germany or Sweden?

 

You've already been provided with two classes of "crimes" for which there is no identifiable victim: Nonviolent drug and sex crimes.

Since the "war on drugs" began, millions of Americans have had their lives needlessly destroyed as a result.

Over the past fifty years, how many people have been forced to rot in a jail cell somewhere because they were caught with cannabis? Do you think that is right?

You have to be willfully blind not to see how perverse and unjust the US legal system is.

 

Most of our opponents have zero understanding of history (which explains why they are such ardent statists) so I doubt it.

 

I used to believe that. But the more I learn about the constitution and its ratification, the more obvious it becomes to me that the constitution was just an aristocratic coup and counterrevolution meant solidify and consolidate the power of merchants, bankers, industrialists and lawyers, and that the only good thing about the constitution (the bill of rights) was included at the insistence of the constitution's opponents. There was actually nothing wrong with the articles of confederation, which were far more respectful of liberty and democracy than the constitution. The principle objection to the articles that we're all supposed to agree with was the confederation's lack of taxing and borrowing powers. Specifically, we're all supposed to agree that the confederation's fatal flaw was its inability to take on and pay back more debt. Naturally, if you were a Wall Street or London banker, such a "flaw" would seem problematic. However, for the rest of humanity, who owns almost no bonds, such a "flaw" seems rather chimerical.

 

I have lived in some of the others. Believe me, the US is great. Maybe not perfect according to your standards, but great according to mine.

 

So you have no answer to my question.

 

I don't agree with all your standards and most people will have a different set of standards.

 

I simply asked you what was so "great" about a country that allows its government to plunder trillions of dollars of national wealth in furtherance of needless wars, Orwellian spying systems, mass incarceration, bank bailouts, and crippling debt. Apparently, you have no answer.

 

Well considering that all three of those countries exist under the protection of the United States...

 

Those are just matters of opinion.

 

The US is occupying Germany, not protecting it.

And Switzerland has never required the "protection" of the US.

 

No, they are facts.

 

1. It doesn't matter what you or I "expect", the Constitution exists as it does and contains all the provisions it has contained since the day it was ratified, plus all the amendments added since and the incorporation of all treaties the US government is a signatory to as dictated by the Supremacy clause (see Article VI).

2. Article V was included in the Constitution so that it can be modified as necessary.

3. Nothing you posted changes anything I posted nor does it even address anything I posted.

 

I can't disagree with what you posted. See this thread for my take on the Constitution:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/proposed-constitutional-amendments.507699/

 

I live a very happy free life. I am not burdened in the least by the by your objections. I may not like some of them, but they are better than the alternatives I have seen in other countries.