It's Time for a Recall, but not of Bush...

WOW AA - looks as though we were somewhat on the same wavelengths here. See my recent post . Just like Dobbs said - if we could get rid of Dem or Rep - we could do away with a lot of the "wedge" issues and really get to the meat and potatoes of what REALLY needs to be done to make this country tick on all cylinders. Same holds true with the justices - we need to take away the "life-time appointment". I think that alone would make many of them re-think how they make their decisions. And those that it doesn't work for - "Vote the bum out !!"

Your Worthless Nut

Indie,

You are right, the constitution does set the rules for lifetime appointments for federal judges, but it also said that Black people were 3/5 a person. Certainly you disagree witht hat little provision.

My point is the constitution is a living breathing document and it is our duty to make the changes necessary to keep it breathing. IF you would prefer I would sit next to you on a panel to revoke all amendments beyond the original Bill of Rights, but I do not think that is what you mean.

As for Byrd, she was voted out of office in accordance with California state law Liberal, she stood in defiance of the people for too long on too many issues, the Death Penalty being the primary reason for her removal despite your attempt to rewrite history some 25 plus years later. And while we may have no direct recall provisions we can pressure out federal representatives and other to urge them to leave office, or get them to make the move for removal on our behalf.

And on election day I prefer to follow the will of the people and the law they legaly voted into being and force my I.D. to be seen, if not fully ackowledged it will be seen by my poll worker.

It is official.  AA can now be classified as a liberal.  He calls the constitution a “living, breathing document.”   Here are some quotes from others regarding that thought:

Justice Anton Scalia, sounding like a Republican politician, reaffirmed his view that the Consitution is not a living, breathing document during a speech in Texas yesterday.The Constitution, when it comes before a court, should mean exactly what it was intended to mean when it was adopted, nothing more, nothing less." Scalia criticized the view that the Constitution is "a living document that reflects the values of the time."

Or this from Wikipedia: 

Generally regarded as a liberal judicial philosophy, its central premise is that the Constitution should be seen, to some degree, as dynamic. As the direct counter to originalism, the judicial philosophy centered on meaning at the time of constitutional ratification, a Living Constitution suggests a document whose meaning is often dependent on the age and society in which it applies. It is thus described as "living," or even as a "living, breathing document," to acknowledge this continual evolution.

A prominent endorsement of the Living Constitution was heard in the 2000 presidential campaign by the Democratic candidate, Al Gore:

I would look for justices of the Supreme Court who understand that our Constitution is a living and breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on the concept of a "living Constitution" because most of the people who care about such issues already know what the term means and implies. But just in case you're not up to speed, I'll be brief. A "living" Constitution grows and changes with the times. Generally speaking, liberals want a living Constitution and conservatives don't. Justice Scalia has summed up the Right's basic position succinctly. "The Constitution is not an organism. It is a legal document." Equally succinct, George W. Bush explained during the 2000 campaign that he likes judges like Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Conservative writer Jonah Goldberg.

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg070803.asp

Schlafly also traces the history of how the Constitution went from being a document properly revered for enshrining our God-given rights into a coherent framework where government functions only by the consent of the governed to being falsely regarded as a "living, breathing document" that evolves according to the whims of changing attitudes, and that supposedly is "whatever the U.S. Supreme Court says it is." Phyllis Schlafly. Conservative activist.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200409/ai_n9425424

Saying that the constitution is a "living, breathing document" is the same thing as saying that there is no constitution. How would you like to play poker with rules that are "living?" (Walter Williams, Rush Limbaugh Show, 17 June 2002 broadcast)

Welcome to the left AA!!!!!  

Indie, I must disagree,

You have just landed on one of the very real differences between Average American and a koolaid sipping Republican. I think for myself. The constitution has to be a living document otherwise our founders would not have placed within it the provisions to change it. However, the changes to be made to the constitution should only be those that further support our rights, not those which erode them away, much like those changes I mentioned making Black people full citizens instead of 3/5 a person.

I believe the constitution is not a "feeling of the day" document however. It should not be altered to reflect current trends in social engineering like the later apealed ban on alcohol. This would cover the marriage act also. It should not be a constitutional amendment.

If outlawed by a majority of the people in a given state then it should stand as the law of the land. The constitutionality of a gay marriage is absurd. We have in place many other legal binding agreements, which in some way that is all a marriage is, which grant gays the same legal status that marriage would. Marriage is a holy and spiritual thing that the state itself really has no business being involved with. To hear a minister say "by the power vested in me by the state of whatever" is insulting to me as I see his authority to perform such services as ordained by God, not the state. For a minister of any religion to utilize this power over a gay couple is simply a farse and for that reason a constitutional amendment would be a waste of time and energy.

The founders certainly were Progressive thinkers when they wrote the constitution, and they were Conservative in the way the maintained the rights of the people and the restrictions on the government in the same breath. To say they were one or the other or that I am a liberal based on my agreement with the founders is pure dreamscape on your part Indie.

But in the end the values of their upbringing, love of their Lord, of their community, love of their family were by their very nature conservative. The liberalism of the day was that they were freeing mankind to seek their own destiny which they believed eminated from their very conservative God. So Indie, even in their Progressive moments they were using it as a way to maintain and to establish their Conservative beliefs for future generations.

Progressive thought has its purpose, it is to find new ways to protect the conservatism of our values.

Thanks to the newly reproportioned Supreme Court we will once again be following the law on Election Day, November 7th. I.D. will once agian be required before you will be allowed to exercise your right to vote.

Finally a court that understands the importance of stopping the illegal attempts to take over this country by way of voter fraud. Once again the Supremes get it right and the illegal vote machine of the Democratic parties voting illegal aliens will be derailed prior to causeing havoc with the integrety of our election system.

What a beautiful day it is outside..  I think I will go remind my neighbor about his right to vote being protected by the judges Bush placed on the court...Thanks, Mr. Bush...