I'm of the opinion that it is a living document open to interpretation over time, but I don't think it's "outdated".

I've heard that "dictator" comment on TV before. It's pretty scary.

 

Somewhere, I know that our AG called the Geneva Convention "quaint".

 

 

From the same article that talks about a "goddamned piece of paper"...

 

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the "Constitution is an outdated document."

If you are one who takes every word in the Constitution literally (and with no outside interpretations/rights not explicity stated in the document, such as the right to privacy) and does not see it as a "living document" with the ability to evolve over the years through judges' interpretations and changing societal norms, then you have a right to be offended by this statement. Assumming you disagree with this quote I would assume you support the right to bear arms, among others (I honestly don't know your stance on this issue). I don't have a problem with this point of view - it's just that I get fed up when it's used selectively to support some issues (such as this) but in the same breath the same people go against other Constitutional amendments. I don't know if you're doing it here or if you are someone who favors strictly interpreting the Constitution.

 

Otherwise, if you see the Constitution as a basis for a government but do not think that 200+ years later every single word should be taken literally and instead view the Constitution as a living document, then Gonzales isn't that far off with his thoughts, though his wording is poor.

 

Funny you mention the Secind Amendment. I've met too many people who think that is the ONLY part of the Constitution.

 

Gonzalez is against the Constitution because his padrone King George is against it.

 

Funny, but I thought public officials were supposed to take a oath to defend the Constitution. Evidently Bush & Co. want to destroy it. After all, it's "just a goddamned piece of paper."

Sometimes they do act like they would prefer to destroy it, rather than defend it.

 

Or, add crazy amendments to it.

 

I have also met those people who think that the only Amendment was the 2nd.

Somewhere, I know that our AG called the Geneva Convention "quaint".

 

And Bill Clinton stated in a USA Today interview in 1993 that we can't be so fixated on preserving the rights or ordinary American's, so what's your point?

Somewhere, I know that our AG called the Geneva Convention "quaint".

 

And Bill Clinton stated in a USA Today interview in 1993 that we can't be so fixated on preserving the rights or ordinary American's, so what's your point?

It would be nice if you could actually back that up...

Somewhere, I know that our AG called the Geneva Convention "quaint".

 

And Bill Clinton stated in a USA Today interview in 1993 that we can't be so fixated on preserving the rights or ordinary American's, so what's your point?

It would be nice if you could actually back that up...

It would be nice if you for once could actually do a little bit of research before posting....

 

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans.

? Bill Clinton (USA TODAY, 11 March 1993, page 2A)"

 

http://www.lpboulder.com/quotes/

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/857329/posts

Here's a novel idea, let's bind ourselves to the limitations in EVERY AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION!

 

Partisanship has gone too far.

Great that you got it from an anti-Clinton site.

 

I do my research, thank you very much.

 

I especially liked this quote from author C.S. Lewis on that site you linked:

 

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Great that you got it from an anti-Clinton site.

 

I do my research, thank you very much.

 

I especially liked this quote from author C.S. Lewis on that site you linked:

 

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

 

 

I've heard that freepers don't believe that man landed on the moon because FOX News Channel didn't carry any coverage

 

Can't tell who's more nuts..Freepers, the people at wingnutdaily.com--oops--worldnetdaily.com or Michael Savage.

Sometimes they do act like they would prefer to destroy it, rather than defend it.

 

Or, add crazy amendments to it.

 

I have also met those people who think that the only Amendment was the 2nd.

 

 

 

sounds a lot like those people who think the only amendment is the 14th

Sometimes they do act like they would prefer to destroy it, rather than defend it.

 

Or, add crazy amendments to it.

 

I have also met those people who think that the only Amendment was the 2nd.

 

 

 

sounds a lot like those people who think the only amendment is the 14th

Yeah but those same people tend to have a strong affinity towards the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, eigth, ninth, and fourteenth. Seven vs. one has to say something. (Maybe 2 if you count the 10th but Republicans clearly dont make a big deal of that anymore as seen by Bush's actions)

 

And regardless of what people say, the Supreme court has never treated the 2nd in the same regard as a lot of the other amendments. That is a fact. It isnt applicable to the states through the 14th and it has been explicitely held not to apply to all arms. There is a reason why nobody has ever challenged some of these gun control laws in court.

 

But let me say this, (because Im positive my point will get misconstrued): those people who fight for other civil liberties arent the only ones who havent been as active in fighting laws that deal with 2nd amendment rights. What exactly is stopping gun rights people/NRA from being aggressive in court in striking down these laws? Could it be because 2nd amendment law is pretty much settled in these matters and everyone knows it? If the NRA doesnt think these laws are so bad to try and challenge their constitutionality, why should civil liberties groups?