If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
People who think making the government bigger will cause corruption.
Comments
You act like we live in North Korea.
complyign like domesticated animals compliance is the first step on the
road.
TNU: The road to what? Complying to one thing doesn't mean you'll comply to the next. I comply that police can search my house if they have a warrant, but I don't comply that they can burn it down to expose the weed that may be (and by may be I mean definitely is) inside.
There is a line.
>Assumes it's something extremely powerfully worded and not something inane and not part of the topic at all
>Hopes this illusion isn't broken
If anything, it can't simultaneously be inefficient and stupid yet somehow able to maintain a conspiracy so well there's been no damning evidence of it. So the slippery slope argument does not apply.
Constitution written in Seventeen hundred seventy-six AD.
Year is two-thousand and eleven AD.
Over two hundred years old.
Something over two centuries old cannot possibly be completely relevant.
They knew it was a work in progress.
@Tnu and Turtle: "originalist" meaning "original meaning of the Constitution, no items, final destination".
EDIT NINJA
Glenn: Precisely. A government which does not evolve is a government which must be overthrown every few decades. The founding fathers knew this. To think that the constitution must be interpreted the same way for three hundred years is to explicitly miss the point of the constitution.
It doesn't change by itself. Its interpretation and content can change when people change their interpretation of it and change its content.
Lol, Marbury v. Madison: The premier example of "judicial activism". Yep, that tradition has been around since...since the founding fathers were still around.
No; judicial review isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Then-Chief Justice John Marshall came up with it in a brilliant (and epic) legal maneuver.
Yes, the ability of the Supreme Court to declare stuff unconstitutional is itself not written into the Constitution.
The guy was a genius. He gets mad points for effectively flipping off BOTH William Marbury AND James Madison SIMULTANEOUSLY.
righs as such isn't in the constitution eith er so according to your
logic the government should bed allowed to do that?
No, I never said that.
In fact, the Constitution specifically prohibits that:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put
in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case
to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation."
The text of Amendment 5.
> you make a valid point did they make a means of of striking down
unconstitutional law in the constiftuttion itself I havn't been able to
fidn anything.
No, they didn't, nor did they ever create an amendment for it.