MyFox
 

jimmy6165's Blog

by jimmy6165 from southeast Florida

Last Post 21 days, 2 hours Ago


First post and other miscellaneous thoughts
Jun 30, 2008 | 10:16 PM
Category: Political
Report This Post

This is my first blog. My written word is mine alone. Even if I quote someone, the sentiment is mine.
Barry Bama and Johnny Mac are all wrong for this country. Neither of them understand the Constitution. How can any one even bring up the subject of universal healthcare if they understood the Constitution. Else, it should be scrapped in favour of a new, updated version. I am tentatively in favour of this idea. Only the best minds should be applied to the rewriting. A panel of ordinary citisens would be empowered to interview the rewriters. This is because we are the ones who hold the most diverse philosophies across the political spectrum. I for one favour public executions, preferably hanging. Others are totally against capital pubishment.  I favour the sentence being carried out no more than 5 years to the day of sentencing. The biggest argument against it is that it is no deterrent. This is largely because of the endless delays in executing the sentence. The surety of five years, and bringing it out from closed doors to the public square will instill the fear of God in most people, though there will always be those who kill.
There are other areas of concern that I will address later.  Just bear in mind this. Barry or Johnny  will swear an oath to abide the Constitution and protect it. That is all.  these two things. That they do not fully understand the Presidential limitations, being eroded since the dictator lincoln,  is a monumental failure of the whole educational system of our country. Instead of producing the best minds in the whole world, most of them have been dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Therefore, the best minds for the rewrite of the Constitution will not be as good as they ought to have been.
9 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 9
Page 1 of 1
leasheryn read my blog
Jul 1, 2008 | 6:40 PM

The reason why no one understands the Constitution any longer is because the original writers of the Constitution wrote and thought in Latin. At that time when it came to writing law, Latin was the universal language.
Having said that, this country was established under the idea of Liberty and Independence--which means that each of us is responsible for our own lives and our own decisions. Independence is a thing of the past once everyone becomes dependent upon the government to support them with ideas such as universal health care. We cannot be independant and dependant at the same time. The decision is, which is it going to be.
Just my thoughts...
ObedientBeast read my blog
Jul 2, 2008 | 10:12 AM

The copy I looked at was written in English, And I found it easier to understand than the Bible, but then again, I have no trouble understanding the Bible either.

jimmy6165,

I agree, when it all falls apart, we must go back to the begining!

By the way, Congratulations on your first Blog, it's a bell ringer.

And welcome to the World of "Calling Them as You see Them".

Most Obedient of All Beasts

P.S. I think, if you check on it, you will find that God asked us not to Kill, even the Killers.(see Cain)
leasheryn read my blog
Jul 2, 2008 | 6:22 PM

OB, the Constitution was written in English. My point was the Colonists had a greater understanding of Latin and Roman based laws than we have today. Their democracy was based on the Democracy of ancient Greece and Rome.
A true Democracy was created so the people could participate in government and in which everyone was called upon to participate in making laws and governing, meaning that everyone was called upon to take their part instead of the election of officials.
In ancient Greece, you would have received notification to present yourself to the government and take your place in the senate for a year. When your turn ended, someone else would be called in to take your place and so on.
RandyLoo read my blog view my photos
Jul 3, 2008 | 9:58 PM

No need in updating the Constitution. It should stay as written. Amendments were added and repealed as necessary.
jimmy6165 read my blog view my photos
Jul 4, 2008 | 6:48 AM

RandyLoo,

I am not persuded that is necessarily true, of course not that what I think is important. BUT, there has been a lot of ambiguity, SCOTUS rulings that contradict previous rulings, dependent upon who sits on the high court.
With regards to race, "separate but equal" based on the 14th Amendment, an illegal and unConstitutional amendment, was the ruling of the SCOTUS back in the late 1890's. Then, 50 plus years later, another high court with different people overruled the previous court, based on that very same 14th Amendment.

The SCOTUS ruled that the murder of unborn children is legal, based on the 14th Amendment. Since then, certain Presidents have sought to appoint enough justices to overturn that ruling. It does not make sense that one thing can be ruled "Constitutional" one year then ruled unConstitutional in another year based on the same Constitution.

There is no such thing as a living document. Documents are, or at least were, written on PAPER. Paper does not breathe, it does not bleed, it does not run and jump, it does not mourn, laugh, aspire, get disappointed, etc. The Constitution, as written down, is cast on paper, "in stone". It does not, can not change.

So, to clear up misunderstandings for future generations, it ought to be rewritten, borrow from the original as is needed, updated in such a way that removes all ambiguity. And, most importantly IMHO, cast it in such a way that, when the high court makes a ruling on a particular case, their ruling affects that case only and only that case. Everything else as regards the LAW, should then
Contrarian view my photos
Jul 16, 2008 | 5:14 PM

Let me just say the constitution does not need to be tampered with. To open the constitution to a rewrite with the politicians we have today, none of which are statesmen but there simply for their own personal gain, would be a disaster. They would finally get a chance to insert a right to privacy which is not there, further restrict religious liberty which they do now with erroneous court decisions, take away our rights to own firearms, remove the annoying 10th amendment and much, much more.
No what we need is to make sure the courts are treated as an equal branch of the government and not allowed to trump the other two. Read James Madison's opinions on this topic and I some may have been written by Thomas Jefferson also.
There needs to be a restraint on judicial activism which could be done at the Senate hearings when these nominees are vetted. Right now "litmus tests" are only applied to the conservative candidates and none to the liberal. If there were equal vetting R. B. Ginsburg would not be on the Supreme Court. If scholarship were a criteria, Soulter would not be there and that would preclude Hillary being appointed to the court which Hussein Barack Obama may just appoint.
jimmy6165 read my blog view my photos
Jul 16, 2008 | 5:36 PM

Contrarian,
I agree with you and I now must re-think my position about an updated Constitution.
Not being a judicial scholar or researcher, can you, or anyone explain this. I just reread through Article II, Section 1, 2. There is nothing there to indicate nor dictate that the SCOTUS rulings must apply to any other case than the one before it. Nothing there that dictates the SCOTUS rulings become the law of the land. How is it then that a single ruling about Constitutional law in a particular case is then interpreted to be the "law of the land". Roe versus Wade opened to door to genocide of the unborn across this land, from a single case? Congress did not pass legislation, neither did the States, for mass murder!
Contrarian view my photos
Jul 19, 2008 | 3:21 PM

I believe it was the first Chief Justice Marshall's decision which made the Supreme Court decisions the de facto law of the land. The premise of supreme court decisions trying to follow previous decisions is called stare decisis, which basically means "let the decision stand".
There was much controversy over Marshall's concepts and several founding fathers criticized it. But it has remained.
I do not have the constitution in front of me, but I also believe Congress can overrule a decision but typically they do not. Therefore,
if those who thought the baby killing decision was wrong had exerted enough demands upon their congress critters they could have gotten the decision annulled. But most Christians thought the decision did not affect them so they sat back in their homes and pews and did nothing. We have seen the result.
Pressure upon congress may be a thing of the past as the majority of Americans want Congress to control the borders, they will not.
Most Americans now want drilling for oil to resume, more nuclear power plants, more refineries, etc. Congress talks but does nothing.

Deo vindice
sflyankee
Jul 25, 2008 | 7:58 PM

Jimmy,

Unfortunately,in our great nation, history is not being seriously taught in the schools, unless seriously tainted with opinion. That sounds like painting with a broad brush, but when I discuss the Constitution of the United States of America with people, I get mostly opinion, or whatever one of the MSM talking heads has presented as constitutional law.

I agree with Contrarian, we need not re-write the Constitution, but rather adhere to the document. The frustrating part is that SCOTUS seems more interested in finding 21-century interpretations, rather than upholding the ideas the document represents.

Just look at how many "rights" we Americans now have. Instead of the right to free speech, you have a "right" not to be offended. We have a "right" to a state paid abortion, but cannot bear arms in our own homes. (Doesn't really apply in FL). Sarcasm OFF

I am a counselor of the Citizenship in the Nation MB for my sons scout troop. I make sure to hand out a copy of the constitution to the boys AND their parents. I am always amazed at the number of adults who are woefully lacking in an understanding of our nation's founding laws.

Be Prepared!
Page 1 of 1


Write your comment below:




jimmy6165

I am 54, father of three grown sons, two in the army. A native of Florida whose family ancestry goes back to Virginia in 1690 from England. I am passionate about preserving Southern rights, which all others are intent on destroying. For if Americans let this happen, who is next. As the German preacher said when it was too late, "First they came for the unions and I did not care for I was not in a union." Finally he says, "Then they came for the Jews and I did not care for I was not a Jew. Now they have come for me and there is no one to care about me." For in allowing the South to be demonised, Americans have laid the foundation of their own demise. But, it might not yet be too late to turn back that clock.

Member Since: 6/4/2008


 

View All Photos


RSS: XMLWhat is RSS?