US Citizens, do you believe in the Constitution?

riotgrl

your move now wrote:

US citizens how many of you have read the constitution?

I have - I even have a copy of it in the form of an iPhone app :ugeek:

peacefrompaul

Absolutely

peacefrompaul

your move now wrote:

US citizens how many of you have read the constitution?

Most of it. I usually read through the Bill of Rights on a daily basis

peacefrompaul

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Judging how every single time same-sex marriage equality comes up for a vote that it gets voted down... no. I can say without a doubt that the majority of Americans do not believe in the Constitution.

I certainly believe it AND I believe that you should have the freedom to marry whomever you choose.

BinauralJam

your move now wrote:

US citizens how many of you have read the constitution?

I did in the 7th grade, say 12 years old, cant say i remember much, Driftin, you've given me much to think about, and obviously i need to re-read the Constitution.

peacefrompaul

Drowned Out wrote:

I'm not a US citizen....can I have an opinion? I believe in it. All of these documents have flaws, in every country. I think the american one is a pretty damn good one. I'm not entirely sold on the simplicity of the right to bear arms....but....I do support it as a right.
I find that in nearly every instance people use your constitution as a defense, I agree with them......which makes me think it should be followed more closely, not less.

You're an intelligent person. Thank you!

unsung

I also have a copy but mine is a pocket book that I carry around with my daily carry items.

For those that think it is outdated there is a process for amending it.

I do believe that a politician that votes against it should be charged with perjury at the least.

I firmly believe that the Founding Fathers wrote as perfect as a document as they could and did a far better job doing that than 98% of the politicians today could. I've read other writings from that era and I'd guess most people would not be able to follow along.

peacefrompaul

unsung wrote:

I also have a copy but mine is a pocket book that I carry around with my daily carry items.

For those that think it is outdated there is a process for amending it.

I do believe that a politician that votes against it should be charged with perjury at the least.

I firmly believe that the Founding Fathers wrote as perfect as a document as they could and did a far better job doing that than 98% of the politicians today could. I've read other writings from that era and I'd guess most people would not be able to follow along.

Yeah, it was a helluva a process. An interesting study... Spent weeks on it in my first (and third, had to go over the parts that pertained to the president) Political Science class.

riotgrl

unsung wrote:

I also have a copy but mine is a pocket book that I carry around with my daily carry items.

For those that think it is outdated there is a process for amending it.

I do believe that a politician that votes against it should be charged with perjury at the least.

I firmly believe that the Founding Fathers wrote as perfect as a document as they could and did a far better job doing that than 98% of the politicians today could. I've read other writings from that era and I'd guess most people would not be able to follow along.

That's because the Founding Fathers actually did their own reading back then. Today these politicians have an aide read a document (or a bill coming up for a vote) and then have someone digest the material for them and give them a report :fp:

And you are so right - most people can't follow along while reading the Constitution or any other reading from the era.

brianlux

unsung wrote:

I also have a copy but mine is a pocket book that I carry around with my daily carry items.

For those that think it is outdated there is a process for amending it.

I do believe that a politician that votes against it should be charged with perjury at the least.

I firmly believe that the Founding Fathers wrote as perfect as a document as they could and did a far better job doing that than 98% of the politicians today could. I've read other writings from that era and I'd guess most people would not be able to follow along.

I believe in it but thanks for pointing out that fact that there is a process for amending it. Like any document of this sort, occasional review is not a bad idea.

Regarding "I'd guess most people would not be able to follow along", I'm tempted to suggest the idea of publishing a version in language that is more contemporary only with the idea that more people might read it today if but that were done that opens up too much possibility of distorting the intent in places and allows too freely us being an under-educated people. I'm surprised Shakespeare is still taught in our schools.

hedonist

I love how the men of those times wrote. They invested precision into their words, because the ideas behind and tied into them were so precious.

Language - the appreciation and preservation of it - is a bit of a tender spot with me. I respect it; the words, the grammar, the spelling...the care put into making sure they resonate.

None of this 2 and U and 4 shit.

It not only irritates me but makes me sad to see how language has been and continues to be massacred, and for what purpose?

Convenience? Ignorance?

Laziness.

DriftingByTheStorm

hedonist wrote:

I love how the men of those times wrote. They invested precision into their words, because the ideas behind and tied into them were so precious.

Language - the appreciation and preservation of it - is a bit of a tender spot with me. I respect it; the words, the grammar, the spelling...the care put into making sure they resonate.

None of this 2 and U and 4 shit.

It not only irritates me but makes me sad to see how language has been and continues to be massacred, and for what purpose?

Convenience? Ignorance?

Laziness.

i no wat u mean!
fo sho.

hedonist

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

i no wat u mean!
fo sho.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

hedonist wrote:

I love how the men of those times wrote. They invested precision into their words, because the ideas behind and tied into them were so precious.

Language - the appreciation and preservation of it - is a bit of a tender spot with me. I respect it; the words, the grammar, the spelling...the care put into making sure they resonate.

None of this 2 and U and 4 shit.

It not only irritates me but makes me sad to see how language has been and continues to be massacred, and for what purpose?

Convenience? Ignorance?

Laziness.

I agree with you, but for better or for worse, everything evolves, even language.

hedonist

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

hedonist wrote:

I love how the men of those times wrote. They invested precision into their words, because the ideas behind and tied into them were so precious.

Language - the appreciation and preservation of it - is a bit of a tender spot with me. I respect it; the words, the grammar, the spelling...the care put into making sure they resonate.

None of this 2 and U and 4 shit.

It not only irritates me but makes me sad to see how language has been and continues to be massacred, and for what purpose?

Convenience? Ignorance?

Laziness.

I agree with you, but for better or for worse, everything evolves, even language.

True, but the language side (not to mention other aspects) strikes me as de-evolution...dumbing down.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

hedonist wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

I agree with you, but for better or for worse, everything evolves, even language.

True, but the language side (not to mention other aspects) strikes me as de-evolution...dumbing down.

I would tend to agree with that, but for discussion's sake, some could argue it's actually more efficient. I mean, you can now say with 5 letters and a smiley in 3 seconds what used to take a parchment and a bucket of feathers that would be written in 3 days.

every generation has its "this is getting lost by the current generation-they have no respect!". we speak/write differently than our previous generation too.

FrankieG

If I can't believe in the Constitution, then what can I believe in?

I think the constitution is better than nothing is protecting our rights, but it could be better(which is true about almost everything.)

unsung

Language evolves = dumbing it down.

Cosmo

When you ask, "Do you believe in the Constitution?". What, specifically are you asking?
Because, the Constitution establishes our Federal Government... the 3 branches of Government and their duties (including the collection of Taxes).
The amendments (Bill Of Rights) outlines the supreme law of the land and basically restricts what Congress cannot do to us (such as establishing Christianity and the Official National Religion of the United States of America, for example).
Are you asking us if we believe in our form of government and/or the laws of our nation?

catefrances

hedonist wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

hedonist wrote:

I love how the men of those times wrote. They invested precision into their words, because the ideas behind and tied into them were so precious.

Language - the appreciation and preservation of it - is a bit of a tender spot with me. I respect it; the words, the grammar, the spelling...the care put into making sure they resonate.

None of this 2 and U and 4 shit.

It not only irritates me but makes me sad to see how language has been and continues to be massacred, and for what purpose?

Convenience? Ignorance?

Laziness.

I agree with you, but for better or for worse, everything evolves, even language.

True, but the language side (not to mention other aspects) strikes me as de-evolution...dumbing down.

a reflection of the society we live in mayhaps??