The problem in our country

Posted 569 day(s) ago 2161 Views 115 Replies
Results 1 to 50 of 116
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
  1. #1

    The problem in our country


  2. #2
    mgsooner's Avatar
    Posts
    7,022
    Join Date
    May 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Tallsa

    Good read. He raises some interesting questions.
    The following users like this post: OUMallen


  3. #3
    pphilfran's Avatar
    Posts
    11,157
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    vCash
    1000

    I like out of the box thinking....

  4. #4
    Well, duh.

    The same complaint can be raised against using any old text as the foundation and framework of any operating system.

    The issue is agreeing on a replacement. Since it is the framework of our government, we would have to totally redefine that.

    ...Looking at our current state of politics, this proposition will only come to pass at the spilling of a lot of blood.

  5. #5
    Sooner Bob's Avatar
    Posts
    5,449
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    North of Waterloo Road

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Is the people ...
    FIFY

  6. #6
    The thing that's missed in all this is that he laments the constraints put in place by the Constitution holding up 'getting things done.' That's the entire point of the document.
    The following users like this post: Tug Medick


  7. #7
    OUSchitzo's Avatar
    Posts
    2,369
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Dallas

    idiot

  8. #8
    mgsooner's Avatar
    Posts
    7,022
    Join Date
    May 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Tallsa

    Originally Posted by OUSchitzo View Post
    idiot
    Yes, someone with a Harvard law degree who has taught constitutional law for nearly 40 years is most likely an "idiot".
    2 users like mgsooner's post: OUMallen, SpankyNek


  9. #9
    nolesooner's Avatar
    Posts
    6,662
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Panama City, Fl

    Originally Posted by mgsooner View Post
    Yes, someone with a Harvard law degree who has taught constitutional law for nearly 40 years is most likely an "idiot".
    Having a degree from Harvard and teaching constitutional law, doesn't mean that one is right, nor does it mean that one is intellectually responsible. Having said that, being smart doesn't mean one is right on a subject.

  10. #10
    Originally Posted by nolesooner View Post
    Having a degree from Harvard and teaching constitutional law, doesn't mean that one is right, nor does it mean that one is intellectually responsible. Having said that, being smart doesn't mean one is right on a subject.
    Just 6 years ago degrees from Harvard and Yale had 0 bearing on one's intellect. My how times have changed.

  11. #11
    Sancho's Avatar
    Posts
    4,792
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Land of milk and honey

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Just 6 years ago degrees from Harvard and Yale had 0 bearing on one's intellect. My how times have changed.
    Those institutions have sure come a long way in 6 years.
    The following users like this post: oucub23


  12. #12
    Sir Bevedere's Avatar
    Posts
    365
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Camelot

    We should use a combination computer/media poll to elect politicians.
    The following users like this post: brokebacksooner


  13. #13
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    12,388
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    vCash
    5250
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by nolesooner View Post
    Having a degree from Harvard and teaching constitutional law, doesn't mean that one is right, nor does it mean that one is intellectually responsible. Having said that, being smart doesn't mean one is right on a subject.
    It does mean that he is more likely to produce an educated position than some random soul on a football message board, yes?

  14. #14
    Breastman's Avatar
    Posts
    237
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    vCash
    1000

    Funny how Obama graduated with a doctorate from Harvard Law and taught constitutional law.....yet so many slack-jawed Americans consider him an idiot as well.

  15. #15
    Tundra's Avatar
    Posts
    2,662
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Indian Territory

    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    It does mean that he is more likely to produce an educated position than some random soul on a football message board, yes?
    Maybe, maybe not.

  16. #16
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    12,388
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    vCash
    5250
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by Tundra View Post
    Maybe, maybe not.
    I suppose that there is the possibility that there are a few folks on this board that have spent decades studying the constitution researching context, following the litany of judicial questions, etc.

    I doubt it, though.

  17. #17
    The real issue is that he wants to abandon the constitution for his idea of "progress". There are plenty of people who would drop the constitution in a second if they could then establish their own idea of progress. It comes across as a lot more of an emotional reaction/argument than one that's particularly well thought out. It's not really contrived with reality in mind.

    But it's an article in the paper...I imagine that it's as much a musing as it is a legitimate call to undermine the Constitution .

  18. #18
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    12,388
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    vCash
    5250
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Really, I can see how our current state of affairs could be attributed to the inherent weakness of our Constitution.

  19. #19
    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    Really, I can see how our current state of affairs could be attributed to the inherent weakness of our Constitution.
    Sure...but is dropping the last shred of American unity the way to fix the problems?

  20. #20
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    12,388
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    vCash
    5250
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by Teo9969 View Post
    Sure...but is dropping the last shred of American unity the way to fix the problems?
    That would largely depend upon the amount of unity behind the drafting of a new social contract. Certainly there would have to be an opposing document drafted before the current government is abandoned.

  21. #21
    Not according to the author of the article...

    Works fine for Britain he says...

  22. #22
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    7,298
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1500
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    I suppose that there is the possibility that there are a few folks on this board that have spent decades studying the constitution researching context, following the litany of judicial questions, etc.

    I doubt it, though.
    You're correct.

    On this board, people mistake the refusal of ceding even the most simple, true point to someone with whom he perceives a disagreement as intelligence. When really, you and I both know it's stupidity.
    The following users like this post: OnlyOneOklahoma


  23. #23
    kssooner's Avatar
    Posts
    3,776
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Kansas

    The problem in our country

    This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation.


    Out of respect? Is he ****ing serious?

    So these are merely important and not vital to our freedom according this professor? So without the constitution there to preserve these "important" rights, then how does the professor suggest they stay protected? Is he truly that naive, or ignorant, to believe that current and future leaders would continue to "respect" those "important" rights without constitutional protection?

  24. #24

    The problem in our country

    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    Really, I can see how our current state of affairs could be attributed to the inherent weakness of our Constitution.
    Disagree completely. The problems we have are due to continued end runs around the strengths of the document.

  25. #25
    Yatahaze's Avatar
    Posts
    1,839
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Dela-where?

    Welcome to the internet, where other people's ideas, no matter how well articulated, are countered with "idiot"

  26. #26
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    12,388
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    vCash
    5250
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Disagree completely. The problems we have are due to continued end runs around the strengths of the document.
    Thereby displaying its weakness.

  27. #27

    The problem in our country

    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    Thereby displaying its weakness.
    If ND on Monday night runs a pass play that involves the wr running 8 rows into the stands, catching the ball and then taking a cart under the stadium to the end zone and the officials let it stand, that's not an inherent weakness in the Bama D.

  28. #28
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    12,388
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    vCash
    5250
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    If ND on Monday night runs a pass play that involves the wr running 8 rows into the stands, catching the ball and then taking a cart under the stadium to the end zone and the officials let it stand, that's not an inherent weakness in the Bama D.
    It is if the Bama D is the only ruling body to determine the legality of the play and they choose to let it count.

  29. #29
    Originally Posted by kssooner View Post
    [/b]

    Out of respect? Is he ****ing serious?

    So these are merely important and not vital to our freedom according this professor? So without the constitution there to preserve these "important" rights, then how does the professor suggest they stay protected? Is he truly that naive, or ignorant, to believe that current and future leaders would continue to "respect" those "important" rights without constitutional protection?
    To be fair, you don't need the constitution for those things to be a reality. It's just like a debate in a religion wherein atheists argue that ethics can exist apart from the Bible/Qu'ran/Torah.

    The constitution is a written account of what is believed to be true. The actual truth, if it exists, exists outside of the written text.

    The problem, as in a debate over religion, is those who derive the framework by which they live their life from a text can fairly lay the foundation for anarchy if no such text exists to codify "the truth".

    Which is the same reason that getting rid of the constitution, with all its inherent problems, is a horrendous idea.

  30. #30

    The problem in our country

    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    It is if the Bama D is the only ruling body to determine the legality of the play and they choose to let it count.
    Ah but it isn't. There's a small group of officials that we can't fire. There's also supposed to be decency present in the way ND approaches the game--they are a Catholic university, and morality must exist for the system constructed to function properly. There's also everyone watching the game that should object so strongly to the violations that those allowing them are removed. Sadly, most of the crowd is so busy stuffing their fat faces with popcorn and trying to get a date with the cheerleaders that they aren't paying attention.

  31. #31
    Dexa's Avatar
    Posts
    3,073
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1476
    Location
    Moore

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Ah but it isn't. There's a small group of officials that we can't fire. There's also supposed to be decency present in the way ND approaches the game--they are a Catholic university, and morality must exist for the system constructed to function properly. There's also everyone watching the game that should object so strongly to the violations that those allowing them are removed. Sadly, most of the crowd is so busy stuffing their fat faces with popcorn and trying to get a date with the cheerleaders that they aren't paying attention.
    HAH.. I've enjoyed this analogy greatly. The mental images alone make me smile.
    The following users like this post: oucub23


  32. #32
    nolesooner's Avatar
    Posts
    6,662
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Panama City, Fl

    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    Thereby displaying its weakness.
    I don't think it's the weakness of the document, rather the weakness of the individuals that it governs.

  33. #33
    nolesooner's Avatar
    Posts
    6,662
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Panama City, Fl

    Originally Posted by Teo9969 View Post
    To be fair, you don't need the constitution for those things to be a reality. It's just like a debate in a religion wherein atheists argue that ethics can exist apart from the Bible/Qu'ran/Torah.

    The constitution is a written account of what is believed to be true. The actual truth, if it exists, exists outside of the written text.

    The problem, as in a debate over religion, is those who derive the framework by which they live their life from a text can fairly lay the foundation for anarchy if no such text exists to codify "the truth".

    Which is the same reason that getting rid of the constitution, with all its inherent problems, is a horrendous idea.
    Very good point. Which is why the progressive movement is so dangerous. The cannon for right and wrong changes with the wind...that is not good.

  34. #34
    Tundra's Avatar
    Posts
    2,662
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Indian Territory

    Originally Posted by Yatahaze View Post
    Welcome to the internet, where other people's ideas, no matter how well articulated, are countered with "idiot"
    Usually the response from the left, yes, you are correct.

  35. #35
    nolesooner's Avatar
    Posts
    6,662
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Panama City, Fl

    Originally Posted by Tundra View Post
    Usually the response from the left, yes, you are correct.
    idiot!
    The following users like this post: Tundra


  36. #36
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    7,298
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1500
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by nolesooner View Post
    Very good point. Which is why the progressive movement is so dangerous. The cannon for right and wrong changes with the wind...that is not good.
    The progressive movement is DANGEROUS?

    The progressive movement freed slaves, allowed women to vote, promotes equal rights for gays.

    You might be scared by some progressive concepts, and you're not wrong to feel that way, but to say it's "so dangerous" is ridiculous.

  37. #37
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    12,388
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    vCash
    5250
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by nolesooner View Post
    I don't think it's the weakness of the document, rather the weakness of the individuals that it governs.
    But it is a reflection of the weakness of the document. It is fraught with edicts open to interpretation due largely to the limitation of strong codal language at the time of inception. The fact that we have arguments DAILY upon intent is proof of this.

  38. #38
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    7,298
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1500
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by Teo9969 View Post
    To be fair, you don't need the constitution for those things to be a reality. It's just like a debate in a religion wherein atheists argue that ethics can exist apart from the Bible/Qu'ran/Torah.

    The constitution is a written account of what is believed to be true. The actual truth, if it exists, exists outside of the written text.

    The problem, as in a debate over religion, is those who derive the framework by which they live their life from a text can fairly lay the foundation for anarchy if no such text exists to codify "the truth".

    Which is the same reason that getting rid of the constitution, with all its inherent problems, is a horrendous idea.
    Some of the truths are self-evident. Men are equal. We all deserve to live more-or-less free. We all should be allowed to travel freely. We deserve equality under the law.

    I think generally we should always be looking to improve ourselves. It's folly to abide 100% by rules and concepts generated 250 years ago. The invention of flight, individual speedy transportation, computers, and the internet are all game-changers. It's crazy to act like the rules shouldn't be examined. EVEN IF we decide we want to keep them the same, we need to examine the rules every so often.

  39. #39
    nolesooner's Avatar
    Posts
    6,662
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Panama City, Fl

    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    But it is a reflection of the weakness of the document. It is fraught with edicts open to interpretation due largely to the limitation of strong codal language at the time of inception. The fact that we have arguments DAILY upon intent is proof of this.
    Is there a document that is written by the hands of man that isn't open to interpretation? No...not really. Even the supposed word of God is debated on the issues of context and content. That is the way that human beings are. Our minds have limits and we are prone to mistakes and errors. There can be no perfect document that will help us govern. But to suppose that a relative or progressive document would be better is not in our best interest. To keep us in line, you have to have something that is steady...not swaying. Human beings must be governed by some sort of benchmark, set in place, so that we know our boundaries. Otherwise, this so called progressive movement, will lead us toward destruction...because our natural inclination is to destroy one another.

  40. #40
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    12,388
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    vCash
    5250
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    There can certainly be a more perfect document than the one we penned two and a half centuries ago.

  41. #41
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    7,298
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1500
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    There can certainly be a more perfect document than the one we penned two and a half centuries ago.
    Yep. Easy example: 4th Amendment was written when a police officer had to come stand outside your window to gain information. Now you can wiretap, do infrared from the street, etc....yet we shouldn't think about how we'd like to re-word our rules?

  42. #42
    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    It's folly to abide 100% by rules and concepts generated 250 years ago. The invention of flight, individual speedy transportation, computers, and the internet are all game-changers. It's crazy to act like the rules shouldn't be examined. EVEN IF we decide we want to keep them the same, we need to examine the rules every so often.
    I agree with you. What you've said, of course, supports many Supreme Court Justices' views that the Constitution is a "living" document, a concept that Scalia and Thomas vehemently disagree with.

  43. #43
    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    There can certainly be a more perfect document than the one we penned two and a half centuries ago.
    Agreed.

    Now good luck trying to get Washington to agree on the things incorporated into a new, more perfect document...

  44. #44
    Originally Posted by Sinatra View Post
    I agree with you. What you've said, of course, supports many Supreme Court Justices' views that the Constitution is a "living" document, a concept that Scalia and Thomas vehemently disagree with.
    What he's said, of course, counters many Supreme Court Justices' views that the Constitution should be interpreted through original intent, a concept that Ginsberg and Breyer vehemently disagree with.

    See? I can do it too.

  45. #45
    nolesooner's Avatar
    Posts
    6,662
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Panama City, Fl

    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    There can certainly be a more perfect document than the one we penned two and a half centuries ago.
    Why? Just because it is 2 and a half centuries old? Does being old mean that the rule is outdated? What about the common laws of manking like, 1) don't steal, 2) don't murder, 3) don't commit adultery, etc...those are as old as time, but does that mean there should be newer and better rules instead?

    For something like the constitution, I believe that the framers had incredible forsight, but they also allowed for there to be some interpretation, because they wanted men and women to debate and be free. That doesn't mean that they didn't have a direction in mind. That is why context is so important and that is why reading the federalist papers and other documents written by our founders are so very important. Their writings along with the constitution allow for a better interpretation/understanding of the document.

  46. #46
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    7,298
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1500
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by nolesooner View Post
    Why?Just because it is 2 and a half centuries old? Does being old mean that the rule is outdated? What about the common laws of manking like, 1) don't steal, 2) don't murder, 3) don't commit adultery, etc...those are as old as time, but does that mean there should be newer and better rules instead?

    For something like the constitution, I believe that the framers had incredible forsight, but they also allowed for there to be some interpretation, because they wanted men and women to debate and be free. That doesn't mean that they didn't have a direction in mind. That is why context is so important and that is why reading the federalist papers and other documents written by our founders are so very important. Their writings along with the constitution allow for a better interpretation/understanding of the document.
    The internet. Police technology. Gerrymandering. The ability to have a census more than once every ten years. The ability to conduct interstate commerce.

  47. #47
    kssooner's Avatar
    Posts
    3,776
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Kansas

    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    The progressive movement is DANGEROUS?

    The progressive movement freed slaves, allowed women to vote, promotes equal rights for gays.

    You might be scared by some progressive concepts, and you're not wrong to feel that way, but to say it's "so dangerous" is ridiculous.

    The progressive movement in this country basically began in 1890's with Teddy Roosevelt and gained steam with Woodrow Wilson. Long after the slaves were freed.

  48. #48
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    7,298
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1500
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by kssooner View Post
    The progressive movement in this country basically began in 1890's with Teddy Roosevelt and gained steam with Woodrow Wilson. Long after the slaves were freed.
    ...that era has been over for the better part of a century. I figured you were talking generally about leftism as we know it in the US.

  49. #49
    Originally Posted by kssooner View Post
    The progressive movement in this country basically began in 1890's with Teddy Roosevelt and gained steam with Woodrow Wilson. Long after the slaves were freed.
    And ole Woodrow wasn't a pro-equality fella either.

  50. #50
    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    ...that era has been over for the better part of a century. I figured you were talking generally about leftism as we know it in the US.
    You were the one that referenced slavery and suffrage.

Similar Threads

  1. traveling out of country
    By jakel in forum Owen Field
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 26th, 2013, 04:04 PM