4
4
0
The current culture of ideology and sociology that exists in the United States makes for an interesting mix of thoughts and ideas. To piggy-back on MCPO Treants popular discussion regarding ‘Do you believe the Bill of Rights is outdated & should be either dropped in its entirety or at least rewritten?’ where do we stand on our belief in the Constitution? Some believe the document created over 227 years ago holds little bearing on our present lives due to its ‘outdated’ language and ideas. Others believe in the Constitutions vital relevance today as a cornerstone of our system.
The Articles of Confederation our infant Nation started with proved to be unworkable and nonfunctional in a short period of four years. Have we now arrived at a time the series of compromises made back in 1787 that cobbled together the document we presently regard as The United States Constitution has also become unworkable and outdated? Has this Montesquieu influenced instrument outlived its original purpose?
The Articles of Confederation our infant Nation started with proved to be unworkable and nonfunctional in a short period of four years. Have we now arrived at a time the series of compromises made back in 1787 that cobbled together the document we presently regard as The United States Constitution has also become unworkable and outdated? Has this Montesquieu influenced instrument outlived its original purpose?
Posted in these groups: 
Constitution
Bill of Rights
Constitution Bill of Rights
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 22
Suspended Profile
CPT Richard Riley. I am fully committed to supporting and defending the US Constitution . . . but I would seek an amendment to provide for recall of each and every administration official by a vote of no confidence . . . leading to national elections to replace the entire administration. Warmest Regards, Sandy
8
8
0
The question should be do you believe in the oath you took to defend the Constitution. People do not take an oath to a party, person or place, they take the oath to the Constitution itself. The Constitution has within itself the ability to change. Case law is not Constitutional law. The politicians and parties have muddied the very foundation of this country. Do I believe in the Constitution, you are d@mned right I do. However, I've completely lost faith in the career politicians who no longer live by the oath they took.
(8)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
COL Ted Mc,
Well, no. Congress doesn't call the convention at all. Congress role in such a convention is strictly ministerial. The Convention is convened, and the rules for it set, by the States in concert. The language of the article are peremptory, Congress has no discretion.
Check Federalist 45 and 85 for commentary closer to the framing.
Well, no. Congress doesn't call the convention at all. Congress role in such a convention is strictly ministerial. The Convention is convened, and the rules for it set, by the States in concert. The language of the article are peremptory, Congress has no discretion.
Check Federalist 45 and 85 for commentary closer to the framing.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SFC (P) - You say " Congress doesn't call the convention at all." and I suspect that since the actual wording is "shall call a convention for proposing amendments" probably isn't correct.
You also say "The Convention is convened, and the rules for it set, by the States in concert." which, since "The Archivist (of the United States) and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985." also probably isn't quite correct. Since there has never been a "Constitutional Convention" in the history of the United States then there are no "established" procedures and customs so either [a] the Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register get to make them up as they go along, or [b] the people in the Executive Branch to whom those two are ultimately responsible get to make them up as they go along, or [c] "Congress" gets to make them up when they call the convention (or later if they feel like it).
You also say "The language of the article are peremptory, Congress has no discretion." and there you are quite correct - "Congress" MUST "call the convention". Unfortunately there isn't anything peremptory about HOW, WHERE, WHEN "Congress" calls the convention. (In fact, should the control of the House and the Senate be split, then I can foresee there being a legislative deadlock which would result in a delay of several years before the convention is, in fact, convened.
You might also note that, even after the convention, "Congress" can still mess with the ratification process as there is absolutely no legislative requirement that the same ratification process be followed in every state.
You also say "The Convention is convened, and the rules for it set, by the States in concert." which, since "The Archivist (of the United States) and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985." also probably isn't quite correct. Since there has never been a "Constitutional Convention" in the history of the United States then there are no "established" procedures and customs so either [a] the Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register get to make them up as they go along, or [b] the people in the Executive Branch to whom those two are ultimately responsible get to make them up as they go along, or [c] "Congress" gets to make them up when they call the convention (or later if they feel like it).
You also say "The language of the article are peremptory, Congress has no discretion." and there you are quite correct - "Congress" MUST "call the convention". Unfortunately there isn't anything peremptory about HOW, WHERE, WHEN "Congress" calls the convention. (In fact, should the control of the House and the Senate be split, then I can foresee there being a legislative deadlock which would result in a delay of several years before the convention is, in fact, convened.
You might also note that, even after the convention, "Congress" can still mess with the ratification process as there is absolutely no legislative requirement that the same ratification process be followed in every state.
(1)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
I was in error when I said Congress didn't call the convention. You are correct there. Here's a document that is less prone to similar error than my brain: http://constitution.i2i.org/files/2013/02/runaway-response-rev1.pdf
Prof. Natelson addresses all your points and then some.
Prof. Natelson addresses all your points and then some.
(1)
(0)
8
8
0
If we don't believe in it why are we in a profession that takes an oath to uphold it?
(8)
(0)
SSG Maurice P.
SSGT Tullis your 110% right my brother...These kids today in the military are driving brand new Lexus and live in quarters that in my day only Senior Officers were housed in...Back in the day the Marine Corps had us living in open Squadbays except for the Marine Corps Air Wing those poughs hehehehehehe had 2 and 3 man rooms...to buy uniforms in the Marine Corps back in the day you didnt go to the P.X you went to cash sales all they had was Marine Corps uniforms Pvt's Pfc's and Lance Corporals werent allowed to buy their own uniforms, Corporals could buy theirs but it took a Sgt to go with a non-rate to get his uniforms... Drinking back in the day legally if you wanted hard booze you had to be a Corporal and above...back in the day if your were overseas the Marine Corps wouldnt let you own a vehicle unless you were a Staff sergeant and above... We Marines COULD NOT GO TO THE ENLISTED CLUB ON KADENA AIR FORCE BASE unless we were at least a Ssgt...The reason being back before my time rowdy Marines awaiting to go to Vietnam from Okinawa tore Kadana Enlisted Club apart...Yes the military has really changed my brother Semper Fi
(1)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
CPT Justin Rose care to elaborate? SSgt Thomas A Tullis Jr do you think your comment might be overly broad?
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SGT (Join to see) You ask "If we don't believe in it why are we in a profession that takes an oath to uphold it?" and that's a very good question.
Unfortunately it reminds me of the position the post-tsarist Russians held about the Russian constitution(s) which [roughly translated] was "Of course that's not the actual constitution - but it's the one that we are working toward.". When you combine that with the old [roughly translated] Russian adage "There are always two governments - the one that says it is the government and the one that you go to if you want to get anything done." you start getting a bit better picture of the way the world actually works for the vast majority of people.
There is nothing wrong with swearing to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America - even if it isn't fully in effect - because it is a constitution which people SHOULD work toward implementing and/or maintaining.
However, please also bear in mind that "constitutions are like ice cream - they come in a variety of flavours and some people like Vanilla, while others like Chocolate, while yet others like BBQ Watermelon Kumquat Fudge Ripple.
Unfortunately it reminds me of the position the post-tsarist Russians held about the Russian constitution(s) which [roughly translated] was "Of course that's not the actual constitution - but it's the one that we are working toward.". When you combine that with the old [roughly translated] Russian adage "There are always two governments - the one that says it is the government and the one that you go to if you want to get anything done." you start getting a bit better picture of the way the world actually works for the vast majority of people.
There is nothing wrong with swearing to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America - even if it isn't fully in effect - because it is a constitution which people SHOULD work toward implementing and/or maintaining.
However, please also bear in mind that "constitutions are like ice cream - they come in a variety of flavours and some people like Vanilla, while others like Chocolate, while yet others like BBQ Watermelon Kumquat Fudge Ripple.
(0)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
OK, truth time. When I first joined the Navy, back when JPG needed a deck hand, I had no idea what the oath was going to be or be about. Sure, I had studied the Constitution and knew the document and what it meant, in principle. BUT to Support, Protect, and Defend it, really? From ALL enemies, both foreign, okay, and domestic, what?
I took this oath at the Induction Center and never really thought to much about it until we learned more about it during classes in Boot Camp. Then it was WOW. I really swore this and I understood what I had done. Just joining the Navy was much more than a Uniform and traveling around the world, it involved actually believing in something. The next 6 times I took that oath, I really understood what I was doing, but how many really understand the first time?
I took this oath at the Induction Center and never really thought to much about it until we learned more about it during classes in Boot Camp. Then it was WOW. I really swore this and I understood what I had done. Just joining the Navy was much more than a Uniform and traveling around the world, it involved actually believing in something. The next 6 times I took that oath, I really understood what I was doing, but how many really understand the first time?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google
Besides, with the personal information already available on the internet, anyone's life is vitually an open book anyway!
As the President and his offices have become more and more corrupt, leaving us with this Chicago Ward Politician, who was not qualified to be a Senator, much less POTUS, I have to agree with 1LT Sandy Annala. If there had been some way to recall him before he turned the Administration over to his unelected and underqualified cronies, it should have been done. His agenda was and still is the destruction of our country, but maybe we can survive 2 more years of his CHANGE.