The Consitution

[Doer]

For example, the police can legally lie to you, lie to them and its a crime.

No, no. It is not a crime to lie to the police. I'm not aware of a single State that makes it a de facto crime. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be used against you. The police are trained to assess you and feed you lies to un-cover intent. That never stops. They are engaged in threat assessment, so it is hardly a civil lie. It is Duty and they all have Psyc. Degrees and special law dog training.

But, the good side is, they sense the truth better than anyone. It is their job. When they start the assessment, it can be, you know, they push into your comfort zone and make arousing statements. One officer crowded me up onto the curb, so he would be much shorter than me. "Are you pissed off," he asks, with menace. I just looked down into his eyes and slowly smiled like a true friend. "No. Nothing like that," I said. Sincere truth is what the job demands for safety. If they get that, they see you for real.

Or I have used this, when it was nothing, but the driver managed to arouse the Trooper, he called for backup, etc. OK? When they do the thing where they separate one person from the group for questions and one cop watches the group try to get their story straight. Don't DO IT. Tell them all to be quiet. When it is your turn, tell the group to just tell the truth. The watching cop will detect this.

Then as you walk up, say, "Now, I'm going to tell ya'll boys, the truth." (they will say, "mutter mutter, about time, we would like that, etc") Tell your version calmly in a way, that lets everyone off the hook, mostly honoring the cops for the job. Remember they have the right to protect themselves. And these lie-filled assessments are meant to get at what the hell is actually going on. Tell them what the hell is actually happening. Then they can back down.

If you are in some shit, on the other hand, lie and tap dance might be the only way to try.

BTW, do not lie to the FBI. Not a word of less than, the whole truth and nothing but. That is a felony.

 

[unohu69]

I never lie to them FuknBigIndians, specialy if they are drinkin... whoo, thatl turn into a rough night fast...

 

[desert dude]

Is it infallible?

Should we forever as a society abide by the words written by men centuries ago?

The simple answer is yes. What would you rather do, reinterpret it whimsically as we go along. You realize, I hope, that it won't be you doing the reinterpreting, it will be your betters doing that. Today that is Obama and Eric Holder and his madcap band of gun runners. Maybe you like the idea of Obama making shit up as he goes along, but tomorrow it will be somebody to the right of Dick Chaney. Will you like that?

We are all much better off with written laws that only change when the constitutional amendment process is followed and we then have a new set of written laws that are sacrosanct until amended.

If you don't like the second amendment the only ethical and legal way to change it is to amend the constitution.

 

[cannabineer]

^^and that's the honey badger in the woodpile, isn't it? cn

 

[Ringsixty]

Is it infallible?

Should we forever as a society abide by the words written by men centuries ago?

if it ain't broke, why fix it.
tell me what you object to most.

 

[john.roberts85]

if it ain't broke, why fix it.
tell me what you object to most.

Ambiguous language all throughout.

 

[justanotherbozo]

Ambiguous language all throughout.

...nothing specific? ...just generalities?

 

[Doer]

Ambiguous language all throughout.

Some examples?

 

[Doer]

^^and that's the honey badger in the woodpile, isn't it? cn

Or was it this?

 

[Doer]

We will never forget the importance of our unique Constitution.

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/registration_article/registration.html
"It would be instructive at this time to recall why the American citizenry and Congress have historically opposed the registration of firearms. The reason is plain. Registration makes it easy for a tyrannical government to confiscate firearms and to make prey of its subjects. Denying this historical fact is no more justified than denying that the Holocaust occurred or that the Nazis murdered millions of unarmed people."


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular][SIZE=-2]Invading Nazi troops in Holland in 1940 immediately nailed up posters announcing a ban on all firearms. From Die Deutsche Wochenshau, May 15, 1940. [/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[john.roberts85]

...nothing specific? ...just generalities?

It lacks rigidity, which is what has lead to the various modes of constitutional interpretation (e.g., weak originalism, exclusive originalism, and pragmatism). Fairly common examples are:

Due Process of Law
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Equal Protection

Come on, guys, some things are common knowledge, not really in need of elaboration.

 

[justanotherbozo]

It lacks rigidity, which is what has lead to the various modes of constitutional interpretation (e.g., weak originalism, exclusive originalism, and pragmatism). Fairly common examples are:

Due Process of Law
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Equal Protection

Come on, guys, some things are common knowledge, not really in need of elaboration.

i wouldn't call that much of an elaboration guy, just more generalities.

...and have you a better alternative to the Constitution, or are you just complaining?

bozo

 

[Doer]

It lacks rigidity, which is what has lead to the various modes of constitutional interpretation (e.g., weak originalism, exclusive originalism, and pragmatism). Fairly common examples are:

Due Process of Law
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Equal Protection

Come on, guys, some things are common knowledge, not really in need of elaboration.

You said the language was ambiguous throughout. We ask for examples. You say, common knowledge? You mean you are ingnorant of the "common knowledge?" Logic Alert~!

 

[john.roberts85]

i wouldn't call that much of an elaboration guy, just more generalities.

...and have you a better alternative to the Constitution, or are you just complaining?

bozo

I fail to see how my examples of due process of law or cruel and unusual punishment are generalities. Those are specific examples of ambiguities, though not elaborated.

I have a sabby cat avatar, yet you still wonder if I have an alternative or am just complaining?

 

[canndo]

The bible is optional. The constitution is not.

"are there unisversal truths that withstand the ages?"

That's kinda what I'm getting at.

The Constitution is as optional as the Bible. No one in this country need read it at all, many do not.

 

[st0wandgrow]

The Constitution is as optional as the Bible. No one in this country need read it at all, many do not.

I wasn't talking about reading it. I was responding to this:

"And the Bible? whould we be run by the words written by men 2000 years ago?"



It is optional to follow the words of the bible in this country. It is not optional to follow the words of the constitution.

 

[john.roberts85]

You said the language was ambiguous throughout. We ask for examples. You say, common knowledge? You mean you are ingnorant of the "common knowledge?" Logic Alert~!

I gave examples prior to saying it was common knowledge. You're beyond disingenuous.

 

[justanotherbozo]

I fail to see how my examples of due process of law or cruel and unusual punishment are generalities. Those are specific examples of ambiguities, though not elaborated.

I have a sabby cat avatar, yet you still wonder if I have an alternative or am just complaining?

...they are nothing more than generalities because you failed to list the language you consider ambiguous.

...you also failed to offer an alternative to the Constitution. ...and yeah, it sounds like nothing more than complaining to me.

keep in mind that in America you are free to leave if you don't like it here, ...and you can take your little kitty with you.

 

[canndo]

Every time our leaders figure out a way to sidestep the constitution it ends horribly for the citizens. The constitution is a protecting document for me, you, and everyone else. To "revisit" it is to do only one thing strip the protections from us and doing so restructuring the country. A snowball has a better chance in hell than you convincing us to give our rights up to our leaders. Simply put the constitution isn't the problem our leaders are.

I don't see it that way. I believe that there remain more individual civil rights that remain to be discovered, some within the document and some outside of it - rights that may need to be described and the protection thereof codified into our original protective document. For example, we discovered that we have the right to privacy. The founders never comprehended that their privacy could ever become violated by government and so they wrote nothing that directly protected that privacy. We now have a body of law and prescient that tends to protect privacy but those laws are subject to a single opposing judicial interpretation of the constitution - that "penumbra" that has been so laughed at by the right is merely a shadow and not an irrefutable statement. It is the irrefutable statements in the constitution that offer us the most and most dependable protection.

 

[abandonconflict]

Is it infallible?

Should we forever as a society abide by the words written by men centuries ago?

My opinion, is that the scotus ought to be managed such that no Justice can be bought by capital interests, as the votes of several have at times been bought, such as when it came time to review FDR's New Deal. With transparency there, amendments will be all the necessary progress to the constitution. After all, the bill of rights is actually a bunch of amendments, as is the abolition of slavery (13th) and if future amendments are needed to keep the document updated according to the nation's culture, we will need our scotus free from the corruption of partiality toward any interest aside from morality and the wishes of we the people.