Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the News

[Northwestcoug]

Jon Stewart opines on our Mormon in the news du jour:

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/full-epis...-gina-mccarthy

[Uncle Ted]

Jon Stewart opines on our Mormon in the news du jour:

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/full-epis...-gina-mccarthy

LOL...

Sean Hannity has now made Glenn Beck the voice of reason.

[byu71]

LOL...

From several sources I have heard Beck has lightened up his tone and rhetoric a bit. Enough to be the "voice of reason", that would be quite a change.

[Solon]

Psychos. Or poseurs looking for an excuse to fatigue up and "bear arms".

If Americans really knew their history, they would be comparing this to the Whiskey Rebellion.
The Feds flexed in that one, albeit with restraint.

The Constitution is great, and there are definitely elements of the US government that need reform, but does anyone really think it's time to go back to 1788?

For most Americans, the definition of freedom has changed drastically since the Industrial Revolution & the New Deal.
People planning to go back to a literalist version of 1788's Constitution might as well argue that we bring back African slavery & disenfranchise women.

[byu71]

If Americans really knew their history, they would be comparing this to the Whiskey Rebellion.
The Feds flexed in that one, albeit with restraint.

The Constitution is great, and there are definitely elements of the US government that need reform, but does anyone really think it's time to go back to 1788?

For most Americans, the definition of freedom has changed drastically since the Industrial Revolution & the New Deal.
People planning to go back to a literalist version of 1788's Constitution might as well argue that we bring back African slavery & disenfranchise women.

Do you think every change someone wants to make has validity using the how wrong people were in the past?

I haven't heard the one about the framers of the Consitution were wrong on slavery and women for a while. Surely they were wrong, but does that give license for every cause to liberalize the Constitution to point out they were wrong. Were they right on anything?

The one I have heard the most lately is the church was wrong on blacks and the Priesthood, therefor they are wrong on women and the Priesthood and also Gay marriage.

Who gets to decide what in the constitution was another of their mistakes?

[old_gregg]

I haven't heard the one about the framers of the Consitution were wrong on slavery and women for a while.

yeah i wish people would tell that joke more often.

[Uncle Ted]

If Americans really knew their history, they would be comparing this to the Whiskey Rebellion.
The Feds flexed in that one, albeit with restraint.

The Constitution is great, and there are definitely elements of the US government that need reform, but does anyone really think it's time to go back to 1788?

For most Americans, the definition of freedom has changed drastically since the Industrial Revolution & the New Deal.
People planning to go back to a literalist version of 1788's Constitution might as well argue that we bring back African slavery & disenfranchise women.

Did the 1788 version of the constitution not have that Article V part about how to go about amending it? Or was that added later before Amendments XIII and XIX?

[byu71]

yeah i wish people would tell that joke more often.

Good one. YOu had me mad for 10 seconds. Then I remembered you are the guy that makes up shit to try and impress people.

[old_gregg]

Good one. YOu had me mad for 10 seconds. Then I remembered you are the guy that makes up shit to try and impress people.

you got me there

[byu71]

you got me there

Now I feel bad.

[imanihonjin]

If Americans really knew their history, they would be comparing this to the Whiskey Rebellion.
The Feds flexed in that one, albeit with restraint.

The Constitution is great, and there are definitely elements of the US government that need reform, but does anyone really think it's time to go back to 1788?

For most Americans, the definition of freedom has changed drastically since the Industrial Revolution & the New Deal.
People planning to go back to a literalist version of 1788's Constitution might as well argue that we bring back African slavery & disenfranchise women.

What version of the Constitution are you proposing we should adhere to?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Clive Bundy:

"I've lived my lifetime here. My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley here ever since 1877. All these rights that I claim, have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and the water and the access and range improvements," Bundy said.

The truth:

Clark County property records show Cliven Bundy's parents moved from Bundyville, Arizona and bought the 160 acre ranch in 1948 from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt.

Water rights were transferred too, but only to the ranch, not the federally managed land surrounding it. Court records show Bundy family cattle didn't start grazing on that land until 1954.

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/253015...under-scrutiny

[PaloAltoCougar]

If Americans really knew their history, they would be comparing this to the Whiskey Rebellion.
The Feds flexed in that one, albeit with restraint.

The Constitution is great, and there are definitely elements of the US government that need reform, but does anyone really think it's time to go back to 1788?

For most Americans, the definition of freedom has changed drastically since the Industrial Revolution & the New Deal.
People planning to go back to a literalist version of 1788's Constitution might as well argue that we bring back African slavery & disenfranchise women.

An interesting interview with former Justice Stevens in USA Today includes his proposal for the following amendments to the Constitution:

•Changing the Second Amendment to make clear that only a state's militia, not its citizens, has a constitutional right to bear arms.

•Changing the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishments" by specifically including the death penalty.

•Removing from First Amendment protection any "reasonable limits" on campaign spending enacted by Congress or the states.

•Requiring that congressional and state legislative districts be "compact and composed of contiguous territory" to stop both parties from carving out safe seats.

•Eliminating states' sovereign immunity from liability for violating the Constitution or an act of Congress, which he calls a "manifest injustice."

•Allowing Congress to require states to perform federal duties in emergencies, in order to reduce "the risk of a national catastrophe."

I'd expect some resistance to a few of those, including the first.

[Solon]

Did the 1788 version of the constitution not have that Article V part about how to go about amending it? Or was that added later before Amendments XIII and XIX?

Not exactly a gotcha, but I get yer drift. I approve of the Roman Numerals, though, as they bring greater gravitas to the amendments.

In 1788, the founders of the country essentially identified freedom with property, and non-property owners were fundamentally excluded from the political process. Indeed, there were several safeguards put in place to keep the idiot masses from wielding too much power. These safeguards have been systematically eroded over time, especially during the Jacksonian era, Reconstruction, and the Progressive era.

The fundamental understandings of freedom shifted from the right to property in the 1700s, to the right to sell one's labor to the highest bidder & liberty of contract (1800s), to today's current hodgepodge of social issues and belief in governmental responsibility to safeguard the country's economy.

Essentially, Bundy is making an 1800s argument for liberty of contract, accusing the government of meddling in his right to pursue his own business interests. The federal government is operating under a fundamentally different assumption of what "freedom" means.

Much like the 14th amendment has been invoked in the 1860s to bring ex-slaves into the citizen-body, in the 1960s to integrate schools, and in the 2010s to argue in favor of gay-marriage, the fundamental meanings of constitutional language changes all the time. I'm sure the lawyers on here can give finer points of clarity on this, but from the historian's point-of-view, certain points of the Constitution of 1788 have fundamentally different meaning today.

I never wrote that those who would revert to an earlier meaning would therefore discard the Amendments. Rather, I suggested that the shifts in meaning have been as profound as those Amendments (hence the phrase "might as well argue").

This is what I meant.

[Surfah]

An interesting interview with former Justice Stevens in USA Today includes his proposal for the following amendments to the Constitution:



I'd expect some resistance to a few of those, including the first.