POS freeloaders using cinnamon like they're the Queen of England or something

The Constitution can be amended at any time. While not easily done it has usually been amended in under 3 years. Amend it any way you want. Be sure to amend it properly and no problems exist. Amending the Constitution by judges not applying it as written is improper.

The AOC was written as a perpetual union. There was no legal authority to allow the founders to write the US Constitution. The supreme Court has said a perpetual union once joined can not be left. I do not understand how the AOC is not still considered active law especially as the congressional record refers to it as one of the 4 organic laws of the United states along with the northwest territories act and declaration of independence.

Any thoughts on our military budget and activities?

non-sequeter

Government spends to much on almost everything it does and does more than it should.

It actually spends less than it should

It was canned because a bunch of thinking people said, "you know what, this isn't working out for our situation as well as we'd like, let's go back to the drawing board and put together something better." And they did.

It probably helps that they realized that simply inking "perpetual" onto an agreement doesn't actually grant eternal properties to it. I'm sure a few literalists of the era were confounded by what must have seemed like a horrible paradox, but it worked out in the end.

You are going against United States Supreme Court precedent. Being part of a "perpetual union" makes it impossible for a state to leave this Country. I disagree with the Courts reasoning as what was freely entered into must also be free to leave but my opinion is not binding.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...en&as_sdt=4,60

Downes v. Bidwell, 182 US 244 - Supreme Court 1901
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...en&as_sdt=4,60

Texas v. White, 74 US 700 - Supreme Court 1869

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...en&as_sdt=4,60

Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162 - Supreme Court 1875

If you read literally, you are illiterate.

And? The Supreme Court precedent itself goes against national and historical precedent.

Which would end up a neat piece of trivia should it ever take place (again), what with being impossible and all. I wonder how many agreements and declarations throughout history were made using perpetual-type binding language, and how they're doing right now.

in for the Articles of Confederation hotcakes

Is Country_Hick = AlexM? These rambling legal theories about the primacy of the Northwest Ordinance to modern America jurisprudence sounds like the stuff that guy used to say.

"I'm a textualist, I read literally." "Well, 'general welfare' actually doesn't mean 'general welfare." Scorching hot.

Country, are you familiar with what the term "Shepardize" means?

Imagine a world where the only proper ordering of government and law was for like one week in 1789 and everything from that point forward from Marbury to the Louisiana Purchase to the existence of the Air Force to Social Security is just an abject violation of your spiritual guidepost for life, the US Constitution. Just one horror show of legal radicalism 230 years running. Seems pretty miserable. No wonder they nose around people's grocery bags and fume about the contents and how it got paid for.

No one ever claimed being woke was easy, man.

LOL yeah "just googled it"

**** off kid

Dude, even Alexander Hamilton made the point explicitly, not long after the constitution was ratified, that it was not to be taken litterally. It was just a framework.

The wild thing about this private charity stuff is that none of these dip****s think private charities should help the poor either, right? Because of the incentives?

It's just a moral crisis, we've let big business turn half the electorate into ****ing sociopaths by feeding this ****.

When I saw this thread title, I assumed that it was going to be about the effect of the National Enquirer, etc., on people in the grocery store checkout line.

Most people I've met who say that charity should help the poor instead of the government don't give to charity.

It's just a roundabout way of saying, "*I* shouldn't have to help the poor."

Re: public/private distinction, most of the people I grew up around would say that private charities use discretion in who the money is given to, i.e., to people that actually need it. This is obviously wrong, because in most cases they were just talking about their local church and the people making the decisions as to how charity got doled out were making the decisions arbitrarily with little to no investigation or whatever. It's basically the judgement of whatever the deacons think is deserving, which I imagine would be horribly biased. The question as to whether a church's charity disencentivized work/betterment, is never discussed, either. The goodness/efficacy of private action is always assumed, which gets back to your point about how well business has deeply ingrained into the public psyche the morality of business decisions.

It's racism

The constitution is a contract between the people and the government. A contract is enforced as it is written.

The Constitution is a statute. Statutes are to be applied literally as they are written.

Imbrie v. Marsh, 71 A. 2d 352 - NJ: Supreme Court 1950
This is the historical fact of the matter, although I agree with the majority that the 1776 Constitution was deemed by its framers to be "a statute, albeit an important statute, of the type of Magna Carta, but nevertheless a statute amendable by any Legislature created under it."

JuPauk v. Board of Trustees of City University of NY, 654 F. 2d 856 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
Judge Mishler's sensible but difficult conclusion that the Constitution is a "statute"

Reitzer v. Board of Trustees of State Colleges, 2 Conn. App. 196 - Conn: Appellate Court 1984
The plaintiff claims that the constitution is a "statute" within the purview of General Statutes § 4-166 (2) and that therefore his "rights ... or privileges ... are required by statute to be determined... after an opportunity for hearing...." For purposes of this claim we assume without deciding that he is correct in his assertion

United States v. Goldenberg, 168 US 95 - Supreme Court 1897
The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language that he has used. He is presumed to know the meaning of words and the rules of grammar.

No mere omission, no mere failure to provide for contingencies, which it may seem wise to have specifically provided for, justify any judicial addition to the language of the statute.
"No mere omission ... which it may seem wise to have specifically provided for, justif[ies] any judicial addition to the language of the statute"

Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910 - Supreme Court 2007
The judge "must not read in by way of creation," but instead abide by the "duty of restraint, th[e] humility of function as merely the translator of another's command."

People don't inherently trust business decisions to be moral because of racism.

Cool story bro, I'm gonna take the word of the guy who spent most of his adult life defending and interpreting the constitution. Oh, plus he was actual there for the convention.