Anti Constitutional Politicians Should Not Hold High Office

[Michael Noire]

People who specifically have an agenda to abolish or severely hamper an Aspect of the Constitution or Bill of Rights should not hold the Highest offices, such as Secretary of State, President, Supreme Court Judge, and so on.

The highest offices should exist for the purpose of supporting and defending the laws of the land and the liberty and rights of the people. In order to change those laws, a politician should seek status as a local politician or as a senator or representative with the goal of creating new laws and amendments, which are then voted on. Through that branch of government, these biased people can attempt to change policy, but when an extremely biased or radical personality ends up in the seat of final call, where the buck stops, where they have judgment, they should be as neutral as possible, and if in support of anything, it should be support of the laws the way they are. Ideally, changing their minds and changing the laws should be a very difficult argument, for if it were an easy argument, then the law should not have been put into place to begin with.

[the reverend silver]

Mister George Kapland

They're all up for interpretation, you realize? And have all intents and purposes of being rewritten.

The constitution, is ultimately meaningless as a set of rules.

If we are going to have rulers, we need to hold them to a higher standard, and that requires we flex our muscles at some point.

[I AM R U]

the reverend silver

Mister George Kapland

They're all up for interpretation, you realize? And have all intents and purposes of being rewritten.

The constitution, is ultimately meaningless as a set of rules.

If we are going to have rulers, we need to hold them to a higher standard, and that requires we flex our muscles at some point.

That's utterly irrelevant to what George said...

In a democracy, it is common for people to run on the platform they aim to implement once in power, but due to the voting process, no one can act surprised when they change their positions once in power - constitutional change is, however, subject ultimately to the will of the people, but while laws can be interpreted differently to how some parts of the population may wish, that doesn't mean they have been changed or ignored.

[the reverend silver]

I AM R U

the reverend silver

Mister George Kapland

They're all up for interpretation, you realize? And have all intents and purposes of being rewritten.

The constitution, is ultimately meaningless as a set of rules.

If we are going to have rulers, we need to hold them to a higher standard, and that requires we flex our muscles at some point.

That's utterly irrelevant to what George said...

In a democracy, it is common for people to run on the platform they aim to implement once in power, but due to the voting process, no one can act surprised when they change their positions once in power - constitutional change is, however, subject ultimately to the will of the people, but while laws can be interpreted differently to how some parts of the population may wish, that doesn't mean they have been changed or ignored.

It's sort of relevant. Sort of.

I'm just saying, we ******** up when we let the rules for our rulers become "ultimately meaningless as a set of rules". We especially ******** up considering it may have always been so.



That all depends on how hard you're interpreting them.

[I AM R U]

the reverend silver

I AM R U

the reverend silver

Mister George Kapland

They're all up for interpretation, you realize? And have all intents and purposes of being rewritten.

The constitution, is ultimately meaningless as a set of rules.

If we are going to have rulers, we need to hold them to a higher standard, and that requires we flex our muscles at some point.

That's utterly irrelevant to what George said...

In a democracy, it is common for people to run on the platform they aim to implement once in power, but due to the voting process, no one can act surprised when they change their positions once in power - constitutional change is, however, subject ultimately to the will of the people, but while laws can be interpreted differently to how some parts of the population may wish, that doesn't mean they have been changed or ignored.

It's sort of relevant. Sort of.

I'm just saying, we ******** up when we let the rules for our rulers become "ultimately meaningless as a set of rules". We especially ******** up considering it may have always been so.

They always were - a constitution only means something so long as we continue to believe it means something, and only to the extent to which rulers "obey" it.

Quote:

That all depends on how hard you're interpreting them.

I don't think you understand the basics of legal constitutional interpretation, given that this sentence makes no sense whatsoever in that context.

[the reverend silver]

I AM R U

the reverend silver

I AM R U

the reverend silver

Mister George Kapland

They're all up for interpretation, you realize? And have all intents and purposes of being rewritten.

The constitution, is ultimately meaningless as a set of rules.

If we are going to have rulers, we need to hold them to a higher standard, and that requires we flex our muscles at some point.

That's utterly irrelevant to what George said...

In a democracy, it is common for people to run on the platform they aim to implement once in power, but due to the voting process, no one can act surprised when they change their positions once in power - constitutional change is, however, subject ultimately to the will of the people, but while laws can be interpreted differently to how some parts of the population may wish, that doesn't mean they have been changed or ignored.

It's sort of relevant. Sort of.

I'm just saying, we ******** up when we let the rules for our rulers become "ultimately meaningless as a set of rules". We especially ******** up considering it may have always been so.

They always were - a constitution only means something so long as we continue to believe it means something, and only to the extent to which rulers "obey" it.

Quote:

That all depends on how hard you're interpreting them.

I don't think you understand the basics of legal constitutional interpretation, given that this sentence makes no sense whatsoever in that context.

Well, ********.

*broadly
And yeah, it gets pretty broad.

[I AM R U]

the reverend silver

I AM R U

the reverend silver

I AM R U

the reverend silver

If we are going to have rulers, we need to hold them to a higher standard, and that requires we flex our muscles at some point.

That's utterly irrelevant to what George said...

In a democracy, it is common for people to run on the platform they aim to implement once in power, but due to the voting process, no one can act surprised when they change their positions once in power - constitutional change is, however, subject ultimately to the will of the people, but while laws can be interpreted differently to how some parts of the population may wish, that doesn't mean they have been changed or ignored.

It's sort of relevant. Sort of.

I'm just saying, we ******** up when we let the rules for our rulers become "ultimately meaningless as a set of rules". We especially ******** up considering it may have always been so.

They always were - a constitution only means something so long as we continue to believe it means something, and only to the extent to which rulers "obey" it.

Quote:

That all depends on how hard you're interpreting them.

I don't think you understand the basics of legal constitutional interpretation, given that this sentence makes no sense whatsoever in that context.

Well, ********.

*broadly
And yeah, it gets pretty broad.

Ah, that makes more sense... And sure, while most courts tend to take a narrow approach to constitutional interpretation, it is possible a court could approach it very broadly, in which case yes, there is possibility that laws could "change" quite dramatically. But they wouldn't be ignoring or eliminating or "hampering" the constitution, merely continuing the accepted tradition of legal interpretation, upon which most democracies depend (its part of the basis of separation of powers).

[xXYUNG_FISH_GODXx]

I feel that the main issue with politics in general is that the rate of change within any given country is becoming exponentially greater than the rate of adaptation of the rules it has adopted.

A lot of the rules that stand today were made in a period of time that couldn't even fathom the levels of amount of technological advance and universal unity that have become present.

In my opinion, the entire constitution needs to be revised.

[Roih Uvet]

Doesn't the Constitution have an amendment process specifically for people that have an opposition to what's already there? Or do you support Prohibition because you think they shouldn't have been able to take that back?

[the reverend silver]

I AM R U

the reverend silver

I AM R U

the reverend silver

I AM R U

That's utterly irrelevant to what George said...

In a democracy, it is common for people to run on the platform they aim to implement once in power, but due to the voting process, no one can act surprised when they change their positions once in power - constitutional change is, however, subject ultimately to the will of the people, but while laws can be interpreted differently to how some parts of the population may wish, that doesn't mean they have been changed or ignored.

It's sort of relevant. Sort of.

I'm just saying, we ******** up when we let the rules for our rulers become "ultimately meaningless as a set of rules". We especially ******** up considering it may have always been so.

They always were - a constitution only means something so long as we continue to believe it means something, and only to the extent to which rulers "obey" it.

Quote:

That all depends on how hard you're interpreting them.

I don't think you understand the basics of legal constitutional interpretation, given that this sentence makes no sense whatsoever in that context.

Well, ********.

*broadly
And yeah, it gets pretty broad.

Ah, that makes more sense... And sure, while most courts tend to take a narrow approach to constitutional interpretation, it is possible a court could approach it very broadly, in which case yes, there is possibility that laws could "change" quite dramatically. But they wouldn't be ignoring or eliminating or "hampering" the constitution, merely continuing the accepted tradition of legal interpretation, upon which most democracies depend (its part of the basis of separation of powers).

Our separation of powers is pretty flawed over here, all things considered. Still too much potential for abuse of power.

[I AM R U]

the reverend silver

I AM R U

the reverend silver

I AM R U

the reverend silver

It's sort of relevant. Sort of.

I'm just saying, we ******** up when we let the rules for our rulers become "ultimately meaningless as a set of rules". We especially ******** up considering it may have always been so.

They always were - a constitution only means something so long as we continue to believe it means something, and only to the extent to which rulers "obey" it.

Quote:

That all depends on how hard you're interpreting them.

I don't think you understand the basics of legal constitutional interpretation, given that this sentence makes no sense whatsoever in that context.

Well, ********.

*broadly
And yeah, it gets pretty broad.

Ah, that makes more sense... And sure, while most courts tend to take a narrow approach to constitutional interpretation, it is possible a court could approach it very broadly, in which case yes, there is possibility that laws could "change" quite dramatically. But they wouldn't be ignoring or eliminating or "hampering" the constitution, merely continuing the accepted tradition of legal interpretation, upon which most democracies depend (its part of the basis of separation of powers).

Our separation of powers is pretty flawed over here, all things considered. Still too much potential for abuse of power.

Hey, at least you have it! Want to know how explicit our separation of powers doctrine is? Our constitution was set out in three chapters, one of the executive, one on the legislature, one on the judiciary - and because they're in three separate chapters, that means the authors wanted separation of powers, right? Right? RIGHT?

[God Emperor Baldur]

the reverend silver

Mister George Kapland

They're all up for interpretation, you realize? And have all intents and purposes of being rewritten.

The constitution, is ultimately meaningless as a set of rules.

If we are going to have rulers, we need to hold them to a higher standard, and that requires we flex our muscles at some point.

Well I'm glad you can escape to your magical unicorn land.

[the reverend silver]

I AM R U

the reverend silver

I AM R U

the reverend silver

I AM R U

They always were - a constitution only means something so long as we continue to believe it means something, and only to the extent to which rulers "obey" it.



I don't think you understand the basics of legal constitutional interpretation, given that this sentence makes no sense whatsoever in that context.

Well, ********.

*broadly
And yeah, it gets pretty broad.

Ah, that makes more sense... And sure, while most courts tend to take a narrow approach to constitutional interpretation, it is possible a court could approach it very broadly, in which case yes, there is possibility that laws could "change" quite dramatically. But they wouldn't be ignoring or eliminating or "hampering" the constitution, merely continuing the accepted tradition of legal interpretation, upon which most democracies depend (its part of the basis of separation of powers).

Our separation of powers is pretty flawed over here, all things considered. Still too much potential for abuse of power.

Hey, at least you have it! Want to know how explicit our separation of powers doctrine is? Our constitution was set out in three chapters, one of the executive, one on the legislature, one on the judiciary - and because they're in three separate chapters, that means the authors wanted separation of powers, right? Right? RIGHT?

Lawl. You'd think so. Let me guess, members of the same party got elected to damn near everything?

[the reverend silver]

God Emperor Baldur

the reverend silver

Mister George Kapland

They're all up for interpretation, you realize? And have all intents and purposes of being rewritten.

The constitution, is ultimately meaningless as a set of rules.

If we are going to have rulers, we need to hold them to a higher standard, and that requires we flex our muscles at some point.

Well I'm glad you can escape to your magical unicorn land.

Shut up Baldur, nobody gives a ******** what you've got going on dude.