US Constitution?... Pffft

Actually I found it very interesting.  In some ways she is right.  Our Constitution is getting old and in a great deal of ways it is no longer as it would appear to be on the surface.  If you look at all the security acts passed in the last twenty years (The Patriot Act, etc.) we have lost some of our freedoms even though on the surface you may not notice.  Still though it is the Constitution that newly formed governments look toward when attempting to build/rebuild.  All she was saying (IMO) was that there are newer Constitutions and Government Charters that are on par or even just a little better then ours that newly formed governments can use to help in establishing a guide for their new government.

The USA constitution was ground breaking when drafted, but as mentioned it is now the oldest written one still working. It a bit dated, and it shows some times. Just try to argue what "The right of a militia to bear arms" means in this day and age, and you will have dozens of interpretations. Both the Canadian and South Africa constitutions based themselves heavily on the USA one, but updated it to both better suit their own conditions, and the current time we are in. I think it makes more sense in a way to study them more heavily when forming your own new constitution.

Those who think the constitution is old do so out of ignorance.  The Constitution is still unique in the world.  Why?  It is the only bottom up document.  Other constitutions tell people what they can and cannot do.  But ours is genius in its simplicity.  It merely tells the government what it cannot do (since bastardized by morons that fail to understand the "positiveness' of the document.

The article says a lot about Buzzy.  It says she is not competent to be a justice.  Sadly, most idiots in DC cannot fathom that either.

which manifestation or incarnation of our constitution should she have recommended?

original? or slave free? 

clean and sober with 18th amendment? or user friendlier thanks to 21st amendment?

 

 

Food for thought here: We have four options; 1. Support the Constitution, 2. Amend the Constitution, 3. Replace it with something else or 4. Continue to ignor it and just BAU. I don't know about you, but for me ... this breed of corrupt politicians could only concoct more garbage that will just "LEGALLY" diminish our few remaining rights. Until SOMETHING changes in the demeanor of the USG and the politicians that fester there ... I would stop using #4 and I would rule out #3 and concentrate on #1 and #2.

I'd kinda like justices sworn to uphold a constitution to actually revere it and consider it a model for other societies.  They don't have to consider it perfect - nothing in the world is, but it's the strongest in protecting the inalienable rights of the individual from oppressive government as any ever written, before or since.  Woulda been nice to hear her at least defend it a bit.

Thanks for making the point for me on why it being so 'old' is a red herring, kb.

Best to use the entire interview instead of bits and pieces that are easily taken out of context.

I agree the full interview leaves a better taste in one’s mouth. But I don’t think one has to look any further than this for the reasoning … “Ginsburg was appointed by President Bill Clinton and took the oath of office on August 10, 1993.” But it does seem this view is shared with much of the world.

'We the People’ Loses Appeal With People Around the World

 

"We can't wait" for Barack Obama's fundamental changes, and that ridiculous old scrap of paper gets in the way.

NYT's on board.  Shocked, shocked I say.

Wow, that's appalling. I guess Obama's media accomplices are trying to build a case for why we "can't wait" for more radicalism and anti Americanism.

That may be so, but if you try to argue what the second amendment actually SAYS instead of some half-remembered paraphrase, it's a lot less susceptible to misunderstandings. 

 

("...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.")

The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the states and individuals from a centralized control. 

Then, with Wilson and later Roosevelt, came the dawning of Progressivism and an activist Supreme Court. The US is fast becoming not a nation of laws, but a nation of men and RBGinsburg is part of that. 

She mentioned the First Amendment and free speech and then recommends they look to Canada for guidance. I didn't barf but I gagged a lot. 

We've seen once again that the First Amendment is especially troubling for Obama. He has no respect for it that's for sure. His guiding principle is free speech and freedom of religion for me but not for thee. 

 

 

Leave wel  l enough alone.

Obama's continuing assault of the Constitution...

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/14/morning-bell-obamas-continuing-assault-on-the-constitution/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

 

[quote=Flakey101] "The right of a militia to bear arms" [/qupte]

... its the right of ALL PEOPLE to bear arms not the right of militia's to bear arms.

Militias are the justification for it