I really don't know what to say about this article. Of course Roberts says what everyone wants to hear, but is that a good thing? I guess it should be a good thing to rule using the Constitution since we live in a country where the Constitution rules us all. I don't think that's possible though since the Constitution is "infinitely flexible." Most of the time it's gonna come down to the main guy doing what he thinks is right. I agree that the Constitution isn't a good reference to make rulings on. I mean, where are all the women in the Constitution? What about the blacks? If we're gonna rule by what the Constitution says, then why even try women or blacks? I don't think this has anything to do with right wing or left wing people either. I believe that no matter who is in charge, and contrary to what they may say, it's gonna be the same.
This sounds a lot like what we've been talking about in class(Roberts=strict constitutionalist). The government interprets the constitution based on what "we" want now. It seems pretty unfair that the only way for normal people to have an effect on the government is to have massive protests. Jeff's comment made me think about how the constitution was written by wealthy white males at a time when women and black people had no political say. Wouldn't it be logical to rewrite it to include the interests of blacks, females, and poor people? People these days don't realize this, they simply believe that since the government has been "working fine" this way for years, that we have no reason to change it.
I strongly agree with Evan. Since the Constitution was written "Back in the day" it would only be right to rewrite it and rectify it. The Constitution was writen by white males and it didn't include females, black people, and poor people. But obviously today EVERYONE has freedom of speech and they do indeed have a political say. I also agree with Evan that everyone thinks the government is working "fine" and their is no need to change it, But we do. The Constituion isn't a good reference to make rules by, it simply isn't fair. I think that no matter who is in charge or what people try to change, it's still always going to remain the same.
I belive that the Constitution needs to be changed or altered. The people who wrote the Constitution was wealthy, white men who only care about what is good for them. I think it's time for the common people to get a say in without having to have a mass protest.
The coment that Robert made about the Constitution saying that the little guy should win, and that he will win in court is so true. The underdog is always cheered on. Another thing that is true is that a lot of people dont want to admit to be in the other side of him, to root for the bad guy. It is also true that they throw away the Constitution when it comes to war and other foreign affairs. This article was interesting and i learn a little. Your buddy old pal, Yaphet Morales
I don't know where to begin...How about with the Geneva Convention. I believe the Geneva convention deals with POWs. I believe POWs need to have a link to a particular country. Many "enemy combatants" have dismissed any link to a country. Besides, everyone sucks up to Washington saying how smart it is to avoid permanent alliances, yet breaking the UN's laws (you can't spell unsuccessful without "un") and other such treaties are horrible. American people are fickle. Finally, what makes Zinn's interpretations of the Constitution right, whereas Robert's is wrong?
*sigh* I'm afraid Kraig is missing the point. Sure you can't spell unsuccessful without UN, but you also can't spell "fun" without it either :) (And like a million other words)
The new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, is too conservative, just like most political figures. Roberts based his ideas in his conformation hearing directly off of the Constitution. He and all other polititions need to be more flexible because society is a lot different than when the Constitution was written. Our country runs too strictly off of the Constitution. This inflexability is evident when the Supreme Court will only notice poor or black people, not acknowledged in the Constitution, if they protest and violate the law. The St. Patrick's Day protestors, for example, only got noticed after their uprising and a jury siding with them. If the Supreme Court was to choose, they would definately choose the big guy over the little.
How can the people claim that ruling lies within the Consitution, but then the people ignore the Constitution when it doesn't suit their needs? Also, the Supreme Court wants to strictly interpret the constitution, but how can they do that when they are constantly interpreting the same amendments differently. If the government just wants laws that will condone their actions then they shouldn't give the constitution as much power as it has. It seems as though when the constitution was created it was given the same amount of power as the king had had, but wasn't that rule what the colonists had tried to escape?
This article is so true. People in high ranks only interpret the constitution to better suit themselves. Robert says that he follows the constitution, but yet contradicts himself by when he votes against a trial for the prisoners of war. I think this article opens the eyes of people. The people should let their voices be heard because we are the only ones, united, that can make a difference.
The article was bringing up valid points but I guess it was hard to see it as facts because it was one person's opinion. But it did raise good issues. The fact that Justice Roberts will just go with the winning side shows a lot about the mans character. I mean if everyone just did something because it was what the majority was doing then I suppose we'd all be the same wouldn't we? I personally don't like Justice Roberts because he appears fake rather then straight on the facts. I suppose I just can't take someone seriously that doesn't give straight answers. Kind of like our current president but I'm not going to get into that because we could debate that issue forever. On the issue of the constitution itself and how felxible it's become I strongly agree with Dana because people seem to want to follow the constitution only if it fits their needs. The supreme court says it follows the constitution strictly but then when it comes to different issues like the POWs in Guantanamo Bay they somehow bend the rules to "better" the country. It's so contradicting and extremely annoying. I know using the word annoying might sound elementary but this issue is getting to that point. Overall, the article was good in some aspects but it was more of the person's opinion rather then more facts.
HE talks about how Roberts sailed and Roberts and two colleagues overruled that dtainees held in Guatanamo for years without trial were pretected bt the Geneva convention and deserved due process. He says the ST. Pactrick's four needs to be supported. He thinks the courts have never been on the side of justice, only moving a few degrees one way or the other, unless pushed by the people. He doesn't like the courts and thinks they need to be changed.
The Supreme Court has a lot of power to be able to interpret the Constitution. The Constitution is very flexible and when the Supreme Court has this much power, they'll abuse. In certain situations, they'll choose to interpret the Constitution strictly and in others they'll interpret it loosely. I also agree that we can't really trust the courts to uphold justice for the citizens because it's not our interests they're looking for but their own. Maybe they should try rewriting the Constitution but then again, I don't see how it will really work unless they're going to write about every single thing concerning the people.
I believe that the constitution was a document that was created to set some boundaries within the United States. The issues that the Constitution mentions were probably the major ones back then. Because this is a different day and age, I think that the Consitution should be modified. Today we follow the constitution as best we can, but then the rules have to be bent, so if it is changed, then you wouldn't have to bend the rules as much.
I really enjoyed this article. It was written very passionately and provided numerous examples. I agree with Zinn that laws in this country were never created or interperated for "the people" until "the people" came and pressured the court to interperate it in a diffrent way. Our governmental system is pretty messed up right now on international, national and local levels. We are dealing with intense forms of racism and classism and sexism. (for a local example: milwaukee is the 4th most impoverished city in the U.S. and we're 1 or 2 for both segregation and teen pregnacies.)(For an international example: Muslims in France are rioting to deal with their outrage concerning their exclusion from normal citizen positions. They are fighting against racial and imigrant biases and oppressions) It is supper bogus that we are letting these obviously biased judges get elected into powerful offices!!! The other thing that frustruated me was the part about the prisoners in Guantamo Bay. That prison is one of the most awful prisons in the world and the Supreme Justice is not even attempting to get people out. There is the chance that the prisoners are not guilty...and besides not one deserves that kind of treatment...
The Constitution written in 1787, is suppose to provide individual rights for the people such as; freedom of speech and religion. As many of see everyday in school, religion is highly inforced. This is a very controversial debate between many students and teachers at Riverside University High School. Some teachers require their students to stant during the Plege of Alligence, "even though it may be against some students religions." The first amendment to the Constitutions states... "Congress must not interface with the freedom of religion, speech or press, assembly, and petition." The Supreme Court feels that they strongly follow the Ammendments to the Constitution but to me requiring MPS schools to recite the Pledge of Alligence is a direct violation of what the Constitution states they believe in. I agree with Liz and Jeff when they state that the Constitution should be changed to fit every American. I highly feel that Soulstealer Is contridicting him or herself when he or she says... The Constitution does not need to be modified, but then (he or she) goes on to say the Constitution, is a rundown of what America is all about. If the Constitution is a rundown of what America is about then why shouldn't it be changed? Why shouldn't it be changed to fit the freedom and needs of each and every American,? Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, right?? Soulstealer also states that the Constitution holds to much power. So tell me again why it shouldn't be modified.?
I think that the constitution should be rewritten. It should be because of the women and blacks, the constitution was written so long ago that it was base on what the rich white men think. it need to be base on the people, so there won't be any massive protest. i don't really know what i'm writing, but yeah i don't think it matter if there's a new constituion because it won't be written for the people but for the ones who writing it.
Blah, blah, blah. I didn't even bother reading all of this article because it's basically what we were talking about in class a few days ago. I think the Constitution was the start of an okay reference [in the 1780s!], but it's total bull now in this day and age. Blah, blah, I agree with Jeff and Dana and whoever said something about women and blacks.
HONESTLY! I am very intrigued by this article. I never knew that the supreme court was bias against POOR PEOPLE, WOMEN, AND COLOR PEOPLE, etc. It irks me because they're not suppose to force soldiers into battle if the congress never declared war. That's just STUPID!!!!!! Why are they so against us if they're ruling for the people? I seriously think that our supreme court is f-up if they're going to "rule" by the consitution but overlook amendment rights. I believe that women and colored people should have the equal right to have a better paying job. Without women, these ignorant son of a--wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for their mothers, wives, etc. THIS IS ALL BULL, whoever is running this needs a whoopin! Because the only way that we can get things through their thick skulls is if we "protest". But I know that no matter what it's still going to be the same because they didn't "trust" us back then, and they don't trust us now.
I agree with both Evan and Elizabeth, because truth be told the Constitution was written by white eldery males who really didn't know what was goin on or the matter for which going to happen in the future. It seem like Congress is trying to abuse the Constitution and its Admendments and what they stand. How are you goin to have an Admendment that states "Freedom of Speech" when soilders wanted to ust their Admendments rights to get out of going to war but yet the Congress disregarded tht Admendment altogether, doesn't that say something there about Congress and theie pratices.
I do not like how the constitution was written. Although it claim to apply to all citizens, in my opinion, i think it only was made for rich white old men. There is no point in rewriting the constitution or changing it because some people will not even care. For example some people don't even know their own rights in the constitution. Probably the first amendment but if you ask them any other ones, they would probably not know. I think the best is to DELETE the constitution.
The supreme court shouldn't have the power to over throw the constitution when it benefits them. It'sfine the way it is written ofcourse the only obvious change is that people are not segregated from it now because of their race or social position.
Honestly the constitution is a bunch of BS. its not fair even though life isn't fair, no one follows the constitution theres always some kind of disagreement about it so why go along with it. Agreeing with Jeff and evan, everyone didn't have a say so. The Constitution should be changed so everyone can agree with it. It shouldn't be based on the past.
The constitution should be changed to benefit everyone because now everyone doesn't follow whats stated in it. It should change so everyone's opinion is stated.
This article really brought a lot to my mind. I agree with what the new judge said that his obligation is to the constitution but he should also consider the way he interprets the constitution for the well being of the the citizens. Also, it should be considered that the people who wrote the constitution were in a diferent time period and they had different problems than those our societyhas now. I also agree that veneration of the Constitution is very hypocritcal because every individual will interpret it a different way and because its so flexible, many times it's bent to fit a ceraint situation. I was also very surprised to find that people have to brake the law to get justice.
From the information given in this article, the Constitution seems to be too vague on issues, which gives people different views on the interpretation of the Constitution dealing with the issuse. So changing the Constitution isn't a bad idea, but doing so may start a big argument in the U.S. on the this issue, changing the Constitution to fit today's society which the Constitution does it ok because it's so vague. In my opinion, the Constitution shouldn't be change because if it is, it would most likely be written base on the person's, person who writes it, point of view. This may lead to more rewriting of the Constitution to benefit the writer.
I agree with this article. The laws and injustice will not change in this country or any country for that matter, if we as the people don't stand up and fight for our unalienable rights. The right that we were " naturally" given according to Thomas Jefferson. I think that the constitution should be altered a tad bit. This is a new society, things aren't the way that used to be. Beside the constitution is a very limited system and it hasn't been strictly follow since it was first created.
The beggining of this article seems to be just a bunch of talk as though it was written to bash Roberts....very boring to read.Then for Roberts to be asked the question about the little guy, big guy seemed as though he has no mind of his own, "if the constitution says....my obligation is to the constitution."Isn't his obligation to justice and the truth? This article somewhat confuses me. It seems like this paper was written to let people know how the constitution,in a way, means nothing b/c it is protraded to be "flexible" and "used to serve the political needs of the moment."The constitution is just a way to help the "man" win every case in the courts I guess...The article made it seem as though the constitution is used to make decisions,banish, and rule everyone and thing except the decisions on war.Food for thought: all decisions for us,the people, depends on the courts yet the courts depend on the constitution, which is flexible and changable.
P.S. Mr.Fons I feel out of place on this website...thanks
Zinn is right. robert should not be lying just to get the people to get on his side. i agree that the constitution isn't good enough. i think that the constitution should be interpreted in the current days.
Robert sucks because he has a strict view of the constitution. I don't agree. If it is not in the constitution doesn't mean it shouldn't followed. He is false in some of statements.
John Roberts, to me, is not fit to be Supreme Court Justice. I think Zinn is correct. Anyone who has that strict a view of interpreting the Constitution is hopelessly incompotent in this day in age. For example, Roberts rejects the family leave act. One reason is because, to him, it's not constitutional since it's not in the Constitution. The other reason is because his is a conservative fat cat, who doesn't want the nation to pay people who have to leave work for a period of time. Selfish, just like all conservatives, lol.
The Supreme Court will use the constitution to their advantage and say it is for the people but really they are abusing their power because they have too much of it. But I also disagree with John Roberts that the Constitution should be interpreted strictly. I think just because its not in the constitution directly, doesn't mean its not right or shouldn't be followed, that's what Zinn was saying.
The constitution was written a long time ago when many things were different, so it would be a good thing to rewrite it, or to simply reform it due to the many changes in our country. I also agree with Evan O.
i think that in some cases the constitution should not be taken word by word becasue the time it was written is different than the issues we face today. And also the constitution can be interpreted in different ways and it doesn't have to be taken literally. so yeah i disagree with roberts position.
I agree with Liz and that since times have changed, so should the constitution. The constitution was written based on the best interest of the country at that time and now those interests have changed. I definately(sp?) think that we need to radify the Constitution to keep up with the changing times. Just like Sherie said it was written by a bunch of old white men who thought they were the only legitamite citizens of the U.S. So my point is, since times have changed, so should the Constitution.I also agree with the fact that people intereperate the law the way they want, and not the way it was necessarily ment to be taken. When people interperate it they put their own views before what the Constitution is actually saying.
I think people need to think about how the Constitution plays a part in every situation. I agree we do need to change the constitution, we are abiding by something that was written by white males, a couple hundred years ago. I think it's time for a change.Roberts shouldn't take everything so literally. Being a strict constitutionalist doesn't make you a good Chief of Justice.You need to be flexible in order to run more efficiantly
I agree with this article.The people who deal with the constitution are the "high ranked" and they only use it to get something for themselves. If Robert agrees with the Constitution, why doe she vote against it? I agree with Neisa on that one. I think the constitution should be changed to deal with now a day issues instead of having it for when the country was made independent.
Another strict constitutionalist hits the supreme court. In some cases it is the right thing to have, but others it is not. In cases of when people die, it is good to have a strict constitutionalist. When it comes to who gets to parent the child, whether it be the biological father or the emotional father, it is a good idea to have a loose contitutionalist. Different cases should be tried by different judges. Also, like the article said, the constitution is quite flexible and the government is willing to take this flexibility to wherever they need to. When people revolt against a governmental action, it is needed to have some change in the constitution if it favors the general peace of the country. Not all the same problems were faced when the constitution was written and the problems we face now. We have not declared war since 1941, but soldiers who refuse to go to war are court martialed and tried for treason when the constitution states that congress must declare war. Problems change, countries change, a strict constitutionalist is not what we need at this point, what we need is someone who understands a basis of right and wrong, not understands a document made 200 years ago. Josh Hr 3-4
Reading this article really openend my eyes to see how our supreme court system is very contridictal. When the supreme cout was established it was suppose to make its descion based on the constitution. This arcticle showed me how they are not following by that rule. They are making decisions based on some of their own opinions. Now in some cases that may be neccessary like in cases for coloreds, and women because their rights don't show up in the constitution. So how is the supreme court suppose to make decisions about women and coloreds when they have no rights according to the constituion. When the constitution was composed it was made for white men. Today and even then the constitution is not a good source to rule by and needs to be changed. Even if the constitution is ever changed I think that the supreme court needs to be forced to make fair decisions because the rulings in this blog are outrageously unfair.
UMMM yeah this article was kind of boring fo rme since history ani't my thing ,but it seems to me that Jefferson's comments in his "last's " watever that how white america is still ruled today. Like Mr.Fons said today they think their doing good by having all the power.But that was black then when when White America was ruled by the rich white man , Also who is behind this rich men not a women who can vote. The Constitution was written in convience,i guess they were kind of o pull down their own race . i mean what about the women and the slaves! i think that they were narrow minded in how they would "ruled" (D)(r). So yeah if they wanted to run a coutry that wasn't going to back fire on them . But when someone say's something and speak's out they become this person they shouldn't follow. that's my thought, i guess that's what Jefferson sort of became.
This article is very interesting and it provided a lot of new information for me. Rocbet had some great points about letting the Constitution rule the people. The Constitution is highly looked upon so why wouldn't be able to rule the people? The government is working well and I don't think it needs to changed at all. Well some people may think that the Constitution only look at certain people views but from the first ammendment, eveyone can have a say in the way the government is ran. Many people can express their opinions since we do have freedom of speech.
This article to me was basically saying how the supreme court viewed the issues. It said that the Constitution really made the decisions in Congress and in the society. Even though the society changes, the Constitution doesn't, so the issues are dealt with in a old-fashioned manner. People should think differently now that times have changed.
The constitution is out of date in my opinion. It should be either rewritten or revised to fit into the society we have now. Every one is equal;black, white, purple, or orange, male or female. The constitution doesn't include this. Roberts made some good points but he should relize that the constitution doesn't have that much control over everything. It's a piece of paper not the american god.It doesn't apply to most now day situations and when it's enturpted by people to apply to these situations everyone intrerpets it in the way that would benifit them the most. That's not what it was written for.
44 comments:
I really don't know what to say about this article. Of course Roberts says what everyone wants to hear, but is that a good thing? I guess it should be a good thing to rule using the Constitution since we live in a country where the Constitution rules us all. I don't think that's possible though since the Constitution is "infinitely flexible." Most of the time it's gonna come down to the main guy doing what he thinks is right. I agree that the Constitution isn't a good reference to make rulings on. I mean, where are all the women in the Constitution? What about the blacks? If we're gonna rule by what the Constitution says, then why even try women or blacks? I don't think this has anything to do with right wing or left wing people either. I believe that no matter who is in charge, and contrary to what they may say, it's gonna be the same.
This sounds a lot like what we've been talking about in class(Roberts=strict constitutionalist). The government interprets the constitution based on what "we" want now. It seems pretty unfair that the only way for normal people to have an effect on the government is to have massive protests. Jeff's comment made me think about how the constitution was written by wealthy white males at a time when women and black people had no political say. Wouldn't it be logical to rewrite it to include the interests of blacks, females, and poor people? People these days don't realize this, they simply believe that since the government has been "working fine" this way for years, that we have no reason to change it.
I strongly agree with Evan. Since the Constitution was written "Back in the day" it would only be right to rewrite it and rectify it. The Constitution was writen by white males and it didn't include females, black people, and poor people. But obviously today EVERYONE has freedom of speech and they do indeed have a political say. I also agree with Evan that everyone thinks the government is working "fine" and their is no need to change it, But we do. The Constituion isn't a good reference to make rules by, it simply isn't fair. I think that no matter who is in charge or what people try to change, it's still always going to remain the same.
I belive that the Constitution needs to be changed or altered. The people who wrote the Constitution was wealthy, white men who only care about what is good for them. I think it's time for the common people to get a say in without having to have a mass protest.
The coment that Robert made about the Constitution saying that the little guy should win, and that he will win in court is so true. The underdog is always cheered on. Another thing that is true is that a lot of people dont want to admit to be in the other side of him, to root for the bad guy. It is also true that they throw away the Constitution when it comes to war and other foreign affairs. This article was interesting and i learn a little.
Your buddy old pal, Yaphet Morales
I don't know where to begin...How about with the Geneva Convention. I believe the Geneva convention deals with POWs. I believe POWs need to have a link to a particular country. Many "enemy combatants" have dismissed any link to a country. Besides, everyone sucks up to Washington saying how smart it is to avoid permanent alliances, yet breaking the UN's laws (you can't spell unsuccessful without "un") and other such treaties are horrible. American people are fickle. Finally, what makes Zinn's interpretations of the Constitution right, whereas Robert's is wrong?
*sigh* I'm afraid Kraig is missing the point. Sure you can't spell unsuccessful without UN, but you also can't spell "fun" without it either :) (And like a million other words)
The new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, is too conservative, just like most political figures. Roberts based his ideas in his conformation hearing directly off of the Constitution. He and all other polititions need to be more flexible because society is a lot different than when the Constitution was written. Our country runs too strictly off of the Constitution. This inflexability is evident when the Supreme Court will only notice poor or black people, not acknowledged in the Constitution, if they protest and violate the law. The St. Patrick's Day protestors, for example, only got noticed after their uprising and a jury siding with them. If the Supreme Court was to choose, they would definately choose the big guy over the little.
How can the people claim that ruling lies within the Consitution, but then the people ignore the Constitution when it doesn't suit their needs? Also, the Supreme Court wants to strictly interpret the constitution, but how can they do that when they are constantly interpreting the same amendments differently. If the government just wants laws that will condone their actions then they shouldn't give the constitution as much power as it has.
It seems as though when the constitution was created it was given the same amount of power as the king had had, but wasn't that rule what the colonists had tried to escape?
This article is so true. People in high ranks only interpret the constitution to better suit themselves. Robert says that he follows the constitution, but yet contradicts himself by when he votes against a trial for the prisoners of war. I think this article opens the eyes of people. The people should let their voices be heard because we are the only ones, united, that can make a difference.
The article was bringing up valid points but I guess it was hard to see it as facts because it was one person's opinion. But it did raise good issues.
The fact that Justice Roberts will just go with the winning side shows a lot about the mans character. I mean if everyone just did something because it was what the majority was doing then I suppose we'd all be the same wouldn't we? I personally don't like Justice Roberts because he appears fake rather then straight on the facts. I suppose I just can't take someone seriously that doesn't give straight answers. Kind of like our current president but I'm not going to get into that because we could debate that issue forever.
On the issue of the constitution itself and how felxible it's become I strongly agree with Dana because people seem to want to follow the constitution only if it fits their needs. The supreme court says it follows the constitution strictly but then when it comes to different issues like the POWs in Guantanamo Bay they somehow bend the rules to "better" the country. It's so contradicting and extremely annoying. I know using the word annoying might sound elementary but this issue is getting to that point.
Overall, the article was good in some aspects but it was more of the person's opinion rather then more facts.
HE talks about how Roberts sailed and Roberts and two colleagues overruled that dtainees held in Guatanamo for years without trial were pretected bt the Geneva convention and deserved due process. He says the ST. Pactrick's four needs to be supported. He thinks the courts have never been on the side of justice, only moving a few degrees one way or the other, unless pushed by the people. He doesn't like the courts and thinks they need to be changed.
The Supreme Court has a lot of power to be able to interpret the Constitution. The Constitution is very flexible and when the Supreme Court has this much power, they'll abuse. In certain situations, they'll choose to interpret the Constitution strictly and in others they'll interpret it loosely. I also agree that we can't really trust the courts to uphold justice for the citizens because it's not our interests they're looking for but their own. Maybe they should try rewriting the Constitution but then again, I don't see how it will really work unless they're going to write about every single thing concerning the people.
I believe that the constitution was a document that was created to set some boundaries within the United States. The issues that the Constitution mentions were probably the major ones back then. Because this is a different day and age, I think that the Consitution should be modified. Today we follow the constitution as best we can, but then the rules have to be bent, so if it is changed, then you wouldn't have to bend the rules as much.
I really enjoyed this article. It was written very passionately and provided numerous examples. I agree with Zinn that laws in this country were never created or interperated for "the people" until "the people" came and pressured the court to interperate it in a diffrent way. Our governmental system is pretty messed up right now on international, national and local levels. We are dealing with intense forms of racism and classism and sexism. (for a local example: milwaukee is the 4th most impoverished city in the U.S. and we're 1 or 2 for both segregation and teen pregnacies.)(For an international example: Muslims in France are rioting to deal with their outrage concerning their exclusion from normal citizen positions. They are fighting against racial and imigrant biases and oppressions) It is supper bogus that we are letting these obviously biased judges get elected into powerful offices!!! The other thing that frustruated me was the part about the prisoners in Guantamo Bay. That prison is one of the most awful prisons in the world and the Supreme Justice is not even attempting to get people out. There is the chance that the prisoners are not guilty...and besides not one deserves that kind of treatment...
The Constitution written in 1787, is suppose to provide individual rights for the people such as; freedom of speech and religion. As many of see everyday in school, religion is highly inforced. This is a very controversial debate between many students and teachers at Riverside University High School. Some teachers require their students to stant during the Plege of Alligence, "even though it may be against some students religions." The first amendment to the Constitutions states... "Congress must not interface with the freedom of religion, speech or press, assembly, and petition." The Supreme Court feels that they strongly follow the Ammendments to the Constitution but to me requiring MPS schools to recite the Pledge of Alligence is a direct violation of what the Constitution states they believe in. I agree with Liz and Jeff when they state that the Constitution should be changed to fit every American. I highly feel that Soulstealer Is contridicting him or herself when he or she says... The Constitution does not need to be modified, but then (he or she) goes on to say the Constitution, is a rundown of what America is all about. If the Constitution is a rundown of what America is about then why shouldn't it be changed? Why shouldn't it be changed to fit the freedom and needs of each and every American,? Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, right?? Soulstealer also states that the Constitution holds to much power. So tell me again why it shouldn't be modified.?
I think that the constitution should be rewritten. It should be because of the women and blacks, the constitution was written so long ago that it was base on what the rich white men think. it need to be base on the people, so there won't be any massive protest. i don't really know what i'm writing, but yeah i don't think it matter if there's a new constituion because it won't be written for the people but for the ones who writing it.
Blah, blah, blah. I didn't even bother reading all of this article because it's basically what we were talking about in class a few days ago. I think the Constitution was the start of an okay reference [in the 1780s!], but it's total bull now in this day and age. Blah, blah, I agree with Jeff and Dana and whoever said something about women and blacks.
HONESTLY! I am very intrigued by this article. I never knew that the supreme court was bias against POOR PEOPLE, WOMEN, AND COLOR PEOPLE, etc. It irks me because they're not suppose to force soldiers into battle if the congress never declared war. That's just STUPID!!!!!! Why are they so against us if they're ruling for the people? I seriously think that our supreme court is f-up if they're going to "rule" by the consitution but overlook amendment rights. I believe that women and colored people should have the equal right to have a better paying job. Without women, these ignorant son of a--wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for their mothers, wives, etc. THIS IS ALL BULL, whoever is running this needs a whoopin! Because the only way that we can get things through their thick skulls is if we "protest". But I know that no matter what it's still going to be the same because they didn't "trust" us back then, and they don't trust us now.
I agree with both Evan and Elizabeth, because truth be told the Constitution was written by white eldery males who really didn't know what was goin on or the matter for which going to happen in the future. It seem like Congress is trying to abuse the Constitution and its Admendments and what they stand. How are you goin to have an Admendment that states "Freedom of Speech" when soilders wanted to ust their Admendments rights to get out of going to war but yet the Congress disregarded tht Admendment altogether, doesn't that say something there about Congress and theie pratices.
I do not like how the constitution was written. Although it claim to apply to all citizens, in my opinion, i think it only was made for rich white old men. There is no point in rewriting the constitution or changing it because some people will not even care. For example some people don't even know their own rights in the constitution. Probably the first amendment but if you ask them any other ones, they would probably not know. I think the best is to DELETE the constitution.
The supreme court shouldn't have the power to over throw the constitution when it benefits them. It'sfine the way it is written ofcourse the only obvious change is that people are not segregated from it now because of their race or social position.
Honestly the constitution is a bunch of BS. its not fair even though life isn't fair, no one follows the constitution theres always some kind of disagreement about it so why go along with it. Agreeing with Jeff and evan, everyone didn't have a say so. The Constitution should be changed so everyone can agree with it. It shouldn't be based on the past.
The constitution should be changed to benefit everyone because now everyone doesn't follow whats stated in it. It should change so everyone's opinion is stated.
This article really brought a lot to my mind. I agree with what the new judge said that his obligation is to the constitution but he should also consider the way he interprets the constitution for the well being of the the citizens. Also, it should be considered that the people who wrote the constitution were in a diferent time period and they had different problems than those our societyhas now. I also agree that veneration of the Constitution is very hypocritcal because every individual will interpret it a different way and because its so flexible, many times it's bent to fit a ceraint situation. I was also very surprised to find that people have to brake the law to get justice.
From the information given in this article, the Constitution seems to be too vague on issues, which gives people different views on the interpretation of the Constitution dealing with the issuse. So changing the Constitution isn't a bad idea, but doing so may start a big argument in the U.S. on the this issue, changing the Constitution to fit today's society which the Constitution does it ok because it's so vague. In my opinion, the Constitution shouldn't be change because if it is, it would most likely be written base on the person's, person who writes it, point of view. This may lead to more rewriting of the Constitution to benefit the writer.
I agree with this article. The laws and injustice will not change in this country or any country for that matter, if we as the people don't stand up and fight for our unalienable rights. The right that we were " naturally" given according to Thomas Jefferson. I think that the constitution should be altered a tad bit. This is a new society, things aren't the way that used to be. Beside the constitution is a very limited system and it hasn't been strictly follow since it was first created.
The beggining of this article seems to be just a bunch of talk as though it was written to bash Roberts....very boring to read.Then for Roberts to be asked the question about the little guy, big guy seemed as though he has no mind of his own, "if the constitution says....my obligation is to the constitution."Isn't his obligation to justice and the truth? This article somewhat confuses me. It seems like this paper was written to let people know how the constitution,in a way, means nothing b/c it is protraded to be "flexible" and "used to serve the political needs of the moment."The constitution is just a way to help the "man" win every case in the courts I guess...The article made it seem as though the constitution is used to make decisions,banish, and rule everyone and thing except the decisions on war.Food for thought: all decisions for us,the people, depends on the courts yet the courts depend on the constitution, which is flexible and changable.
P.S.
Mr.Fons I feel out of place on this website...thanks
Zinn is right. robert should not be lying just to get the people to get on his side. i agree that the constitution isn't good enough. i think that the constitution should be interpreted in the current days.
Robert sucks because he has a strict view of the constitution. I don't agree. If it is not in the constitution doesn't mean it shouldn't followed. He is false in some of statements.
John Roberts, to me, is not fit to be Supreme Court Justice. I think Zinn is correct. Anyone who has that strict a view of interpreting the Constitution is hopelessly incompotent in this day in age. For example, Roberts rejects the family leave act. One reason is because, to him, it's not constitutional since it's not in the Constitution. The other reason is because his is a conservative fat cat, who doesn't want the nation to pay people who have to leave work for a period of time. Selfish, just like all conservatives, lol.
The Supreme Court will use the constitution to their advantage and say it is for the people but really they are abusing their power because they have too much of it. But I also disagree with John Roberts that the Constitution should be interpreted strictly. I think just because its not in the constitution directly, doesn't mean its not right or shouldn't be followed, that's what Zinn was saying.
The constitution was written a long time ago when many things were different, so it would be a good thing to rewrite it, or to simply reform it due to the many changes in our country. I also agree with Evan O.
BLASPHAMY!
i think that in some cases the constitution should not be taken word by word becasue the time it was written is different than the issues we face today. And also the constitution can be interpreted in different ways and it doesn't have to be taken literally. so yeah i disagree with roberts position.
I agree with Liz and that since times have changed, so should the constitution. The constitution was written based on the best interest of the country at that time and now those interests have changed. I definately(sp?) think that we need to radify the Constitution to keep up with the changing times. Just like Sherie said it was written by a bunch of old white men who thought they were the only legitamite citizens of the U.S. So my point is, since times have changed, so should the Constitution.I also agree with the fact that people intereperate the law the way they want, and not the way it was necessarily ment to be taken. When people interperate it they put their own views before what the Constitution is actually saying.
I think people need to think about how the Constitution plays a part in every situation. I agree we do need to change the constitution, we are abiding by something that was written by white males, a couple hundred years ago. I think it's time for a change.Roberts shouldn't take everything so literally. Being a strict constitutionalist doesn't make you a good Chief of Justice.You need to be flexible in order to run more efficiantly
I agree with this article.The people who deal with the constitution are the "high ranked" and they only use it to get something for themselves. If Robert agrees with the Constitution, why doe she vote against it? I agree with Neisa on that one. I think the constitution should be changed to deal with now a day issues instead of having it for when the country was made independent.
Another strict constitutionalist hits the supreme court. In some cases it is the right thing to have, but others it is not. In cases of when people die, it is good to have a strict constitutionalist. When it comes to who gets to parent the child, whether it be the biological father or the emotional father, it is a good idea to have a loose contitutionalist. Different cases should be tried by different judges. Also, like the article said, the constitution is quite flexible and the government is willing to take this flexibility to wherever they need to. When people revolt against a governmental action, it is needed to have some change in the constitution if it favors the general peace of the country. Not all the same problems were faced when the constitution was written and the problems we face now. We have not declared war since 1941, but soldiers who refuse to go to war are court martialed and tried for treason when the constitution states that congress must declare war. Problems change, countries change, a strict constitutionalist is not what we need at this point, what we need is someone who understands a basis of right and wrong, not understands a document made 200 years ago.
Josh Hr 3-4
Reading this article really openend my eyes to see how our supreme court system is very contridictal. When the supreme cout was established it was suppose to make its descion based on the constitution. This arcticle showed me how they are not following by that rule. They are making decisions based on some of their own opinions. Now in some cases that may be neccessary like in cases for coloreds, and women because their rights don't show up in the constitution. So how is the supreme court suppose to make decisions about women and coloreds when they have no rights according to the constituion. When the constitution was composed it was made for white men. Today and even then the constitution is not a good source to rule by and needs to be changed. Even if the constitution is ever changed I think that the supreme court needs to be forced to make fair decisions because the rulings in this blog are outrageously unfair.
UMMM yeah this article was kind of boring fo rme since history ani't my thing ,but it seems to me that Jefferson's comments in his "last's " watever that how white america is still ruled today. Like Mr.Fons said today they think their doing good by having all the power.But that was black then when when White America was ruled by the rich white man , Also who is behind this rich men not a women who can vote. The Constitution was written in convience,i guess they were kind of o pull down their own race . i mean what about the women and the slaves! i think that they were narrow minded in how they would "ruled" (D)(r). So yeah if they wanted to run a coutry that wasn't going to back fire on them . But when someone say's something and speak's out they become this person they shouldn't follow. that's my thought, i guess that's what Jefferson sort of became.
This article is very interesting and it provided a lot of new information for me. Rocbet had some great points about letting the Constitution rule the people. The Constitution is highly looked upon so why wouldn't be able to rule the people? The government is working well and I don't think it needs to changed at all. Well some people may think that the Constitution only look at certain people views but from the first ammendment, eveyone can have a say in the way the government is ran. Many people can express their opinions since we do have freedom of speech.
This article to me was basically saying how the supreme court viewed the issues. It said that the Constitution really made the decisions in Congress and in the society. Even though the society changes, the Constitution doesn't, so the issues are dealt with in a old-fashioned manner. People should think differently now that times have changed.
The constitution is out of date in my opinion. It should be either rewritten or revised to fit into the society we have now. Every one is equal;black, white, purple, or orange, male or female. The constitution doesn't include this. Roberts made some good points but he should relize that the constitution doesn't have that much control over everything. It's a piece of paper not the american god.It doesn't apply to most now day situations and when it's enturpted by people to apply to these situations everyone intrerpets it in the way that would benifit them the most. That's not what it was written for.
Post a Comment