It may exist on paper, but it no longer is in force.

[url]http://www.antiwar.com/stromberg/s112401.html[/url]

it was inforced during George Bush's election.

there are parts in the constitution that need to be clarified, but you know that if such a thing were to happen it would be done by a leftist with no interest in individual liberty.

my proposal is to simply remove anything to do with martial law. under no circumstance should individual rights ever be suspended. (unless they are violent felons) and limit the federal government only to those powers described or necessary for national defense from foreign aggression.

I don't believe there is really anything in the constitution or bill of rights which need clarification. By todays standards, it was written cleanly.

Everybody has been pretty clear on the meanings for well over one hundred years. It's just that some of the people want to modify the constitution without the three-forths state vote as required. It is those folks who say the constitution is unclear.

i would'nt say that Everybody has been pretty clear on the constitutions meaning. ie-the Civil War. agree with rest. do you think 3/4 will support the removal of martial law. or at least a provision to end martial law and reinstate goverment functions as previous?


"Bill of Rights; void where prohibited by law"


[:)]lib

We don't need a new Constitution, we need a people who are worthy of the Constitution that we have now!

Where can we find such a people?

It used to be us, but I'm not certain any longer!

Eric The(WeAreThe'[b]Laodicea[/b]'OfTheBraveNewWorld)Hun[>]:)]

That scares the crap outta me!  I don't want to be spewed or vomited or anything.

Post from Torf -

Nor do I, my well-read friend.

Eric The(MorePhiladelphian)Hun[>]:)]

I agree with Stator.  The Constitution is completely clear.  However, the courts still have some room to interpret.  For example the courts determine what is "unreasonable" under the Forth Amendment and what "excessive" and "cruel and unusual" mean in the Eighth.  Those are legitimate areas for debate.

That being said, there are other areas which are clearly NOT up for debate.  Examples would be First Amendment language such as "Congress shall make no law..." or Second Amendment language like "shall not be infringed" or Fifth Amendment language such as "no person shall...".

The problem comes in when those who disagree with that clear language attempt to convince others that it too is subject to "interpretation".  

I'll drink to that!  But, we must remember that it is a constant fight to maintain our Liberties.  In fact, I see it as a duty, not to ourselves but to generations of Americans yet to be born.