" Class Warfare " ?

Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC,who hosts a 10PM
weeknight political issues hour is at it again.
All the MSNBC Nightly show hosts have their little Commercials
with their little take on Politics.They are are Bias and directly tied in
to Obama policy.In ahort they are Pure Propaganda meant to
rationalize an Obama Agenda.Pur & Simple.
O'Donnell's deals with the phrase " Class Warfare " and how "some"
as he calls them are using this Lie,this Slogan to put forth their agenda.
I'm sorry but by every standard known to Political Scientists, "Class
Warfare" is exactly what Obama and the Occupy Wall Street movement are
rooted in.A Class conflict.The Super rich vs. Everyone else.At times just the
Rich {Millionaires} vs. the Middle Class.
I just heard yesterday something very troubling.That this Lamestream are
on a Mission.That little by little they are going to float the idea and
then put into effect to SCRAP THE CONSTITUTION.That it's out of date
and no longer applies.Ruth Bader Ginsberg is also on this Scrap the
Constitution bandwagon.
I mean when is enough ... enough.
" Class Warfare IS what it is.However that doesn't appear good enough.
We have in effect a Politburo trying to Recreate defintions and now
Scrap our Constitution.As if Orwell never saw it coming.
Or Ray Bradbury for that matter.

 

I'm for reworking the Constitution. Of course, you can't just tear it up and leave everything else the way it is, either, put in a new one or move the ideas into relevant parts of the rest of the law system.

The US has one of the world's oldest constitutions, second only to San Marino, so it's not like changing your constitution is an unforgivable act of hypocrisy. I think laws should be laws because they are reasonable, not because they're really old.

The exact details need of course be discussed, but if you're best argument is that some people in funny wigs who had never seen a car, much less understand how the US has moved into modern world politics thought so, then I will probably disagree with you.

 

Class Warfare started with the rich getting tax cuts to the point that they pay less than the middle class do. All those lobbyists cost money you know? We need to keep the lobby industry flowing!

The middle class and under don't employ lobbyists to further their agendas. Only big money has that kind of clout.

I find it somewhat ironic that the Conservatives and Big Business are complaining about class warfare when they have invested heavily on subjugating the middle and lower classes.

 

We are fools to allow ourselves to be slaves to tradition or the past as if they were somehow sacred. They aren't. On the other hand, we are just as foolish to advocate change just for change's sake. Difference for difference sake isn't sacred either. We may take the exact same route to and from market ten thousand times and feel justified in not seeking any other. But when the path has been washed out by last evening's mudslide, we may want to consider an alternate route - at least for the time being. There are two mistakes we can make - imprisoning oneself to tradition and ignoring it.

 

I agree even though I'd use less poetic language. I don't want to change the constitution because it is old, I want to change it because doesn't take modern life and thoughts into account. Only one single country has not seen fit to change their constitution more often than the US. The US constitution as it stands today is very vague, includes some stuff that isn't really necessary any more (at least not as a part of the constitution) and some stuff should probably be added.

The simple fact that there is an entire business around the interpretation of the constitution hints that it is not clear enough and does not stand on its own today. I'd rather have those rules determined by those I can elect rather than constitutional lawyers.

 

In some ways flexibility is obviously a good thing. Inflexible things are easily broken. However, I don't see our reluctance to change our constitution is necessarily a bad thing either. We do have the ability to change it - it's been made a difficult thing for good reason. Flexible materials aren't generally used for foundations. But, now we must recognize the reality that intelligently designed flexibility is crucial for foundations near earthquake faults zones. I would rate our constitution at being just a little bit too inflexible, given the current tectonic shifting of modern issues. However, I would be very hesitant to say that it's too far off from optimal. Most seem to want to go off "hog-wild", one way or the other. They see it as a granite vs liquid entity. It's kind of like a control loop. You have to have just enough feedback to correct for error but not enough to produce over-correction, possibly leading to undampened oscillation. Our constitution seems to be not too far from the optimal tuning, though the gain (responsiveness to current conditions) could be tweaked upward a wee bit. All of this is merely my own speculation and nothing more.

 

What a load of horse manure! The simple fact is that since 1979 the changes in real wealth (net assets less net liabilities, as adjusted for inflation) in America is as follows:

The top 0.5% of the population have gotten significantly wealthier,
The next 16.5% of the population have gotten a fair bit wealthier.
The remaining 83% of the population, in aggregate, have experienced virtually no growth in real wealth over the same period.

We have also seen a real strain on the middle middle class (the third quintile, or the average income families) in America. They are the 20% who have benefited the least from changes in the economy and in government policy and whose numbers are ever so gradually shrinking (more poor and a few more rich).
My sources for this information are GAA data and testimony by former Reserve Chairman Greenspon in front of a Congressional committee a few years ago.

Given all that, I would argue that class warfare had already broken out and that the rich and super-rich have been winning the war. Yet when President Obama tries to return the situation to one where the gap in prosperity isn't as large (as in the late 1940s until 1979) HE is the one accused of conducting class warfare. That's like the Mafia complaining of the police being anti-business because they are advocating shutting down Mob extortion rackets.

 

Do not touch the constitution. Just because someone has "modern ideas" does not mean they have past the test of time...hell, they just started. It took minds greater than we see today to draft this time-honored document and trying to dislodge it from our grasp will bring on a great battle that will rent this nation. No one thinks we should amend the Ten Commandments or change The Bible, but the constitution, sure, throw it away and start again. yeah, so it can say "We The People, gay and Straight, hereby join hands in Ameritopia so we can have a giant, peaceful coexistence where everyone has their own doctor and it won't cost anything."

 

The Constitution is irrelevant. The Patriot Act is all that matters now. It overrides the Constitution.

 

God didn't write an amendment procedure into the ten commandments. The framers of the constitution, recognizing that they weren't omniscient, did see fit to include such a mechanism. I think a constitutional amendment requiring that federal spending be limited to somewhere around 19% GDP may become necessary in the near future as our leaders do not appear to have the wisdom or discipline to exercise sound fiscal judgement.

 

rework the constitution?

 

Ah .. you need to be added.To the nearest Institution willing to billet those shown to be Constitutionally deficient.Like a dog who done forgot where
to poop {backyard}.

 

How come 50% of this Country doesn't have to pay Income tax,
lets start there.That is flat out wrong.Attacking the successful does not
solve that injustice.Every wage earner needs to pay some Income tax.

 

Larry Sabato had the idea of scrapping the whole thing and coming up with a new one. Is there anyone the caliber of a Thom Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, Ben Franklin and each and every last one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. I think not. We have a bunch of mushbrained liberals and conservatives in the halls of congress who have shown themselves untrustworthy, of little character and self obsessed.

I think we should just keep what we have and force this bunch to abide by it.

 

The OP is not about the Constitution.It was about use of the term
- Class Warfare -.Talk about going off on a tangent.I should have
known better.
" Class Warfare " means dividing into classes.Like the Rich vs.
the Poor.The Wealthy vs. the Middle class.Which is exactly what Obama
has been engaged in and Occupy Wall Street are his Tea Party.
Obama always goes back to Alinsky tactic.Wherether to divide and
conquer or the ends justify the means.
One of Obama's favorite tactic is to shame Americans.Get them to
question their own motives.Like,is capitalism really all that good.
Also to make those play by their own book of rules.However with
Obama that could mean HE and HE alone decides the Rules and the Book.
Like his recent flap with his War on Freedom of Religions.Obama apparently
lives to pick fights with his political opposition.With this Lollipop Lamestream
at his beck & call he's got the media angle covered.

 

But the old version isn't standing the test of time either. If we update it, we can fix the problems and leave the rest be (or, as I said, move them around). The constitution is vague, no doubt about it, a document that requires constitutional lawyers to be interpreted is vague, and vague documents should not be basis of law, let alone constitutional law.

I'd gladly change the Ten Commandments or the Bible. There'd be little point in it, though, since those are not legal documents.

If you want to bash the wording of the new constitution, I'd wait until it's done. Even if it was decided that the constitution should change, enough conservatives and constitutional lawyers would be present to not change the core of the document.

 

That's right.

 

I'm not certain I understand what you mean.

Bear in mind that I am not American, nor in America. I have no reason to adhere to the American constitution. I obey the British and Swedish constitutions to the best of my knowledge (not that constitutions need much "obeying").

We have no constitutional lawyers to speak of. We have no issues along the lines of "it is clear what the authors meant when they wrote this, we should interpret it the way it was meant to read, not the way it was actually written". And we have no constitutional laws about how to deal with Indian tribes, or any people of the same status.

 

We need class warfare, before the fat cats sneak away with it all. Make them run from the spotlight, like the roaches that they are. Throw a few hundred thousand of them in jail too, just for grins and giggles.

 

There's a process for changing the Constitution, provided within. If you mean by 'adding stuff' to account for every possibility? Impossible. Read the EU version, though it won't be able to be done at one sitting. How is that working out for them?

 

It's not a national constitution, large parts of the EU one is dealing with fundamental laws in its member states. The constitution doesn't need to be longer than the current one. The Swedish one isn't. Accounting for every possibility is what the law is for.

Problems in the constitution are fixed by changing the constitution, not by acknowledging that the constitution can be changed.

 

I've not seen anyone in Congress capable of rendering a superior constitution to the one we have. They can't even figure out how to declare war, create ethics rules they don't break, or get a budget passed.

 

It has been over 1,000 days since the Harry Reid run Senate passed a budget

Reid has said there is no reason to pass one

Is this more of the "change" we were promised?

 

"Anyone"? From a quick glance at Wikipedia, I am lead to believe that there were 55 authors to the constitution. So, yes, there probably isn't any one who could do it. You'd need to get a lot of people together to do it, not just show up one day with a revised version.

How to declare war sounds like a reasonable part to have in the constitution. I do not pretend that I am well enough versed in American politics that I could pinpoint exactly all parts that need improving, but I am well enough versed in debating that I know to call bullsh*t when someone's best argument is that it's the way it's always been done.

 

I object to any claim that denies or disparages the excellent job our Founding Fathers did at the Convention, with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land; they gave us all the political tools we need to secure the Blessings of Liberty on Earth, in the US.