What good is the Constitution if it is just ignored?

Question

The Constitution of the United States has, within itself, the mechanism for changing it.
So why all of the use of judical power t circumvent and twist it?
The democrats admitted, n he Reagan era, that they were forced to use te judiciary to effect legal changes that they could not, legally get pushed through the Constitutionally established methods
Should not these people be brought up on charges and prosecute for their actons?

Answer 1

Sarah is wrong. The constitution was originally written to serve the general population. Unfortunately, many politicians (from all parties, but mainly Democrat and Republican) have successfully chipped away at it either by misusing the judicial system or by getting amendments approved that counteract the original intent of the Constitution (mind you, I am not saying that all amendments are bad, just that some of them are). Admittedly, I generally don't like the Democrats because I do not agree with most of what they support, but for our government to really work well we need two things. First, we need the politicians (all of them) to put the best interests of the country ahead of their special interest groups (this should be pretty self-explanatory). Second, we need balanced power. For example, if either the Democrats or the Republicans hold a big enough majority in both the house and the senate, they will be able to push through a lot of legislature that the other party doesn't agree to, even if the president is in the other party. If the power is close to balanced, then both sides have to sit down and argue for what they think should go through, and as long as the first criteria is met, the compromises will usually be better for us in the long run. Unfortunately, right now a lot of the politicians from both sides are paying way too much attention to special interest, so even when the government is well balanced there is more deal-making between the two sides than compromising, and the result is that the politicians usually get to keep their special interest friends happy at our expense. The only reliable way to change this is for everyone of legal voting age to actually research the candidates (what they have done in the past, not just what they say on TV or in the newspaper), and decide who is moral and ethical enough, and represents what we think is important, to get our votes. Even though I personally prefer the Republican opinion on most issues, I believe that it is even more important to get more honest politicians into the government from BOTH parties. Yes, to answer the last part of your question, those people probably should be brought up on charges, but voting them out of office in favor of better candidates is the best solution in the long run. the problem with that is that a lot of people aren't willing to put forth the effort to find out which candidates really are worth voting for, if they vote at all.

Answer 2

i ask your self what number cases i can replica-paste the comparable answer to the transformations of this question this night. this is yet another probability! 2 factors! i think of you have been getting your information from the incorrect places. no person, that's top, no person has stated that it may be against the regulation to construct the mosque, or maybe if you're inferring. What human beings have been saying (the two Rs AND Ds) is that development a mosque there is irrelevant and inflammatory, and if the Muslims quite cared approximately "development bridges" and "healing the community" as they declare, they might not build it there. The outrage has not something to do with the form. in simple terms for the reason which you're able to do something would not advise which you're able to desire to do it. Oh, BTW, you're able to ask why the city of manhattan has prevented the rebuilding of the Christian Orthodox Church that become destroyed on 9/11 alongside with the towers, mutually as rapid-monitoring the mosque. Curious, isn't it. yet people who're protecting this Muslim insult have not championed the religious rights of the Orthodox community.

Answer 3

It's a good document. It's never read. Or it's half-read.

The argument "wire-tapping is against the Constitution" is a stupid and untrue statement. Find me where telecom is referenced in the Constitution.

The argument "you can't pray mention God in a public building because it's against the Consitution, bs about separating church and state" is not valid either. The only thing the Constitution says about religion is that the State will not adopt a national religion.

The Constitution should be used as guidleines to conduct the country's business, not used a crutch whenever somebody doesn't agree with the events of the day.

Answer 4

No they cannot be prosecuted for having judges that interpret the Constitution in their favor. The Supreme Court is meant to interpret the constituition, and although it was created to be apolitical (hence lifetime appointment, no pay decrease) it often is. So politicians cannot be prosecuted for picking judges that have similar beliefs, this has been going on for decades if not longer. They can only be prosecuted if it was found that they had illegally influenced judges (bribes, threats, influence peddling).

Answer 5

Errant judges can be removed from office, either through re-election or impeachment, and future judges need not continue to uphold decisions that are obviously in violation of the Constitution. So no, there is a mechanism for fixing these mistakes.

Answer 6

Yes, The judicial should have remain separate from Congress and executive branch. The Judges have been making laws, rather than enforcing the written laws. There are methods in the constitution that could have been taken, but were not. The high court judges should be brought up on charges and prosecuted for their actions. Thanks for bringing it up to my attention.

Answer 7

The Judicial System has given itself powers beyond the intent of the Constitution, and there doesn't seem to be much recourse against judges.

Answer 8

Contrary to the obviously ignorant respondent who said the Constitution is for the rich to use as they like, The Constitution of the United States is meant to uphold the rights of all U.S.A. citizens. It is up to the U.S. citizens to prevent its misuse for political agendas by using their constitutional right to vote.

Answer 9

Liberals are relativists. So, essentially they reject all authority in favor of accepting the whims of their personal will as absolute truth.

This allows them to say whatever they want, to walk around in a state of perpetural contradiction, and to hold their opponents to a hypocritical double standard.

Liberals are global humanists, NOT constitutional Americans.

Thus, philosophically liberals are enemies of the United States (but don't dare question their patriotism).

-Aztec276

Answer 10

Constitution is set to serve the rich goals , if it cant achieve that so they shall put it on the shelf