Will Hilary rewrite the patriarchal Constitution?

[madmusic]

Does she think it's just a "goddamn piece of paper" that should be in a museum with other artifacts of the patriarchal society?

More and more it becomes apparent that where a candidate stands on the Constitution is more vital than any other issue.

Is there a site that concentrates on this, vote by vote? A worthwhile site would also have to put issues and votes in the context of our Founding Fathers' intent. It would be a major project, but hopefully there is a good link to such a site.

[bryant69]

1. Are you favor of or opposed to rewriting the patriarchal constitution?

Just out of curiousity?

Because Patriarchal usually isn't a mark of something admired.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[madmusic]

3. Opposed.

And my point is, just about everyone has some special interest in rewriting it. If every one of those interests were incorporated, the Constitution would be unrecognizable and more or less worthless.

[Ignacio Upton]

2. All hail Maddam Unity Executive!

...And if you don't, she's one signing statement away from putting your asses in Gitmo!

[madmusic]

4. Possible. Would she frame it in different language...

With the same result?

[madmusic]

5. Here's an example:

Supreme Court Re-Defines Testimonial Statements
By Jeralyn, Section Constitution
Posted on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 09:27:32 AM EST

The Supreme Court today ruled a domestic violence victim's responses to questions posed by a 911 operator are admissible at trial if the victim doesn't testify because they were made during the crime and for the purpose of assessing whether there was an emergency. As such, the Court ruled they were not "testimonial." Because they are not "testimonial", the defendant's 6th amendment right to confront witnesses does not preclude their admission. At least that's what I gleaned from a quick read of the opinion.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/06/19/430/15181

[madmusic]

6. Terrorist threats

Therefore, a high-school student's drawing of a police officer being shot was ruled not to be a criminal threat. The officer had previously cited the student for possessing marijuana. Over a month later, the student drew a young man shooting an officer who was wearing that officer’s badge number. He turned in the drawing for credit in his art class. Although the student first said that he did not expect the officer ever to see the drawing, he admitted that it would be reasonable to expect that she would. The court ruled that this evidence was not "sufficient to establish that, at the time he acted, the minor harbored the specific intent that the painting would be displayed to ." In re Ryan D., 100 Cal. App. 4th 854, 864 (3rd Dist. 2002).

Unequivocal, Unconditional, Immediate, and Specific

The threat, both on its face and under the circumstances, must be "so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat." Cal. Penal Code § 422. This third element is the one that is most often disputed in prosecutions under the criminal threats provision of California’s Penal Code. Thus, court opinions have illuminated its meaning.

"Unequivocal": A minor's commitment to juvenile detention was reversed when the court found that his dark poetry did not constitute a criminal threat. The minor showed to some female classmates a poem in which he had written, "I can be the next kid to bring guns to kill students at school. So parents watch your children cuz I'm BACK!!" One of the students felt threatened and told a teacher. The school then took action. The California Supreme Court held that the poem was not criminal. On its face, the threat was not unequivocal because the persona says, "I can," as opposed to, "I will kill students." Under the circumstances, the poem was not unequivocally threatening.

Given that there was no animosity between the students nor any "immediate prospect of execution of a threat to kill," the poem was not "sufficiently unequivocal to convey . . . an immediate prospect that minor would bring guns to school and shoot students." In re George T., 93 P.3d 1007, 1009, 1018 (2004).

"Unconditional": Despite what the statute says, the courts have held that a conditional threat can be criminal. In People v. Bolin, the prosecution argued that a letter the defendant sent his daughter's baby's father was a criminal threat. Among other things, the letter said, "If you ever touch my daughter again, I'll have you permanently removed from the face of this Earth." Bolin, 956 P.2d 374, 402 (Ca. 1998). Rejecting the defendant's argument that his conditional threat was not criminal, the court stressed that the threat must only be so unconditional as to convey a gravity of purpose and an immediate possibility of carrying out the threat.

http://www.criminalattorney.com/pages/firm_articles_terrorist_threats.htm

EDIT: Note that the district attorneys charged and convicted all of these. It was left to the appeals courts to strike them down or affirm them. Which means the police state will do whatever it can get away with if not for checks and balances.