Comments on: Needed: a constitutional mandate to detect lies of candidates http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/12/02/needed-a-constitutional-mandate-to-detect-lies-of-candidates/ Think - it ain't illegal yet... Sat, 20 Mar 2010 04:19:11 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Brian Angliss http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/12/02/needed-a-constitutional-mandate-to-detect-lies-of-candidates/comment-page-1/#comment-28753 Brian Angliss Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:53:56 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/12/02/needed-a-constitutional-mandate-to-detect-lies-of-candidates/#comment-28753 And an amendment isn't an alteration how, exactly? You're being unnecessarily anal, because while you're linguistically correct, the fact that parts of prior Amendments and Articles <em>have</em> been superseded means that they no longer are in effect while the rest off the Amendment and Article remains in effect. Linguistically, supersede doesn't equal altered, but functionally, there's no difference whatsoever. And an amendment isn’t an alteration how, exactly?

You’re being unnecessarily anal, because while you’re linguistically correct, the fact that parts of prior Amendments and Articles have been superseded means that they no longer are in effect while the rest off the Amendment and Article remains in effect. Linguistically, supersede doesn’t equal altered, but functionally, there’s no difference whatsoever.

]]> By: DiceOfDeath http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/12/02/needed-a-constitutional-mandate-to-detect-lies-of-candidates/comment-page-1/#comment-28662 DiceOfDeath Sun, 30 Mar 2008 04:08:43 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/12/02/needed-a-constitutional-mandate-to-detect-lies-of-candidates/#comment-28662 Get YOUR facts straight! Amendment 12 was never altered, it was simply amended (by Amendment 20). If Amendment 12 could have been altered, there'd have been no need for Amendment 20, etc. Sheesh! Get YOUR facts straight! Amendment 12 was never altered, it was simply amended (by Amendment 20). If Amendment 12 could have been altered, there’d have been no need for Amendment 20, etc. Sheesh!

]]> By: Brian Angliss http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/12/02/needed-a-constitutional-mandate-to-detect-lies-of-candidates/comment-page-1/#comment-10245 Brian Angliss Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:12:03 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/12/02/needed-a-constitutional-mandate-to-detect-lies-of-candidates/#comment-10245 DoD - get your facts straight, please. According to <a href="http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html" rel="nofollow">The National Archives Amendments 11-27 page</a>, Amendment 12 was altered by Amendment 20, Amendment 14 was altered by Amendment 26, and Amendment 18 was repealed in its entirety by Amendment 21. DoD – get your facts straight, please. According to The National Archives Amendments 11-27 page, Amendment 12 was altered by Amendment 20, Amendment 14 was altered by Amendment 26, and Amendment 18 was repealed in its entirety by Amendment 21.

]]> By: Dr. Slammy http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/12/02/needed-a-constitutional-mandate-to-detect-lies-of-candidates/comment-page-1/#comment-10238 Dr. Slammy Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:28:42 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/12/02/needed-a-constitutional-mandate-to-detect-lies-of-candidates/#comment-10238 XVIII? XVIII?

]]> By: DiceOfDeath http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/12/02/needed-a-constitutional-mandate-to-detect-lies-of-candidates/comment-page-1/#comment-10226 DiceOfDeath Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:40:40 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/12/02/needed-a-constitutional-mandate-to-detect-lies-of-candidates/#comment-10226 No constitutional amendment has ever been altered or deleted once ratified. People! No constitutional amendment has ever been altered or deleted once ratified. People!

]]> By: gery william http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/12/02/needed-a-constitutional-mandate-to-detect-lies-of-candidates/comment-page-1/#comment-9949 gery william Thu, 13 Dec 2007 02:41:01 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/12/02/needed-a-constitutional-mandate-to-detect-lies-of-candidates/#comment-9949 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXW6aV_hTiE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXW6aV_hTiE

]]> By: DomPierre http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/12/02/needed-a-constitutional-mandate-to-detect-lies-of-candidates/comment-page-1/#comment-9264 DomPierre Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:11:52 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/12/02/needed-a-constitutional-mandate-to-detect-lies-of-candidates/#comment-9264 More questions? 97% of them can't pass a Constitution Test today, which is something I contend needs to be a requirement before taking office. A lot of them pretend to be "businessmen" (and failed businessmen at that no less) but mostly they're corporate sock puppets. More questions? 97% of them can’t pass a Constitution Test today, which is something I contend needs to be a requirement before taking office. A lot of them pretend to be “businessmen” (and failed businessmen at that no less) but mostly they’re corporate sock puppets.

]]> By: Brian Angliss http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/12/02/needed-a-constitutional-mandate-to-detect-lies-of-candidates/comment-page-1/#comment-9214 Brian Angliss Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:32:59 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/12/02/needed-a-constitutional-mandate-to-detect-lies-of-candidates/#comment-9214 So long as some of the answers aren't automatic disqualifications. For example, I <em>do</em> believe that the Second Amendment should be changed to make it completely and utterly clear about the role of the militia and what is, and is not, allowed to be owned by private individuals. But I don't think that this particular litmus test question should disqualify me, or anyone else, from holding elected office There are a lot of questions you're asking that force a candidate to take a position, and those are great. But they're not in the same category as detecting outright deception. So long as some of the answers aren’t automatic disqualifications. For example, I do believe that the Second Amendment should be changed to make it completely and utterly clear about the role of the militia and what is, and is not, allowed to be owned by private individuals. But I don’t think that this particular litmus test question should disqualify me, or anyone else, from holding elected office

There are a lot of questions you’re asking that force a candidate to take a position, and those are great. But they’re not in the same category as detecting outright deception.

]]> By: Brian Angliss http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/12/02/needed-a-constitutional-mandate-to-detect-lies-of-candidates/comment-page-1/#comment-9212 Brian Angliss Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:49:29 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/12/02/needed-a-constitutional-mandate-to-detect-lies-of-candidates/#comment-9212 <em>Existing amendments can’t be altered.</em> Sure they can. It's happened. Amendments can be added, changed, or deleted as desired, so long as the process of amending the Constitution is followed. Existing amendments can’t be altered.
Sure they can. It’s happened. Amendments can be added, changed, or deleted as desired, so long as the process of amending the Constitution is followed.

]]> By: JB ROLL http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/12/02/needed-a-constitutional-mandate-to-detect-lies-of-candidates/comment-page-1/#comment-9211 JB ROLL Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:38:51 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/12/02/needed-a-constitutional-mandate-to-detect-lies-of-candidates/#comment-9211 How about random drug testing the Executive Branch, Congress and High Court? Stock clerks at grocery stores have their 4th amendment rights taken from them with random drug test, why not the guy that has his finger on the biggest nuclear arsinal in the history of the planet? This is the biggest double standand in the US. How dare Congress ask baseball players to come and talk about steroid use, under oath, when they themselves don't have to submit to random testing. How much more important are their jobs compared to guy playing baseball. Wouldn't it be interesting to drop a surprise random drug test on our government officials. How about random drug testing the Executive Branch, Congress and High Court? Stock clerks at grocery stores have their 4th amendment rights taken from them with random drug test, why not the guy that has his finger on the biggest nuclear arsinal in the history of the planet? This is the biggest double standand in the US. How dare Congress ask baseball players to come and talk about steroid use, under oath, when they themselves don’t have to submit to random testing. How much more important are their jobs compared to guy playing baseball. Wouldn’t it be interesting to drop a surprise random drug test on our government officials.

]]> By: Denali http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/12/02/needed-a-constitutional-mandate-to-detect-lies-of-candidates/comment-page-1/#comment-9202 Denali Mon, 03 Dec 2007 05:21:27 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/12/02/needed-a-constitutional-mandate-to-detect-lies-of-candidates/#comment-9202 A great idea, however you will have to make the list MUCH shorter if you plan on using a polygraph. It's not at all like in the movies and hasn't been for about thirty years. My understanding is that you have to limit your questions to about five, because after that the subject naturally gets keyed up to the point that every answer looks suspect. Also you will have to let the candidate agree with the wording of the questions first, so that they understand what is being asked when they hear them, and there are no surprises, which can also skew the results. A great idea, however you will have to make the list MUCH shorter if you plan on using a polygraph. It’s not at all like in the movies and hasn’t been for about thirty years. My understanding is that you have to limit your questions to about five, because after that the subject naturally gets keyed up to the point that every answer looks suspect. Also you will have to let the candidate agree with the wording of the questions first, so that they understand what is being asked when they hear them, and there are no surprises, which can also skew the results.

]]> By: DiceOfDeath http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/12/02/needed-a-constitutional-mandate-to-detect-lies-of-candidates/comment-page-1/#comment-9200 DiceOfDeath Mon, 03 Dec 2007 04:30:32 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/12/02/needed-a-constitutional-mandate-to-detect-lies-of-candidates/#comment-9200 Existing amendments can't be altered. Existing amendments can’t be altered.

]]> By: Dr. Slammy http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/12/02/needed-a-constitutional-mandate-to-detect-lies-of-candidates/comment-page-1/#comment-9197 Dr. Slammy Mon, 03 Dec 2007 01:16:26 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/12/02/needed-a-constitutional-mandate-to-detect-lies-of-candidates/#comment-9197 If you insist on asking these kinds of questions, not only will you not have access to the candidates, you'll be lucky if they let you in the same <i>state</i> with one. If you insist on asking these kinds of questions, not only will you not have access to the candidates, you’ll be lucky if they let you in the same state with one.

]]> By: Dr. Denny http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/12/02/needed-a-constitutional-mandate-to-detect-lies-of-candidates/comment-page-1/#comment-9193 Dr. Denny Sun, 02 Dec 2007 21:50:08 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/12/02/needed-a-constitutional-mandate-to-detect-lies-of-candidates/#comment-9193 I was a journalist for 20 years, and I've taught journalism for 15 years. Sadly, what you say is true. Hence my call that we, the public, do it ourselves. Thanks for your comment. I was a journalist for 20 years, and I’ve taught journalism for 15 years. Sadly, what you say is true. Hence my call that we, the public, do it ourselves. Thanks for your comment.

]]> By: FSK http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/12/02/needed-a-constitutional-mandate-to-detect-lies-of-candidates/comment-page-1/#comment-9192 FSK Sun, 02 Dec 2007 21:46:27 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/12/02/needed-a-constitutional-mandate-to-detect-lies-of-candidates/#comment-9192 This test should *ALREADY* be performed by interviewers on Television and newspapers. The real problem is that mainstream media has been ignoring its responsibilities to properly vet candidates for Congress and the President. This test should *ALREADY* be performed by interviewers on Television and newspapers. The real problem is that mainstream media has been ignoring its responsibilities to properly vet candidates for Congress and the President.

]]>