Bloomberg: Constitution's Interpretation Must Change

[tonelar]

http://politicker.com/2013/04/bloomberg-says-post-boston-interpretation-of-the-constitution-will-have-to-change/

Didn't see this elsewhere, also he's talking about 4th and (to a degree) 5th amendment rights, but this millionair isn't above trying to scrap the entire Bill of Rights... He's such a traitor.

[CCWFacts]

What Mr. Bloomberg is saying is that, in order for our society to survive an influx of immigrants who hate us, we'll need to take away some of our freedoms.

That's it, in one sentence. And he's absolutely right. If we allow an influx of Jihadists, violent tribalists, and poor criminals, yeah, we're going to have to take away all our freedoms to tamp down a civil war from happening.



This wasn't too much freedom. This was two too many immigrants from Chechnya. Why do we have any immigrants from there? Why do we have any immigrants who don't share our values before coming here?

[HPBrowningMK3]

Bloomberg ought to perform the physiologically impossible act on himself. God damned fascist pig.

We know what the problem is and we are not addressing it because of BS PC that is destroying this country.

[wjc]

Yeah, Nanny Bloomberg is a piece of work.

BTW, his net worth is approximately $20 billion..not million.

[kimber_ss]

Bloomie's 5150. He escaped from the asylum last week and they finally got him back in, where he belongs...

[cpatbay]

He is not in the same league, intellect wise, as our founding fathers. He is just another Liberal control freak! I am sure he envy the kind of order Hilter had.

[HPBrowningMK3]

That's right, and his net worth is going up and he is commited to essentially BUYING elections by throwing his fortune behind is choice candidates. Think I am full of it? See Chicago! Please don't think I am being melodramatic; look around and investigate where his money is going. The man is HELL BENT on FORCING the country to accept his vision.

May God help us.

[branden.w]

[Loco45]

This guy needs to be fired from being mayor and tried for violating the constitution

[Tarn_Helm]

Riddle me this . . .

http://politicker.com/2013/04/bloomb...ave-to-change/

Didn't see this elsewhere, also he's talking about 4th and (to a degree) 5th amendment rights, but this millionair isn't above trying to scrap the entire Bill of Rights... He's such a traitor.

Here's what really needs to change . . .

Let me do this in the form of a riddle:

Q: When is a "religion" not really a religion?

A: When it's a political murder cult that has been seeking world domination since it first revealed its true nature in the year 622 A.D.

So, what needs to change?

How the word "religion" is defined by the people of the United States of America, the SCOTUS, the U.S. State Dept., all U.S. law enforcement agencies, and all federal entities, including and especially the IRS.

That is what needs to change: the legal definition of "religion."

Not the U.S. Constitution.

Because what's going on right now is that something which is not a religion is masquerading as one--and has been since the year 622 A.D.

If we keep allowing it to define itself as a "religion," then we will have to keep extending First Amendment protections to it.

If we do that, then we--Americans, Canadians, Brits, Europeans, and Australians--are simply f***ed.

That is all.

[safewaysecurity]

It's hard to believe it's not an Onion article. "We have to give up our rights so we can enjoy our freedoms!" It's no wonder that our country is in decline.

[yankee-pete]

Wow. How in the world did this a-hole get into office. Are the people of New York crazy? He is the terrorist that hates American freedom. California is messed up with all our filthy liberal politicians, but he takes the cake.

[Tyrone]

What is most offensive to me is the unabashed support to change interpretation of the Constitution based on a change in circumstances. This is what the current subscribers of a "Living Constitution" refer to and which essentially renders the wording meaningless and subject to the whim of a particular Court at any given time. While one may argue that is the way it is, that most assuredly is not the way it is supposed to be. The Constitution means what means and that meaning may apply to various and differing circumstances. HOWEVER, the interpretation of what it means should not change. The idea of a Living Constitution used to mean that it be adapted to change with changing circumstances or time because of the Amendment process. In that regard, I agree that the Constitution lives. It was not meant to be changed via judicial fiat or unchecked congressional action, in fact, it was intentionally difficult to change such that it would not change on a whim or the shift of political wind, but only when a sufficient amount of the public had agreed it was time for a change. This is because the more difficult a law is to change or subject to changing "interpretation" the more reliance people can have in laws in general. If there is no faith in law there can be no rule of law.

[NastyNate]

When will it ever end?

I thought these @ssclowns took oaths to "support and defend the constitution," not defile it.

[sammich]

Didn't take long for the statists with a gun hobby to show up. This is the same hysteria that brought everyone such hits as the Patriot Act, NDAA, indefinite detentions, extra-judicial assassinations, crotch grabbing TSA, drones and more. All of that was "only going to be used against the terrorists who hate our freedoms".