On Oct 7, 9:14 am, eridanus <
leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> El domingo, 7 de octubre de 2012 01:34:31 UTC+1, jillery escribi :
> > On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 21:54:37 -0400, jillery <
69jpi...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 12:59:54 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
> > ><
leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>El viernes, 5 de octubre de 2012 12:59:36 UTC+1, jillery escribi :
> > >>> On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 03:10:31 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
don't snip the stuff you are actually responding to
<snip>
> > >>> IIUC, that the phrase itself [separation of chrirch and state]
> > >>> is not literally in the actual text of
> > >>> the Constitution is quite irrelevant. SCOTUS decisions are extensions
> > >>> to the Constitution, until they are overturned by newer decisions, or
> > >>> by amendments to the Constitution.
[...]
> > >>And I should had write,
>
> > >>"Then all that matters is not glittering in US Constitution?"
which is the same as you wrote before and makes just as little sense.
> > > [...] I still have no idea what you're
> > >asking or why. It might help if you tried to rephrase your question.
>
> > Should I stop waiting to answer your question?
>
> you are talking to me, jillery? I am so sorry. I did not think
> your question was deemed so important.
actually it was your question
> There a saying in English, "all the glitters is not gold". Then, even
> if the US Constitution was a model in its own time (19 century?)
18th. Declaration of Independence 1776, presumably the constitution
was written shortly afterwards.
The US constitution *was* a model in its time and remains one (I'm not
an American)
> some
> people or other was discontent with it, and was making new laws to make
> politics according to their liking.
the US constitution is a living evolving document. It has built in to
it provision for modification. The constitution consists of the
original constitution plus amendments (there are a dozen of so) plus
interpretations of the constitution by the supreme court (SCOTUS).
> Then, Christians wanted to have
> some laws according to their vision of public life. While other people
> more laicist wanted to have laws more in accord with their own point
> of view.
I'm not sure this is an accurate description of the facts.
> Then, I had the idea, perhaps wrong, that US Constitution is
> incomplete and existed the feeling that there were needed some laws to
> perfect it.
the people who wrote didn't expect to achieve perfection or that the
United States would remain unchanged. Its over 200 years old, things
change. The constitution is changed ("perfected" if you will) by
constitutional amendments.
> Then, the problem with some laws is they rarely are the
> sweet pear to all people. Then, this was apparent on the need of
> another group of people, like the Supreme Court, to arbiter if a law
> has to be considered right or not.
and SCOTUS were there from day one. No matter how clear the english
(and the US constitution is a model of clarity and brevity) there is
always room for interpretation. Consider "the right to bear arms"...
> These commentaries are a light construction in my mind, for I never had
> red the US Constitutions nor I have the intention to read it.
perhaps you should stop pontificating on it then? Try reading the
wikipedia entry it'll at least give you an overview.
> All my
> comments are inspired in what US people is saying.
or what you think they are saying
> I suppose the US has some pieces of gold for it is considered by most
> in great regard.
what?
> But there must exist in it some deficiencies, that
> are supplemented with laws. Then, those that had slaves needed to
> perfect the meaning of owning slaves, and some contraries to slavery
> presented some recourse to the Supreme Court. In several instances, the
> SC upheld the right to own slaves, till in some moment, things changed.
>
> But my knowledge on this topics are a reflection of what American people
> is commenting here or there. I never had been really interested in the
> substance of US Constitution.
you have a lot of opinions on something you're not interested in
> Then, this was the reason of me, not to write this long post to say, I am
> rather a crass ignorant of US politics.
>
> Does my replied now is good enough for you, or should I write a longer
> thesis?
try using straightforward english rather odd canned phrases.
instead of
"Then all that matters is not glittering in US Constitution?"
try:
"so the US Constitution isn't perfect, and sometimes get modified?"
(I know I'm a native english speaker but I submit I didn't use any
hard words or difficult constructions- merely clarity)