@ The Constitution

lutzj

The Last Thing You See
Joined
Mar 6, 2006
Messages
1,693
Location
New England
ESCONDIDO, CA—Spurred by an administration he believes to be guilty of numerous transgressions, self-described American patriot Kyle Mortensen, 47, is a vehement defender of ideas he seems to think are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and principles that brave men have fought and died for solely in his head.
Enlarge Image Kyle Mortensen

Kyle Mortensen would gladly give his life to protect what he says is the Constitution's very clear stance against birth control.

"Our very way of life is under siege," said Mortensen, whose understanding of the Constitution derives not from a close reading of the document but from talk-show pundits, books by television personalities, and the limitless expanse of his own colorful imagination. "It's time for true Americans to stand up and protect the values that make us who we are."

According to Mortensen—an otherwise mild-mannered husband, father, and small-business owner—the most serious threat to his fanciful version of the 222-year-old Constitution is the attempt by far-left "traitors" to strip it of its religious foundation.

"Right there in the preamble, the authors make their priorities clear: 'one nation under God,'" said Mortensen, attributing to the Constitution a line from the Pledge of Allegiance, which itself did not include any reference to a deity until 1954. "Well, there's a reason they put that right at the top."

"Men like Madison and Jefferson were moved by the ideals of Christianity, and wanted the United States to reflect those values as a Christian nation," continued Mortensen, referring to the "Father of the Constitution," James Madison, considered by many historians to be an atheist, and Thomas Jefferson, an Enlightenment-era thinker who rejected the divinity of Christ and was in France at the time the document was written. "The words on the page speak for themselves."

According to sources who have read the nation's charter, the U.S. Constitution and its 27 amendments do not contain the word "God" or "Christ."

Mortensen said his admiration for the loose assemblage of vague half-notions he calls the Constitution has only grown over time. He believes that each detail he has pulled from thin air—from prohibitions on sodomy and flag-burning, to mandatory crackdowns on immigrants, to the right of citizens not to have their hard-earned income confiscated in the form of taxes—has contributed to making it the best framework for governance "since the Ten Commandments."

"And let's not forget that when the Constitution was ratified it brought freedom to every single American," Mortensen said.

Mortensen's passion for safeguarding the elaborate fantasy world in which his conception of the Constitution resides is greatly respected by his likeminded friends and relatives, many of whom have been known to repeat his unfounded assertions verbatim when angered. Still, some friends and family members remain critical.

"Dad's great, but listening to all that talk radio has put some weird ideas into his head," said daughter Samantha, a freshman at Reed College in Portland, OR. "He believes the Constitution allows the government to torture people and ban gay marriage, yet he doesn't even know that it guarantees universal health care."

Mortensen told reporters that he'll fight until the bitter end for what he roughly supposes the Constitution to be. He acknowledged, however, that it might already be too late to win the battle.

"The freedoms our Founding Fathers spilled their blood for are vanishing before our eyes," Mortensen said. "In under a year, a fascist, socialist regime has turned a proud democracy into a totalitarian state that will soon control every facet of American life."

"Don't just take my word for it," Mortensen added. "Try reading a newspaper or watching the news sometime."

Source
This is why we need more education about our government in our schools.
 
It is about an article from The Onion, but there isn't much discussion yet and it is unclear how serious said discussion may eventually be.
 
That's hardly even a parody. :cry:
 
If I hadn't noticed it was the onion, I would have bit.

This is why we need more education about our government in our schools.

And better cultural education :)
 
If you had posted the article without the link it would have been completely believable.
 
If the world ever holds a Stupidity Olympics, it will have a foregone conclusion. U - S - A ! U - S - A !! U - S - A !!!
 
Germany does not have a constitution, I really don't see how this affects me.
 
The Grundgesetz isn't a constitution?
 
I think I've met this guy...
 
"Dad's great, but listening to all that talk radio has put some weird ideas into his head," said daughter Samantha, a freshman at Reed College in Portland, OR. "He believes the Constitution allows the government to torture people and ban gay marriage, yet he doesn't even know that it guarantees universal health care."

I love how they slip that in there, making her just like him. :lol:
 
The Grundgesetz isn't a constitution?

not technically, though practically it surely is. it was meant as a placeholder for the three western zones of occupation.
 
I'd make sure that knowledge of the Constitution is a major part of the test that should be required in order for anyone to become a citizen. (Citizenship should never be automatic, regardless of where or to whom one is born.) There is no need to force everyone to learn about the Constitution, only those who want to have any voice in how we are governed. (Yes, I know it would require a Constitutional Amendment to make this happen, and that the chance of such an amendment passing is essentially 0.)
 
There are all sorts of interesting ways to read the Constitution. I could easily construct it to support universal health care just as easily as I could construct it to make it unconstitutional.
 
I seem to recall having a Con class in high school, and I know for a fact that immigrants have to be able to recite the Preamble.

However, as with holy texts, simply memorizing lines is insufficient. It is UNDERSTANDING those lines that matters.
 
So what exactly does the Bundesverfassungsgericht base its decisions on?

I see your point, but calling it the Bundesgrundgesetzgericht just sounds plain awkward.
 
Back
Top Bottom