Badmovies.org Forum

A lot of folks think so:

NY Time Article "We The People" Loses Appeal with People Around the World (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/we-the-people-loses-appeal-with-people-around-the-world.html?_r=3&partner=MYWAY&ei=5065)

I'm grateful that we have it.

I have a great reverence for the founders of our nation and the remarkable Republic they created.  They combined the perfect amount of flexibility with the necessary rigidity to provide political cohesion.  Every time I teach the unit on the Constitutional Convention, every time I peruse the Federalst Papers, I am more impressed with the system they created.   If the rest of the world no longer recognizes their genius, it is their loss. If America no longer appreciates it, that may well mark the death knell of our Republic.

And it doesn't surprise me the Ruth Bader-Ginsberg is critical of the Constitution.  Like many on the far left of American politics, she has little use for it.

Just as an outsider looking in, I don't see much of anything inherently wrong with the Constitution. Maybe it could use a little updating to reflect how very much the world has changed since it was written, but isn't that what amendments are for?

Valid input from the both of you. I don't doubt the Indy will take some exception to what I'm about to say, but I will say it anyway. Foreign perception of U.S. actions plays a major role in this. As we have grown persistently more interventionist, perception of the U.S. by other nations grows increasingly negative, and so this is reflected somewhat in perception of our founding documents. I would be the first to agree with Indy in saying "f*** 'em, their loss," if we were a little better at minding our own business. Call me an isolationist all you want, and you would be correct. I have yet to see the long-term benefits of the interventionist policies we have increasingly adopted.

Perhaps this has nothing to do ideologically with the Constitution, and it doesn't, but it affects the perception of other nations. We once led by example, now we lead by military might. We once led the world in production, farming, innovation, but now we are have become little more than the police arm of NATO. Currently, if you were to take away our military muscle, we wouldn't have much to offer, or at least far less than we once did. Confidence in the U.S. is waning, and this shades the perception of governments who might consider mirroring us and benefitting the world with increased democracy. Our current method of spreading democracy is not through example, but through military intervention. One can question my patriotism all they want, but this is not the way a nation that treasures liberty, tolerance, and equality, as would seem to be the case through the language of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, should endeavor to spread democracy. We can only look to our history and say "look what great things we did" for so long before we have to realize that we are no longer the nation that did those things. We can only say "the world has changed and we're just changing with it" for so long before we have to acknowledge our hand in creating the world as it is today.

Going from "shining example to the world" to "f*** 'em it's their loss" is not okay with me.

I just don't feel we ought to change or update the constitution to please anyone outside the USA. And I'll admit that telling a few select countries to f*** off seems tempting. However,this is still the greatest country in the world and I'd rather live here than anywhere else. I feel we are an example for folks and changing to fit what others think of us isn't right....in my book.

You and a whole bunch of other people who live somewhere else.

If you look solely at the birth rate : death rate ratio, the US Population is decreasing.  The net population increase is due entirely by immigration.  That immigration not only enough to offset the natural population decline, but is enough to cause a significant GROWTH.

It must not be so bad here.

Personally, I think the article I linked to is a NY Times propaganda piece.  I think someone went out of their way to find quotes that "show" that the US Constitution is falling out of favor. Their arguments are specious at best, and stupid in some cases.

The "Founding" principles of a nation should not be fluid or easy to change on the whim of a new generation.  That generation may well lack the historical perspective to evaluate things properly.  The Founders were very, very wise (in my opinion) to make the US Constitution difficult to change...that that is represents a, I don't know, let's call it a

FOUNDATION.

Flick, I agree with you that we cannot fully turn our back on the globalist practices, but that does not mean we let others tell us how to run our own household, either.  Like I had the opportunity to say today in the context of my own home and my own family, "I don't recall asking {your} permission how to raise my children and what I think is best for them."

I'm sickened by the notion, seemingly more and more prevalent at all levels (personal, local government, national government, etc) that decisions should be made on the basis of "fitting in."  Just because France, Japan, Norway or where ever does something a certain way does NOT mean it's best for us.  We don't need to "fit in" on the global stage in this way.

We can choose to lead or follow.  All the folks the NY Times quoted want us to follow.  I say "crap" to that.

And, true, it's stuff like this that is pushing me more and more toward Ron Paul's brand of xenophobia (for lack of a better word).

Perhaps my language was not the best. Believe, I would love for the U.S. to be able to say "their loss." We simply can't. We've spent too much energy trying to solve the problems of the world, trying to make stable a world that has always been, and by all reasonable justifications will alway be unstable. The bulk of this activity has been post WWII.

That's okay to say "we're still the greatest country in the world," but by what justification? I agree in many respects, but I am also realistic enough to acknowledge that this is, at best, a status we are barely holding onto. The U.S. has spread itself so thin in its policing of the world and trying to solve the world's problems that our competitive capacity is horribly diminished. We don't have the economic or innovative capacity we once had. That's just the truth. And while we may be tenuously holding onto a position of power, other nations have developed. To add insult, they have developed under systems of government vastly alien to our own, suggesting to the rest of the world that the U.S. system of government is inferior.

And much of this is because we are spread too thin. We indeed have went the way of the Roman Empire, who crumbled in the face of runaway expansion. Just replace expansion with intervention for the modern equivalent. Both cost their respective governments vast resources, and neither case is it's world influence able to be sustained. The barbarians didn't need to do much to sack Rome. Rome was ready to fall.

But, alas, this little history lesson, as big a lesson as Rome is, will not be heeded. It will be laughed at by people who say that the world is different now, and the U.S. is not Rome. Well, that's partially true, because as it's looking the U.S. will not sustain it's glory for nearly as long as Rome did.

This is a hazy indication that things are better here than anywhere else. Consider the Rome analogy of my last post. It could easily be that the plundering of the barbarians has begun.

Xenophobia? There is a better word, or phrase really. It's called "minding our own business."

LOL...fair enough!

Has to be something to plunder, though, right?  I mean, maybe that's super simplistic.

A good friend of mine would see your point and raise you a "not only begun, but is WELL under way."

Duely noted.

We dont' even follow it so it's kind of moot.

I guess it boils down to figuring out if your country is a power because of it, or despite it.

That being said, I don't see how a document created over 100 years ago will remain relevant as society changes, so its important to keep up with changing attitudes as they become universally applicable...

That's the fundamental, core problem and the root of the debate.

Some of believe as you have written.

Some of us believe that the "core" of our nation should not change, should not open to reinterpretation.

One of the biggest problems with adherence to the reinterpretation ideology is that the re-interpreters lack the historical perspective to give "the big picture."  Most in this camp merely want what they want for their own convenience and cannot really see what's best for a nation of people.

THAT is what makes the US Constitution as it is written profound.  It transcends "who is in power today" and other similar problems.  THAT is why it is hard to change.  The tenants of the documents that many claim are out-dated are bigger than the individuals that seek to define it.

Consider as but one example the notion that the rights of men do NOT come from government, they are inherent rights that government cannot take away.

I strongly urge anyone not familiar with how profound this is to read Robert Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and pay particular attention to two key points in the story: When the Professor is explaining "rational anarchy" in the first section, and when Manny is describing the driving forces behind the rebellion.

It's a core philosophical difference...are men naturally "free" or does freedom only come from codified law?

Good points all.
Flick and I have chased this cat around the tree many times, but I will just say this:
sometimes evil must be opposed. It carries a high price tag to do so, especially when so much of the
world is simply willing to let evil have its way, but failing to oppose evil is the first step in surrendering
to it.  I like it when America stands for SOMETHING.
The driving force in a large part of the world today is Islamic fundamentalism.  It is aggressive, it is expansionist,
and its core, driving philosophy is nightmarishly evil.  It opposes and seeks to end virtually every notion of human
freedom that our nation is founded on.
It has swallowed the Middle East and much of Africa and Asia.  It is in the process of taking over Europe.  And its
eyes are on us.
Do we oppose it?  Or do we begin the long surrender to barbaric, authoritarian theocracy under the iron law of a God
whose 99 attributes have never included the simple notion of love?

That is why I think Ron Paul is a fool when it comes to foreign policy.  I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

Who cares? 

Is the US Constitution Outdated? 

No.

christian jewish and muslim relgious fanatics are intent on destroying the world. somehow they've manuvered themselves into positions of power and we need to manuver them out.

Must politely disagree here....we as Christians are definitely not trying to destroy the world. :wink:

That is presumably because you are not a fanatic.

There are many Christians that paint Christianity with a bad brush.  They do us no service.  I think it is fair and required for intellectual honesty to admit that point.

It is true indeed....and pretty disheartening when Christianity is used as a smokescreen for personal gains.
I just want those folks who use the Constitution to push us aside to realize that Freedom of Religion does include Christians. I don't think anyone should be persecuted because that's what the Amendment is for but it also gives us the right to be Christians. I was watching the news earlier today and one single "atheist" high school girl wants a Christian banner removed from her school wall,saying it violated her rights,as per separation of church and state. There is no actual separation in the Constitution and what about the rights of the ones who want it there? Why are her rights more important than the rest?

Well, to extend the "operating system" metaphor, why should other countries feel the need to copy our Constitution? Presumably they have people smart enough to know what they want in a government and should be free to adopt whatever they want, for better or worse.

The original article is wrong-headed on the face of it, mixing anti-Americanism with legal matters. Okay, but it's missing the central point.

The U.S. Constitution is really pretty spare in its actual language, and the laws it provides for. That was by design. Our system of government was meant to be fluid. The U.S. Constitution was written in many ways to limit power. Outdated? It's one of the most hotly contested texts in history, and it is being attacked and explored daily for what it truly means to the nation.

You may have also heard of these things we call Amendments.

And to bring up that Jefferson quote, well, for all his importance in the founding of the U.S., Jefferson has always been a bit of a reckless jackass.

Are there other constitutions out there that new nations would rather adopt than ours? Sure, and more power to them. But picking the "law of the land" isn't liking picking out the latest, sexiest new paperback novel. It's quite a bit more nuanced than that.

what would people change?

It's nice when somebody can provide sound commentary sans political posturing. Thank you.

Sure it's outdated.
Only because it dont conform to fat cats way of thinking. It makes me sick.
Theres no way the Constitution could conform with there money hungry "gimme more" mentality that exists in this f**king country.
It usta be the people controlled the goverment. Now the goverment control the people.
You cant do this-you cant do that-you cant you cant you cant.
I cant even smoke a cigerette on the street.
Bulls**t.
Unless you have money,of course.Then you can break all sorts of laws-in the name of God and Country. The Constitution? What's that. It's a technicality-easly breeched by bulls**t rhetoric.
Yeah-it's outdated.
It's a joke.

I think Thomas jefferson said he wished they had included a prohibtion on the government borrowing. That would have saved us alot of hassles for sure.

Only if they follow it, which as you've said they largely don't.

The introduction of the practice of Executive Orders to create an end-run around the entire Legislative Branch?  Wow.

Not that I'm condoning religious persecution of any kind, but please. Yes, I agree that stories like what you bring up are ridiculous, but persecution? I would love to ask a Christian from 300 A.D. for his/her opinion on what modern Christians classify as persecution and watch them laugh. Despite the occasional sensational news story here and there, you largely HAVE free exercise. And yes, there IS separation of church and state at least to some degree. If there wasn't there wouldn't even be an Establishment Clause. This separation has been debated and argued since the 1700's, so it is there whether you want it be or not.

I have become certain that Christians, whether they admit it or not, HATE the Establishment Clause with a passion. The religious right will say that there is no separation of church and state, because it doesn't use those words in the Constitution, yet they will say that the Establishment Clause was ONLY meant to prohibit an official state church, even though it doesn't say that in the Constitution either.

It never ceases to amaze me how much people, both left and right, will interpret such simple things as the free exercise and free practice portions of the 1st Amendment. The language is so simple, but yet so open. We can argue back and forth all day long and in the end you will interpret it one way and I will interpret it another, and neither of us will be necessarily wrong.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Very simple. This is generally interpreted to prohibit a) the establishment of a national religion by Congress and b) the preference of the government of one religion over another. The right tends to accept the former to the exclusion of the latter, and the left tends to do just the opposite, and then they proceed to push the limits of their respective interpretations. If the dust settles, which it never will, they are both reasonable and logical components of the language set forth in the Constitution. "Separation of church and state," while not expressly said in the Constitution, exists to the extent that founders like Thomas Jefferson and others have interpreted it thus. So, it exists to that extent.

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Between that and the first part, that's all there is. I'm sorry that the founders left things so open and I understand that it is important to you to believe that they intended a Christian nation, but that's just the way it is. Reynolds v. United States was the first interpretation of free exercise by the Supreme Court, and it set up some basic ground rules on what is an otherwise VERY open and ambiguous part of the religion clauses. In light of the consideration of such things as polygamy and human sacrifice, the court's only reasonable response was to establish that "laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices." This clearly establishes that practices can be interfered with. I know that proselytism is an important practice for Christians.

Now personally, it doesn't bother me in the slightest if I am on a public school campus or on the streets and someone wants to witness to me. Is it silly that 95% of a public school campus can be okay with proselytizing on campus and 5%, by raising a stink, can cause it to be prohibited? Yes, I think it's silly. However, the basic ground rules set down by Reynold v. United States, for better or worse, made it such that this could be seen as a practice rather than a belief, and so can be seen as grounds for interfering with. I know that the decision was intended to address extreme practices such as human sacrifice and I doubt the members of the Supreme Court at the time had any beefs with proselytizing, but practice is practice and belief is belief, and who is going to decide what practices are extreme enough to warrant interference? I don't know about you, but I don't trust the government to make that decision for a moment.

So yes, unfortunately there are going to be those who will make a big deal about a banner containing a Christian message, and yes, I think that is ridiculous. In the end, however, I'm afraid such ridiculousness is supported, or at least given consideration, by the Constitution as it has been generally interpreted. In the end nobody is prohibiting anybody's belief by prohibiting a banner.

As bothersome as the Reynolds v. United States decision may be to some, ultimately I do believe it was the most reasonable interpretation of free exercise that could have arisen from that case. The religious clauses of the 1st Amendment, and in particular the latter portion, are just too simple and ambiguous, and thus every bit as much a part of the open and fluid nature of the Constitution as any other part of it.

it isn't unitarians and Sufi muslims who are in the newspaper everyday threatening violence and wars. It's israelis and their evangelical counterparts in the US and wahabi muslims.

All Israel wants is to be left alone in their ancestral homeland.  That's it.
Iran has repeatedly said it wants Israel "wiped from the map," and is developing nuclear capability for the sole purpose of achieving that end.  The Israelis would have to be suicidally insane to allow that to happen, and frankly,
a nuclear armed Iran is bad news for the whole world,  Even the Saudis realize that, according to last year's Wikileaks diplomatic document dump.  The best thing that could happen for the peace of the whole world would be for the political leadership of Iran to suffer simultaneous cranial detonation.

And Israel isn't already suicidal? I've never understood why the world doesn't realize how suicidal Israel is just for insisting on establishing a state surrounded by the very people that have been their enemies for thousands of years. Is that not at the very least obliquely suicidal? And of course, we all know the reason why. The Isralis have a religious connection to Israel. The Israelis and the Muslims appear to be the only two groups in the world in recent history able to find this level of stubborn, religious, territorial, dogmatic justification for their actions. And we all know why the U.S. is involved. The fundamentalist Christian right componentst of the federal government have convinced us that we must back Israel or suffer the wrath of God.

I'm sorry, but the U.S. was not like this before. We did not get involved in religious confrontations, no matter how much people want to insist that the founders wanted it that way. I'm not going to get into yet another debate with you about tolerating evil in the world, as you seem to see these things in such black and white terms. You and I were in the Navy. We were not on the front lines of battle. There is no black and white in war, Indy. I had the pleasure of seeing Marcus Luttrell of Seal Team 10 and author of Lone Survivor speak once, and he said the same thing. There is no black and white in war. Everything turns gray very quickly.

The U.S. is not engaging in foreign policies that are healthy in any way. We have a serious case of s**t or get off the pot. There are only two options availble to us. One is sinister and one is not. We either need to take that land over altogether and make it ours, or we need to stop intervening altogether. Anything between those two options and we do little more than ask for trouble. And yes, we've been asking for trouble for a long time, starting with all of our shady activities in the middle east during the cold war.

Now, lester may be terse and absolute in his considerations, but I understand what he means when he says that these problems are in a large part because of religious fundamentalism, not to exclude that of the U.S. I don't always agree with lester, and his views are sometimes too libertarian even for me, but I understand what he means. The religious zealots of the world bring us little but dogmatic brutality and hatemongering. And yes, I'm sorry, but all of your rhetoric doesn't distinguish itself in any meaningful way from the garden variety fearmongering we leveled against the Germans and Japanese as people during WWII.

like I said...

Flick, you know that I have tremendous personal respect for you, and that I don't take your hostility towards religion personally.  We will always be square on that account.

NOW - as to what you said - call it Judea, call it Palestine, call it Israel.  What it IS is the historic, religious, and cultural center of the Jewish faith and of the Jewish people.  It has been such for over 3000 years.  Through all the long years of their exile, the Jews of the Diaspora celebrated their Passover with the words "Next year, in Jerusalem."  On the other hand, Judea/Palestine/Israel is NOT the Holy Land of Islam.  It is not their birthplace, it is not the center of their faith, of their culture, nor is it the homeland of any particular Arabic nation.  The Dome of the Rock the "Third Holiest Shrine of Islam"?   It wasn't until the Jews took possession of it in 1948.  It was a minor Islamic shrine dedicated to the site of a minor incident in one of the Hadith that wasn't even composed until a century or more after Muhammad's death.  It commemorates a ride on a winged horse that took place in a DREAM Muhammad had. 

But it is built on top of the very epicenter of Judaism.  The site of their temple.

Now, you may say that this all proves what you said to be true.  But do the Jewish people, after all they have endured, not have a right to that one tiny postage stamp of territory where their faith, culture, and national identity are centered?  What would you have them do?  Return to Germany, the land of Dachau, or to Poland, the land of Auschwitz?  That's what Helen Thomas callously suggested.  These people have been shat upon by every land they have resided in since their long exile began (with the exception of the U.S.A.).  After being the target of the most brutal act of genocide in human history, all they wanted was to go HOME.  The place where their identity as a people began.

And that land was offered to be split with the Palestinians.  They refused the deal.  They've been refusing every reasonable compromise ever since.  Every Israeli concession has been met with rocket attacks, truck bombs, and suicide bombings.  The Arabic world is kept whipped into a constant frenzy over the fate of the poor, innocent Palestinians to this day by corrupt leaders who find it easier to direct that rage at Israel than to take the chance that it might be aimed at their own privileged rule.  Yet the Arab world could have absorbed the Palestinians long ago and ended the problem if it wished to.

Who are these people anyway?  The Palestinians never existed as a separate nation before 1948.  There was never a separate, Arabic speaking Palestinian state in the history of the world.  It was just one small corner of the great Ottoman Empire.  There is no "Palestinian" literature, culture, or history that is distinguishable from the broader Arabic world.

And who are the Jews?  I would challenge you to find any group, anywhere, anytime that has contributed more to the civilization of the world than the Jewish people.  Look how many Jews have been honored with the Nobel prize, how many amazing inventions have been due to Jewish ingenuity.  Regardless of your feelings for people of faith, James, I know that you do have a tremendous respect and affection for Western Civilization.  The oldest roots of that civilization lie in Jerusalem, and began with Judaism.

So are you willing to throw the most progressive, gifted, Democratic government in the entire Middle East under the bus in order to appease the most violent, regressive, and evil force that is active in the world right now?  And do you think, for a minute, that if we did cut Israel off, renounce them, vote against them in the UN, and side with the Arabic world in international disputes, that they would hate us any less?  Their hatred is eternally reserved for the entire non-Islamic world, and if they destroy Israel due to our abandoning them, that would simply be taken by the jihadists as a sign of our weakness.  Their efforts against us would redouble.  They are already taking over Europe demographically.  Most of Europe will by majority Islamic by the end of this century, and the light of Western civilization there will be snuffed out.  The jihadists seek nothing less than a new dark age.  Abandoning Israel would hasten rather than delay it.

You may see nothing but shades of grey, but I see good and evil at stake.  Not perfect examples of either - there are some evil and bellicose Israelis, and there are some decent and peaceful Arabs.  But in terms of government, culture, civil society, and religious practice, I think the lines are much more clear than you seem to believe.

You know that I cannot stand Bill Maher at all.  But he nailed it last year on his show when he said: "There is only one religion in the world right now that routinely kills people in the name of its faith - and that is Islam."

It was majority arab for the 18 centuries preceding zionism though.



it's not jews birthplace either. They travelled there when Jerusalem was called Salem and king Melchidezek was reigning.  the land of Canaan, the Canaanites etc



The holocaust is over. there are tons of jews in Germany and Poland.



 most of the countries in Africa didn't "exist" till they were arbitrarily drawn up by colonialists. 



and? My old neighbor used to teach at MIT. Does that mean he can have my house if he wants it? You're making a very unconservative argument for emminent domain here.



Yeah I'm sure RUSSIA will be mostly muslim in 90 years! 

http://www.amazon.com/Jerusalem-1913-Origins-Arab-Israeli-Conflict/dp/0670038369


this is a good book.  It 's about a critical year when jewish migration picked up to the point where tensions between they and the arabs became unavoidable. At it's root, that's all this conflict is. One peoples were there and then another came in great numbers and eventually displaced them. It's pretty easy i think to see how that would create a conflict.

They came there 4,000 years ago during the reign of Melchizedek, true.  But they were not yet a nation.  Israel was the place where Abraham's family began and the NATION of Israel was started by the 12 sons of Jacob.  And, as I said, the so-called Palestinians were nomadic Arabs who lived there after the Jews were forced out - but it wasn't the birthplace of their language, their culture, or their faith.  All those originated on the Arabian peninsula. 

Anti-Semitism is a growing tide in Europe, not just among the Arabic immigrants, who breed hate like rabbits in their mosques, but among the ethnic populations of Europe as well.  Why do you think so many Jews still want to leave Poland, France, and Russia?  Those countries were hotbeds of anti-Semitism at one time, and the old ways are re-asserting themselves.

As for Russia, yes, it probably will become Islamic.  After all, they have the lowest birthrate of any nation in Europe (1.17 children per couple) and are the only nation in the industrialized world where life expectancy has actually declined since the 1990's.  And Islamic immigrants are pouring in there, just  like they are in every other European country. It may take a little longer, since Russia is so huge and has an enormous population, but the trend is in place.  And, since Christianity is effectively dead in much of Europe, there is no opposing ideology to stand up against the rising tide of radical Islam.  Multicultural socialism has created a generation of young Europeans who are detached from their  historical roots and have been offered nothing to believe in.  They are desperate for something to add meaning to their lives, and Islam is making great inroads into the younger population of many European countries.  What was once the realm of Christendom is falling under the crescent more and more every year.

Yes, the conflict began when the Jews returned to their homeland.  But where would you have had them go in 1945?  Would you have forced them to remain  in the lands that either actively tried to exterminate them from the earth, or else stood by and let it happen?  It was time for them to go HOME - and that home, religiously, culturally, and ethnically, was Israel.  The Palestinians have been offered a fair deal again and again, and they have met every Israeli compromise with additional violence and terrorism.  By so doing, they have squandered whatever sympathy I might have had for them at one time.  They need to renounce terrorism permanently and acknowledge Israel's simple right to exist before they receive another dime of U.S. aid, or dare to ask for one more concession from the longsuffering Israeli people.

The jews never completely drove the canaanites out and again, the area was mostly arab for nearly 2 millenia before zionism. that's a bit of a precedent.


  The soution to your issue is for Russians to have more kids, not fort us to occupy the middle east indefinitely. That exacerbates immigration from muslim countries.  . Europe could also adjust their immigration and/ or welfare policies at any time if they so choose. trends don't last forever. The US didn't gradually become buddhist because we allowed chinese people in greater and greater numbers to come here


??? That might have been true in the 11th century but there are plenty of things that can oppose the rising tide of radical islam. China isn't Christian and they aren't going muslim. It's MORE secular than europe.


That's jut a crazy statement. Christendom? the cresecent? listen to yourself


I'm not in charge of the world. I can't "have" anyone go anywhere. there's no one world government that hands out land to people and everyone accepts what they dictate.


We should have let them come here.  other nations would have no doubt followed suit.  our moral failing for doing so shouldn't be shouldered by palestinians. Western nations are the ones who perpetuated the holocaust.


no one has a right to exist. you exist as long as you can defend yourself. it's the law of the jungle.

Did americans have the right to exist when we were taking this country from the indians? of course not. and no one begrudges the Indians for trying to hold on to what had been theirs but they were outnumbered and out armed. if the Indians decide they want to try and take the land back we'll have to fight them again.

The situation is Israel is the reverse . They are 6 million pilgrims surrounded by a billion indians. That's the long and short of it. As you noted, demographics are on the arabs side. You can stop muslims immigrants from coming in to Europe if you want, you can't stop muslims in muslim countries from being populace.

and none of this has anything to do with the Constitution which to my knowledge doesn't include anything about palestinians or israelis.