US Constitution

[mactbone]

Since we apparently have some people who believe in the Constitution as if it were a holy book, I would like to make one very large point.

The US government is for the *people*.

The Constitution is not a person, therefore it is not the be all and end all for everything to do with the US. We cannot always look to it for guidance, although it does contain extremely useful advice for some things. Ultimately though, this government is shaped by the will of the people. The people elect representatives, and if there is not a worthy representative, it is their own fault for not correcting the situation. I do not believe that the framers were meant to be looked on as dietys either. That was not their intention, and we should not try to justify an interpretation of the Constitution, because "that's what the framers meant".

The US is not a religion, and the Constitution is not a Holy Book.

Blind allegiance to anything is counter intuitive to any progress.

[Ming]

Just waiting for David Floyd to check in

[orange]

can't wait, Ming

MacTbone - the constitution bangers will simply point to the process by which it can be amended and that's all they'll 'need'.

My problem isn't with the constitution, but in the way some people chose not to interpret it. There is very little in the constitution that can't be interpreted, and I think the constitution's purpose was to be interpreted by the leaders.

2nd amendment does not guarantee the right for everyone to own any type of firearm they want. It was a different time with different situations.

What's worse, is, that if certain amendments were ever repealled 'legally' the same people would simply 'succeed' from the Union, and claim that that is legal as well.

You just can't win

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Ming
Just waiting for David Floyd to check in

It's only a matter of time......

[Jon Miller]

Re: US Constitution

Originally posted by MacTBone
Since we apparently have some people who believe in the Constitution as if it were a holy book, I would like to make one very large point.

The US government is for the *people*.

The Constitution is not a person, therefore it is not the be all and end all for everything to do with the US. We cannot always look to it for guidance, although it does contain extremely useful advice for some things. Ultimately though, this government is shaped by the will of the people. The people elect representatives, and if there is not a worthy representative, it is their own fault for not correcting the situation. I do not believe that the framers were meant to be looked on as dietys either. That was not their intention, and we should not try to justify an interpretation of the Constitution, because "that's what the framers meant".

The US is not a religion, and the Constitution is not a Holy Book.

Blind allegiance to anything is counter intuitive to any progress.

true

but the constitution is the law

and should be treated as such

if something in the constitution is no longer valid

it should be changed within the law

not ignored

Jon Miller

[mactbone]

I never suggested ignoring any portion of the Constitution, just that we need to figure out how we should apply it in today's world. Unless one of the framers had a time machine I doubt they could have accounted for anywhere near half of the things that we do or even how our society would interact with each other.

We should not treat the Constitution as some immutable law unchanging since the end of time. Rather we need to understand why the framers put these things in, and how applicaple they are to what our society needs.

[David Floyd]

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, a SCOTUS majority opinion has stated that the meaning of the Constitution cannot be altered, therefore goodbye to Mac's argument

[mactbone]

What's an amendment then, if not an altering of the Constitution? What about a law?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MacTBone
What's an amendment then, if not an altering of the Constitution? What about a law?

An amendment is a legal alteration of the constitution, not a reinterpretation.

A law may not alter the Constitution.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Constitution is one of those amazing documents that has been successful in the 1790s and the 2000s... it sets a framework that the US government has been able to work on top of incredibly smoothly.

[David Floyd]

Yup - the Founders wrote in a method of change - and it has nothing to do with "modern times". That method is called amending the Constitution.

[mactbone]

Again, I never said to disregard, but to stop treating it as some immutable law of the land that has been and always will be. Just because it says that everyone has the right to happiness, does not mean you can indulge in anything that can infringe on other people's rights, so how come none of the other rights work that way? You owning a nuclear bomb impedes my right to happiness because I think you're a nutjob and I'll never be able to sell my house. Yet, according to Floyd it's legal because a Nuke is a personal property.

Where does it end? When does somebody's rights infringe on mine?

There are also frivolous examples of what I demonstrated - You buy the last beanie baby, yet I wanted it, does that infringe on my right to happiness? I would say not, but what does the Constitution say about it?

[Imran Siddiqui]

You argument is kinda... well... um.. confusing.

Can you summerize what you are trying to say? And why you think the Constitution says every has the right to happiness (which it does not).

[Wraith]

This was already addressed in at least one of the gun threads.

--"The US government is for the *people*."

Exactly. And do you know what the Constitution is? It is the federal government's charter from the people.

--"There is very little in the constitution that can't be interpreted, and I think the constitution's purpose was to be interpreted by the leaders."

See the tagline.

--"Again, I never said to disregard, but to stop treating it as some immutable law of the land that has been and always will be."

But, as far as the federal government is concernced, that's exactly what it is. The Constitution may not last forever, but until the US government is dissolved, it's there.

--"Just because it says that everyone has the right to happiness, does not mean you can indulge in anything that can infringe on other people's rights, so how come none of the other rights work that way?"

I don't remember the Constitution acknowledging a right to happiness. I think you're confusing it with the Declaration of Independence, which mentions a Right to the Pursuit of Happiness (which is a very different thing).

Wraith
"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now."
-- Justice Brewer ("State of Southern Caroline vs. US" - Majority Opinion)

[mactbone]

Alright, I'm saying that we should use the Constitution. I'm also saying that using arguments purely based in the Constitution are wrong, and serve no purpose for resolving situations. Should we restrict guns? Well, instead of just saying "2nd Amendment!", we should back it up with other things. I swear, sometimes DF and some of the other "Constitutionalists" sound as if they're part of a cult. I would hate it if some religious fundie wuted the bible all the time, and that's what it feels like these people do. They also refuse to look at other viewpoints, they say "It's right there, we can't argue". Well, we can and we should.