Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Let's give up on the Constitution

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    4,366


    Default Let's give up on the Constitution

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/op....html?hp&_r=1&

    Interesting article. I've always had thoughts like this and I'm pretty sure I agree, although I'm a bit hesitant considering so much of our law and culture stems from the Constitution. The freedoms enshrined in the constitution may be timeless, but the application of these freedom in law still need to be interpreted for modern times. I'm not saying the Constitution is worthless, but it should have any formal authority over our laws.

    And I lol at this quote:
    Imagine that after careful study a government official — say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress — reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?
    Last edited by bighead384; 01-01-2013 at 11:26 AM.
    When they said "sit down", I stood up.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Vodka Belt
    Posts
    3,270


    Default

    I have always hated the argument that if it says so in the US Constitution, it must be how we should form the society. Like the debate about gun control. If someone says guns should be banned, they will instantly hear "But 2nd Amendment! The Constitution says we must have guns!". It makes me think that perhaps the US Constitution should be changed then. Why are people treating it as if it is a holy and perfect scripture?

    Just because something has been this way for a long time, it doesn't mean it should carry on being like that without any reason except that it has been like that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paint_It_Black View Post
    I don't grab tits. I have tits thrust upon me.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,125


    Default

    I find it interesting.

    Especially when you compare to France because both our first Constitutions (and your Bill of rights and our Declaration of Human rights) have been made approximatively at the same time.

    Our declaration didn't change a bit and still has a Constitutionnal value. But since 1958, we are applying our 4th Constitution, because society changed and therefore, law had to change.

    I learn in my american-english law class that the American Bill of Rights, contrary to the Declaration of Human Rights wasn't written to grant rights to every American (or every Human) but simply to define what the Federal State couldn't force you to do.
    Because at the time, States were afraid of the Federal Government. So basically, it is just meant to say : The Federal Government can't rule on that. And not "you have the Freedom to do this".

    I guess this was ok at the time because each State was pretty independant but now, it just seems weird.
    ___________________________________________

    All the Beautiful Things you do

    Respect my authoritah !

  4. #4


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bighead384 View Post
    Interesting article. I've always had thoughts like this and I'm pretty sure I agree, although I'm a bit hesitant considering so much of our law and culture stems from the Constitution. The freedoms enshrined in the constitution may be timeless, but the application of these freedom in law still need to be interpreted for modern times. I'm not saying the Constitution is worthless, but it should have any formal authority over our laws.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harleyquiiinn View Post
    I learn in my american-english law class that the American Bill of Rights, contrary to the Declaration of Human Rights wasn't written to grant rights to every American (or every Human) but simply to define what the Federal State couldn't force you to do.
    Because at the time, States were afraid of the Federal Government. So basically, it is just meant to say : The Federal Government can't rule on that. And not "you have the Freedom to do this".
    Laws don't come from the constitution, it is a document meant to restrain government, Specifically limiting the role of the federal government to very little, so much so that, they saw it necessary to say that congress must meet at least once a year. All other powers were reserved for the states. The bill of rights was to say, no matter what, neither the states nor the federal government could do these.

    So in short, I am not for giving up on the principles that protect us from government. Call me crazy.
    Last edited by bronc_28; 01-05-2013 at 02:32 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •