ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Should we give up on the Constitution?

Report this
Created by: darmokattanagra

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 390

Report this Dec. 31 2012, 12:00 pm

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Dec. 31 2012, 2:30 pm

Interesting article.


I know the only poll options are "Yes" and "No", but I would suggest a middle answer -- which may be similar to what the writer of this article has suggested. Not for any country to "give up" on their constitution/s, per se, but to leave them open to revision where necessary.


Have you ever danced with a Tribble in the pale moonlight?

kkt

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 170

Report this Dec. 31 2012, 11:30 pm

Maybe the non-Americans would like to comment on what they like or don't like about their country's constitution?


 

Vicsage

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 465

Report this Jan. 01 2013, 7:38 am

I don't understand the question the topic is asking.  I thought we gave up on the constitution decades ago.


No response must mean you all agree.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46342

Report this Jan. 01 2013, 9:27 am

Quote: OtakuJo @ Dec. 31 2012, 2:30 pm

>

>Interesting article.

>I know the only poll options are "Yes" and "No", but I would suggest a middle answer -- which may be similar to what the writer of this article has suggested. Not for any country to "give up" on their constitution/s, per se, but to leave them open to revision where necessary.

>
That's what the amendment process is for.  We've had 27 of them so far.


STRaven

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1

Report this Jan. 01 2013, 10:38 am

I concur with FA_BB.  This experimental Republic has survived because its Constitution defines a process to allow for change while protecting its citizens from the tyranny of a single individual or a simple majority.

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Jan. 01 2013, 11:19 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Jan. 01 2013, 9:27 am

Quote: OtakuJo @ Dec. 31 2012, 2:30 pm

>

>

>Interesting article.

>I know the only poll options are "Yes" and "No", but I would suggest a middle answer -- which may be similar to what the writer of this article has suggested. Not for any country to "give up" on their constitution/s, per se, but to leave them open to revision where necessary.

>
That's what the amendment process is for.  We've had 27 of them so far.


Thought as much.


My knowledge of the American constitution is pretty rudimemtary. As the article suggested, New Zealand doesn't really have one. (The closest thing might be the Treaty of Waitangi which is more like a contract between the Maori and Pakeha, and the practical application of which has -- as you may know -- been subject to a lot of criticism.) Australia has one but any changes have to be approved by a process of referendum.


So here is a question for anyone versed in American history. Have there been any instances of people amending or perhaps even revoking an amendment?


Have you ever danced with a Tribble in the pale moonlight?

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4031

Report this Jan. 01 2013, 11:53 am

I don't think it's the document itself that is the problem.  I think it's this recent development of people who look at it as some sort of religious document with the founding fathers as it's prophets is the problem.  If it is seen as a historical document with relevence to modern times, but limitations because of the period it was written in then it can be very usefull.


 

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 390

Report this Jan. 01 2013, 11:59 am

Quote: OtakuJo @ Jan. 01 2013, 11:19 am

>

>Have there been any instances of people amending or perhaps even revoking an amendment?

>


The 18th Amendment established the prohibition of alcohol and was repealed by the 21st Amendment.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46342

Report this Jan. 01 2013, 12:34 pm

Quote: OtakuJo @ Jan. 01 2013, 11:19 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Jan. 01 2013, 9:27 am

Quote: OtakuJo @ Dec. 31 2012, 2:30 pm

>

>

>

>Interesting article.

>I know the only poll options are "Yes" and "No", but I would suggest a middle answer -- which may be similar to what the writer of this article has suggested. Not for any country to "give up" on their constitution/s, per se, but to leave them open to revision where necessary.

>
That's what the amendment process is for.  We've had 27 of them so far.

Thought as much.

My knowledge of the American constitution is pretty rudimemtary. As the article suggested, New Zealand doesn't really have one. (The closest thing might be the Treaty of Waitangi which is more like a contract between the Maori and Pakeha, and the practical application of which has -- as you may know -- been subject to a lot of criticism.) Australia has one but any changes have to be approved by a process of referendum.

So here is a question for anyone versed in American history. Have there been any instances of people amending or perhaps even revoking an amendment?

The founding fathers studied many governments throughout history before determining that a Constitutional Republic was the best option to enable the most amount of liberty for the citizens and protect us from tyrannical government.


 


Yes... the Progressives of the early 1900's wanted to implement a nanny state and outlaw alcohol via the 18th Amendment.  It was later repealed with the 21st Amendment.


 


One thing I like about our Constitution is that when we amend the Constitution, we just don't rewrite the document - we show the history of our mistakes and (hopefully) learn from them.


FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46342

Report this Jan. 01 2013, 12:38 pm

Quote: wissa @ Jan. 01 2013, 11:53 am

>

>I don't think it's the document itself that is the problem.  I think it's this recent development of people who look at it as some sort of religious document with the founding fathers as it's prophets is the problem.  If it is seen as a historical document with relevence to modern times, but limitations because of the period it was written in then it can be very usefull.

>
The idea of limited government preserving individual liberty is timeless!  No, it's not a religious document, but it is the supreme law of the land.  What's sad is that so many people here flat out ignore it or redefine stuff in an attempt to usurp it (treason.)  If they had any integrity, they'd obey it and change it via the amendment process.


OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Jan. 01 2013, 12:39 pm

Quote: wissa @ Jan. 01 2013, 11:53 am

>

>I don't think it's the document itself that is the problem.  I think it's this recent development of people who look at it as some sort of religious document with the founding fathers as it's prophets is the problem.  If it is seen as a historical document with relevence to modern times, but limitations because of the period it was written in then it can be very usefull.

>


Well put. An important document, but it is always essential to maintain some objective distance.


________________


And thanks to those who answered my question. I had forgotten about Prohibition. I agree that to have a record of corrections and amendments is a strength. One of the problems with the Waitangi Treaty here in NZ is that there are a lot of discrepancies between the English and Maori versions but only a small percentage of kiwis can speak both English and Maori well enough to understand these in detail.


Have you ever danced with a Tribble in the pale moonlight?

DS9TREK

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 14335

Report this Jan. 01 2013, 1:19 pm

Quote: OtakuJo @ Jan. 01 2013, 11:19 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Jan. 01 2013, 9:27 am

Quote: OtakuJo @ Dec. 31 2012, 2:30 pm

>

>

>

>Interesting article.

>I know the only poll options are "Yes" and "No", but I would suggest a middle answer -- which may be similar to what the writer of this article has suggested. Not for any country to "give up" on their constitution/s, per se, but to leave them open to revision where necessary.

>
That's what the amendment process is for.  We've had 27 of them so far.

Thought as much.

My knowledge of the American constitution is pretty rudimemtary. As the article suggested, New Zealand doesn't really have one. (The closest thing might be the Treaty of Waitangi which is more like a contract between the Maori and Pakeha, and the practical application of which has -- as you may know -- been subject to a lot of criticism.) Australia has one but any changes have to be approved by a process of referendum.

So here is a question for anyone versed in American history. Have there been any instances of people amending or perhaps even revoking an amendment?


Technically New Zealand's constitution is made up the same as the UK's - Magna Carta 1215, the English Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701 all wrapped up nicely in the Common Law.


Of course most people don't like to accept that cos that'd give us (us being the the Commonwealth) a more anti-government, pro-individual constitution than even the US. Older I get the more I realise people fear freedom.

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4031

Report this Jan. 01 2013, 1:50 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Jan. 01 2013, 12:38 pm

Quote: wissa @ Jan. 01 2013, 11:53 am

>

>

>I don't think it's the document itself that is the problem.  I think it's this recent development of people who look at it as some sort of religious document with the founding fathers as it's prophets is the problem.  If it is seen as a historical document with relevence to modern times, but limitations because of the period it was written in then it can be very usefull.

>
The idea of limited government preserving individual liberty is timeless!  No, it's not a religious document, but it is the supreme law of the land.  What's sad is that so many people here flat out ignore it or redefine stuff in an attempt to usurp it (treason.)  If they had any integrity, they'd obey it and change it via the amendment process.


I didn't say it was a religious document.  I said some people act like it is. 


 


all you need to do is read your post to see evidence of that


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

DS9TREK

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 14335

Report this Jan. 01 2013, 2:10 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Jan. 01 2013, 12:38 pm

Quote: wissa @ Jan. 01 2013, 11:53 am

>

>

>I don't think it's the document itself that is the problem.  I think it's this recent development of people who look at it as some sort of religious document with the founding fathers as it's prophets is the problem.  If it is seen as a historical document with relevence to modern times, but limitations because of the period it was written in then it can be very usefull.

>
The idea of limited government preserving individual liberty is timeless!  No, it's not a religious document, but it is the supreme law of the land.  What's sad is that so many people here flat out ignore it or redefine stuff in an attempt to usurp it (treason.)  If they had any integrity, they'd obey it and change it via the amendment process.


What makes me sad is people forget where liberty and limited government come from and how they came to be. It simply evolved naturally and unwritten in England. Where Europeans came up with the idea there is no law and no rights unless the King (state) gives it to you, in England the law and our rights simply existed and not even the King (state) could ignore or overrule them.


Writing those rights down as they were in Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus and the US Constitution is with hindsight the greatest mistake we could have made. We've created the illusion that the state gave us (us being the English-speaking people) such rights as free speech and the right to arm ourselves. And worse still that the state can take those rights away. Which of course it cannot.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: darmokattanagra

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum