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

BetaKat

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1

Report this Jan. 02 2013, 2:34 pm

Hello to Everyone!

I am brand-new to this forum but have been watching and enjoying immensely the many adventures of Star Trek, TNG in particular.  Thank god for Netflix and its ability to preserve our favorite programs, huh??!!

On the question at hand, chucking the Constitution... yes,in many ways it may well seem poorly adaptable to the 21st century.  Written in the mid-late 1700s, maybe the best thing altogether would be to rewrite/update it to be more "fitting" with our needs now in the 21st century.

But if you are going to do that, just exactly what would you add?  Or change? Throw out? What exactly would you replace it with?  And remember, our Constitution is what many other developing nations base their OWN constitutions on!  Why?  Because the men who wrote that document did so to account for the inevitable future governmental changes which were bound to happen.

The Constitution has worked for this country for quite a long time and into our current "computer age" and it will continue to do so for the next two hundred years, you can counton that.


Speak with Kindness Walk in Beauty Love with Joy & Laughter Understand with Dignity Rejoice in the Rapture of Life

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46351

Report this Jan. 02 2013, 2:59 pm

Quote: BetaKat @ Jan. 02 2013, 2:34 pm

>

>Hello to Everyone!

I am brand-new to this forum but have been watching and enjoying immensely the many adventures of Star Trek, TNG in particular.  Thank god for Netflix and its ability to preserve our favorite programs, huh??!!

On the question at hand, chucking the Constitution... yes,in many ways it may well seem poorly adaptable to the 21st century.  Written in the mid-late 1700s, maybe the best thing altogether would be to rewrite/update it to be more "fitting" with our needs now in the 21st century.

But if you are going to do that, just exactly what would you add?  Or change? Throw out? What exactly would you replace it with?  And remember, our Constitution is what many other developing nations base their OWN constitutions on!  Why?  Because the men who wrote that document did so to account for the inevitable future governmental changes which were bound to happen.

The Constitution has worked for this country for quite a long time and into our current "computer age" and it will continue to do so for the next two hundred years, you can counton that.

>
Correct - the Constitution was built on timeless principles.  This is why the right to speech and press, etc. apply equally to both the pamplet (like Thomas Paine's "Common Sense") and to a blog written on the internet.  They also didn't limit arms to the weapons of that period.  The same with the 4th amendment - it's not limited to just a person's house.  While the founders couldn't envision the technological marvels we have commonplace nowadays, they knew that while specifics would change, the principles wouldn't.

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 395

Report this Jan. 02 2013, 3:31 pm

Does anyone else find it strange that these "new" members keep popping up out of nowhere to agree with Bam? How is it possible that so many Star Trek fans have such an irrational fear of democracy, socialism and progress?

chr33355

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1551

Report this Jan. 02 2013, 6:24 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>

>

>my socialist views?

> and you expect to have a real conversation after that?   I am clearly talking about the language you use.  I have no idea at all what you really believe.  You talk about the constitution the same way you would a religion. 

>
Yes... your socialist views are just as strong as my views on liberty - we are polar opposites.  You have argued for socialist programs as hard as I fight for freedom.

I'm sorry your so confused about understanding how I view the difference between the US Constitution and God.

Think about the basic components of a religion - deity, worshippers, prayer, etc.  You don't see these in my writings about the Constitution, but you would with my views on God.

I have no idea the difference between how you view the US constitution and god.  I only know you talk about them in the same way.  If you don't want to give the impression that they are the same to you try looking more closely at your language. 

POINTLESS DISCUSSING THIS WITH BAMBAM.

 So are you going to share with the group what exactly is wrong with our constitution


wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4031

Report this Jan. 02 2013, 6:51 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Jan. 02 2013, 8:22 am

Quote: wissa @ Jan. 02 2013, 7:39 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Jan. 02 2013, 7:28 am

Quote: wissa @ Jan. 01 2013, 10:17 pm

>

>

>

>my socialist views?

> and you expect to have a real conversation after that?   I am clearly talking about the language you use.  I have no idea at all what you really believe.  You talk about the constitution the same way you would a religion. 

>
Yes... your socialist views are just as strong as my views on liberty - we are polar opposites.  You have argued for socialist programs as hard as I fight for freedom.

I'm sorry your so confused about understanding how I view the difference between the US Constitution and God.

Think about the basic components of a religion - deity, worshippers, prayer, etc.  You don't see these in my writings about the Constitution, but you would with my views on God.

I have no idea the difference between how you view the US constitution and god.  I only know you talk about them in the same way.  If you don't want to give the impression that they are the same to you try looking more closely at your language. 

  That's funny.  So anyone's view that prefers liberty over slavery is considered "religious?"

Let's see....  religion says God is perfect but the US Constitution is not.  And you can't tell the difference?

--
Edit:  Maybe what you're doing is confusing the fact that the USA was built on the principles of the Christian religion with the Constitution becoming its own religion.  That would be like saying George Washington, who was a devout Christian, became a religion of his own.
--

I took an oath to support and defend the US Constitution - and I will do that for the rest of my life in order to protect the rights and liberties of the citizens.  If that languge is considered "relgious" by you.... well, I can't be held responsible for you misinterpreting it.  (I guess that means every single veteran will have that same stigma....  )  You have the opposite viewpoint, so that will obviously color your perception of anything I say.  Hopefully you can take that into account.


I have no idea the difference between how you view the US constitution and god.  I only know you talk about them in the same way.  If you don't want to give the impression that they are the same to you try looking more closely at your language.


don't you feel like sometimes you just keep repeating yourself? 


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 395

Report this Jan. 02 2013, 6:54 pm

don't you feel like sometimes you just keep repeating yourself?


With Bam? Always.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46351

Report this Jan. 02 2013, 7:15 pm

Quote: wissa @ Jan. 02 2013, 6:51 pm

>I have no idea the difference between how you view the US constitution and god.  I only know you talk about them in the same way.  If you don't want to give the impression that they are the same to you try looking more closely at your language.

>don't you feel like sometimes you just keep repeating yourself? 
Well, I've made it quite clear.  If you can't tell the difference, I can't help you.  Oh well...  It really doesn't diminish anything I've written about the Constitution or our Founders.

Beershark

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2590

Report this Jan. 02 2013, 7:58 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?


Certainly! What is commonly known as The Bill of Rights are the first 10 amendments to The Constitution. Also, thought the numbers of the amendments escapes me, it was a constitutional amendment that brought about the prohibition of alcohol back in the 20's and an amendment that repealed it. It was designed to be a living, changing document. That is the beauty of it, and why statements like this;


"Yes, out of date, obsolele, museum piece only, obstacle to progress, mostly irrelevent to 21st century needs."


are ignorant and uninformed.


By the way, I didn't need read the artical to vote NO.


CORPORATIONS AREN'T PEOPLE! Soylent Green is people.

chr33355

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1551

Report this Jan. 03 2013, 3:36 am

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>

>

>

>

>my socialist views?

> and you expect to have a real conversation after that?   I am clearly talking about the language you use.  I have no idea at all what you really believe.  You talk about the constitution the same way you would a religion. 

>
Yes... your socialist views are just as strong as my views on liberty - we are polar opposites.  You have argued for socialist programs as hard as I fight for freedom.

I'm sorry your so confused about understanding how I view the difference between the US Constitution and God.

Think about the basic components of a religion - deity, worshippers, prayer, etc.  You don't see these in my writings about the Constitution, but you would with my views on God.

I have no idea the difference between how you view the US constitution and god.  I only know you talk about them in the same way.  If you don't want to give the impression that they are the same to you try looking more closely at your language. 

POINTLESS DISCUSSING THIS WITH BAMBAM.

 So are you going to share with the group what exactly is wrong with our constitution

You are another one who it's pointless trying to discuss anything with.

 So in other words no.  Meaning you are just trolling the topic.  Nice to see things havent changed somerland


chr33355

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1551

Report this Jan. 04 2013, 8:49 am

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>my socialist views?

> and you expect to have a real conversation after that?   I am clearly talking about the language you use.  I have no idea at all what you really believe.  You talk about the constitution the same way you would a religion. 

>
Yes... your socialist views are just as strong as my views on liberty - we are polar opposites.  You have argued for socialist programs as hard as I fight for freedom.

I'm sorry your so confused about understanding how I view the difference between the US Constitution and God.

Think about the basic components of a religion - deity, worshippers, prayer, etc.  You don't see these in my writings about the Constitution, but you would with my views on God.

I have no idea the difference between how you view the US constitution and god.  I only know you talk about them in the same way.  If you don't want to give the impression that they are the same to you try looking more closely at your language. 

POINTLESS DISCUSSING THIS WITH BAMBAM.

 So are you going to share with the group what exactly is wrong with our constitution

You are another one who it's pointless trying to discuss anything with.

 So in other words no.  Meaning you are just trolling the topic.  Nice to see things havent changed somerland

No - like I said , it's pointless discussing this (or anything else) with you or your pal BamBam and I so I wont bother. or waste my valuable time trying.

If you want to discuss other countries constitutions start another thread rather than derailing this by sending it off on an irrelevent tangent or trying to change the question.

  The entire topic of this conversation is about the American consitution which you said should be done away with.  You refuse to answer why claiming it is pointless to discuss things and that it is off topic.  Now I know you are just pointlessly trolling the topic and shall from now one be treated as such.


darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 395

Report this Jan. 04 2013, 11:35 am

Ambassadore gave his reasons on the first page. People responded by attacking him for not being an American. Then they attacked him for being a dual/troll/whatever. Now you're acting as if he never gave any reasons. Can you not understand why he would consider it pointless to argue with you?


Personally, I think the article gave plenty of good reasons which is why I posted it in the first place. My mistake was thinking that people might actually read it before voting.

Kdbtrekkin

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3648

Report this Jan. 04 2013, 8:48 pm

To the original topic question, no. We should be able to add to the constitution, amend the constitution, and it has to be done with the public. A large endeavor for sure, but possible. And of course there will be more to it than that but it's too much for me to even try and go on.


"Seek freedom and become captive of your desires, seek discipline and find your liberty." Frank Herbert(Dune)

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 395

Report this Jan. 05 2013, 12:29 pm

To the original topic question, no. We should be able to add to the constitution, amend the constitution, and it has to be done with the public.


The Constitutionalists keep saying we can and should amend the Constitution but it can only be amended by a majority vote. And not just a 51/49 majority, 2/3rds of Congress have to agree (HA!) to put the amendment on the ballot and then 3/4ths of the people have to vote to ratify it. This contradicts their argument that majority rule (democracy) is bad because it leads to tyranny. For example, what if the majority voted to repeal the 1st Amendment? Or the 2nd Amendment? That would be tyrannical and Constitutional, right?


Even from their perspective, there are more flaws in the Constitution than they want to admit. Which takes us back to the main point of the article and that is that Constitutionalists see the Founders as prophets and the Constitution as a "divinely inspired" epilogue to the Bible. They are incapable of separating faith from logic.

Sehlat123

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 496

Report this Jan. 05 2013, 9:05 pm

The Constitutionalists keep saying we can and should amend the Constitution but it can only be amended by a majority vote. And not just a 51/49 majority, 2/3rds of Congress have to agree (HA!) to put the amendment on the ballot and then 3/4ths of the people have to vote to ratify it.


The point of the Constitution:


The supreme law of the land. If you want it changed, you must have a super majority. It's been done before when it's needed to be done... 17 times. (excluding the bill of rights) Yes, it has flaws, but look. It has worked for 222 years, longer than any other constitution.


This contradicts their argument that majority rule (democracy) is bad because it leads to tyranny. For example, what if the majority voted to repeal the 1st Amendment? Or the 2nd Amendment? That would be tyrannical and Constitutional, right?



Actually, that's not exactly how it works. It passes 2/3 of congress, and is ratified by 3/4 of the states. In short, it's a big deal. You can't just say one day, "let's completely change how this country works because this generation wants to be taken care of."


Speaking of that topic, we claim to want our kids to follow their ambitions, but then we try to ruin a country OUR parents loved, with no consent from our children. What if they don't agree with you just as you didn't agree with our parents? But that's a topic for another time.


Even from their perspective, there are more flaws in the Constitution than they want to admit. Which takes us back to the main point of the article and that is that Constitutionalists see the Founders as prophets and the Constitution as a "divinely inspired" epilogue to the Bible. They are incapable of separating faith from logic.


Apparently, you don't really know what we believe. The constitution does have many flaws, yet it IS the best constitution to date. What other form of government, besides a dynasty, withstood for this long? Your precious socialism? Oh, wait, that failed everywhere it was tryed. Talk about the failed policies of the past...


All of the Founding Fathers were men of faith. They were not prophets, they were Godly men. They did base the Constitution off scripture, such as Leviticus, where God gave rules for a government. It may have been divinely inspired, I don't know, but whether it was or not, it is still the best article to date. And if you cannot state what is wrong with it, other than "it's outdated," just stop it until you get a real argument.


 


 


 


"Borg. Sounds Swedish."

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46351

Report this Jan. 06 2013, 11:03 am

Quote: Sehlat123 @ Jan. 05 2013, 9:05 pm

>All of the Founding Fathers were men of faith.
Actually, not all of them were, but the supermajoritry were.


Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: FleetAdmiral_BamBam

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