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

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46352

Report this Jan. 15 2013, 6:20 pm

Quote: Lone Palm @ Jan. 15 2013, 5:47 pm

>But another point to consider is that in the days of the Founding Fathers, the Federal Union was a voluntary union. The Founding Fathers believed States could secede if they so desired. If a supermajority amended the Constitution, and a State opposed the Amendment, the belief was that a State could secede from the Union and reassert its sovereignty in full. However, Lincoln changed this view when he led a war to end voluntary participation in favor of involuntary assocation and servitude to the central government.
Correct - it was never considered a "suicide pact."

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46352

Report this Jan. 15 2013, 6:22 pm

Quote: Lone Palm @ Jan. 15 2013, 4:03 pm

>Why should a politician be exempt from the law?
especially the Constitution - the supreme law of the country and one they swore they would uphold.

Sehlat123

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 496

Report this Jan. 15 2013, 10:39 pm

Quote: darmokattanagra @ Jan. 14 2013, 7:25 pm

>

>Isn't it strange that 25 years ago people stuck to the constitution, and now it's considered outdated?

>Isn't it strange that 25 years ago Obama would have run and won as a Republican?

>


That's not even true...


Obama would never have won even as a democrat. Back then, people wanted someone who would protect the country from the USSR, not someone who wanted to "fundamentally transform" the country to be more like it.


"Borg. Sounds Swedish."

DUKAT!!!!

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 63

Report this Jan. 17 2013, 10:30 pm

When you take a look at it from a non-partisan logical point of view, it all boils down to one question: What is wrong with our constitution? You want to amend the 2nd amendment. But would you throw the whole constitution out because of that? What aspect are you against?


The problem with setting a president of changing the bill of rights is: where do you stop? If you can redefine "the right to bear arms will not be infringed" to only apply to certain weapons, can you not do the same with other rights? Could you say "Muslims don't have the right to practice their religon because the radicals are fighting us" or "only a certain type of people can congregate?"


I think we don't appreciate what we have here. Whenever socialism has been tested, it has turned out is misery. Has anyone studied Mao, Stalin, and Castro's countries? They all failed. The people were miserable in all of them. Our constitution may have some flaws, but it is far superior in many ways to any other form of government we have seen.


So if the Liberals cannot make a strong case on exactly what is wrong with the constitution other than spouting their rhetoric of "it's outdated, and we want less rights," why is it even an issue?


 


Sorry, just my political side coming out there


DUKAT!!!!! -Major Kira

miklamar

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2170

Report this Jan. 18 2013, 3:30 am

The Constitution is good, and it legally preserves citizens' rights.  Beware of anyone who tries to "revise" it; you would not like their revisions.


Var Miklama--Zakdorn, engineer. "A sound mind in a FULL body!" "Time, like latinum, is a limited quantity in the galaxy."

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 395

Report this Jan. 18 2013, 6:42 am

When you take a look at it from a non-partisan logical point of view


Way to stay non-partisan and think logically about this issue.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46352

Report this Jan. 18 2013, 8:59 am

Quote: miklamar @ Jan. 18 2013, 3:30 am

>

>The Constitution is good, and it legally preserves citizens' rights.  Beware of anyone who tries to "revise" it; you would not like their revisions.

>
Correct.  The original goal of the US Constitution was to protect rights and limit the Federal government, but the ProRegressives/Communists/Socialists/Marxists demand that we lose our rights and want to revise/destroy the Constitution so they get what they want - slavery and death.  Too bad those that demand that type of government don't do just a few minutes a real research and find out how many millions were murdered under socialist governments, then add the millions that starved to death.  But then again, our gubmunt edewkayshun & indocktrunayshun cystduuhhmm doesn't show the destruction that socialism does.  We have a choice - rights/liberty/life or slavery/death.


 


As Patrick Henry once said, "Give me Liberty, or give me death!" He was quite right that those are our ownly two options - liberty or death.

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 395

Report this Jan. 18 2013, 9:59 am

Regurtitating the same bullsh!t over and over again doesn't make it true, SpamSpam.


 

Gawain_VIII

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 191

Report this Jan. 18 2013, 11:12 am

Wow! This is quite a conversation.  I'd like to add my thoughts on the subject, but first, some qualifiers:


I am an Active Duty NCO in the US Air Force. I generally identify myself as a conservative Libertarian (I voted for Ron Paul in the Republican primaries, and Gary Johnson in the last general election).  I am not the extremist anarco-capitalist type of libertarian.  Some of my political heroes include Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan.  I am not a fan of socialism, but I do advocate some progressive policies.  I am also an ordained minister of a minority religion.  While I don't claim to be a history expert (I'm an English Education major) I have studied history and polotics extensively on my own--particularly western (US and European) history.


With that said, the short answer to my question is "No".  We should not abandon the entire document.  The means to change the flaws in the system exists within the Constitution itself--the amendment proccess.  The reason a supermajority is required, as opposed to a simple majoriy is to prevent the all-too-common knee-jerk reaction that has repeatedly backfired in execution, regardless of the positive intent of the legislature.


The Constitution does not grant rights, nor can it take any away--it simply recognizes the responsibility of the government to protect those rights which pre-exist the government.  The 9th Amendment assures us that we do have rights beyind those listed in the Constitution.  The framers couldn't possibly have forseen or listed each and every natural right.  The Right to Privacy, for example, is not listed in the Constitution, but it has always been assumed, under the 9th Amendment, to have existed in perpetuity.


In form and structure, the Constituion is organized as a limiting document--it provides a list of 22 "enumerated powers" which the federal government is authorized to execute.  The 10th amendment guarantees that, with the exception of those 22 explicitly stated powers, all other powers belong to the states or the people (in the case of the 4 items which states are prohibited from doing).


The article opines that "the House could not take up a plan by Senate Democrats to extend tax cuts on households making $250,000 or less because the Constitution requires that revenue measures originate in the lower chamber. Why should anyone care? Why should a lame-duck House, 27 members of which were defeated for re-election, have a stranglehold on our economy? Why does a grotesquely malapportioned Senate get to decide the nation’s fate?"


The answer to that is very specific and absolutely necessary.  As designed, the House of Representatives specifically represents the unique interests of the citizenry (which is why they are apportioned according to population) while the Senate is supposed to reflect the interests of the various States (which is why each state, being equal to every other state, is alloted the same number of senators).  This presumption is clearly illustrated in that, originally, senators (being employees and representatives of the state) were appointed by the states rather than popular election.  The method of appointment has since changed, they are now popularly elected, but the concept behind the differing functions of the two houses remain the same.  It is for this reason why tax bills absolutely must begin in the House, and not the Senate, because it is the citizen who will be more directly affected by said taxes.  Therefore, the citizens, via their representatives, MUST agree to the tax in the first place.


Now, about BamBam.  The reason why he talks about the Constitution in the same manner he speaks about religion is because... well, it's the same person talking!  We are in the same fleet together on STO and I've come to know him reasonably well.  He uses the same language idioms and style of writing in everything he talks/writes about, whether it be politics, religion, Star Trek, his family, or even his favorite foods.  Just as I use the same style in everything I write--it's my style.  Go back and see my other posts--you'll understand what I mean.


To close, I would like to expand on my "short answer" from the beginning of this post.  The function of the federal government has two purposes.  First, to protect the rights of it's citizens; and, to represent the interestes, collectively, of the individual states when it pertains to multi-state and foreign matters.  The Constitution clearly outlines this comcept.  It is clearly intended to be flexible, in that it has provisions to ammed itself, however it was never intended to be "interpreted" loosely.  The authors did not debate for seven days on the correct spelling of the word "ennumerated" for their words to be twisted and interpreted.  They were very careful and specific in their intent.  The function of the Supreme Court is to interpret LAWS as they apply to the Consitution--they have never had the authority to interpret the Constitution itself.  There is no interpretation required.  James Madison & company wrote exactly what they meant.  "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof", "The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", "The right of the people to be secure... against unreasonable searches and seizures, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED".  These statements are written as absolutes, black and white, plain, simple, common English.  There is, and should not be, any need or means of interpretation except the literal.


A final thought: my definition of "freedom" and "liberty" as it applies to this discussion is quite simply, "the ability to choose."  The more choices I have the more free I am.  Not every choice is right or good or correct or safe--and there are responsibilities and consequences for every choice... but the very fact that I have the choice--THAT is what makes me free and why I wake up and put my uniform on each and every morning.


ROBERT CHARLES GRAHAM, Vice Admiral
U.S.S Gawain NCC-91980
Commanding Officer, Frontier Fleet
sto-frontier-fleet.proboards.com

Sehlat123

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 496

Report this Jan. 18 2013, 11:56 am


miklamar: The Constitution is good, and it legally preserves citizens' rights.  Beware of anyone who tries to "revise" it; you would not like their revisions.



That is exactly correct. Nothing is wrong with how it is, so why are people trying to revise it? They don't want you to have freedom?




darmokattanagra: When you take a look at it from a non-partisan logical point of view


Way to stay non-partisan and think logically about this issue.


Okay, I agree with him on most parts, and though sadly since the supreme law of the land is considered radical nowdays, it's not considerable non-partisan, it is a logical point of view. What do you think is wrong about it? You keep attacking us, but you still can't say exactly what is wrong with the constitution or untrue about our posts.


Regurtitating the same BS over and over again doesn't make it true, SpamSpam.


Oh really? First of all it IS true what he said, but lets take a look at YOUR people. Regurtitating the same lies over and over. What did Lennon say? Tell a lie enough and it becomes the truth? The white house has certainly followed that rule. Typical liberal, namecalling instead of carrying on a real discussion.


"Borg. Sounds Swedish."

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46352

Report this Jan. 18 2013, 12:09 pm

Quote: Gawain_VIII @ Jan. 18 2013, 11:12 am

>Some of my political heroes include Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan.
Now you've got me curious.... how can both Teddy be one of your heroes as the stood for things that are completely opposite of Paul, Reagan and Gary Johnson.  Teddy was a huge progressive (starting the Progressive Party and even helped created the League of Nations (which spawned the UN.)

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46352

Report this Jan. 18 2013, 12:14 pm

Quote: Gawain_VIII @ Jan. 18 2013, 11:12 am

>A final thought: my definition of "freedom" and "liberty" as it applies to this discussion is quite simply, "the ability to choose."  The more choices I have the more free I am.  Not every choice is right or good or correct or safe--and there are responsibilities and consequences for every choice... but the very fact that I have the choice--THAT is what makes me free and why I wake up and put my uniform on each and every morning.


 


Exactly!  With liberty comes responsibility.  We are free to make a stupid choice, but we should also be responsible for the consequences of that choice.


As an example, I believe that people should be free to take drugs (which are currently illegal.)  Yes, I think it's stupid to take those drugs, but what right do I have in stopping them?  NONE!  But... if someone does take them... it's not society's responsibility to support that person and take care of their medical treatments either.

Invader_Wishfire

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 27518

Report this Jan. 18 2013, 1:59 pm

Okay, my two cents...

No, we should not abandon the constitution.

That being said, it's my belief that we need to go back to that constitution. Is already been abandoned, by both the republicans and the democrats. Both parties (and, sadly, as a result, the majority of American citizens) feel the need to redefine it to suit their own goals whenever it suits them. The constitution is only as flexible as the amendment process allows it to be, no more.

Maybe the political parties should incorporate a system of checks and balances to make sure that they follow the constitution (beyond the amendment process) rather that trying to redefine it.

 photo spok_zps253ab564.gif

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46352

Report this Jan. 19 2013, 10:06 am

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>The only changes needed are to repeal the 16th and 17th amendments.
That would be so nice... but it'll only happen when people start studying and understanding the "WHY" question.


Sehlat123

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 496

Report this Jan. 20 2013, 12:09 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>The US Contitution is the greatest political document published in the history of man-kind.

>The only changes needed are to repeal the 16th and 17th amendments.


Yeah, those are the ones that are the problem. The 16th at least... the founders would not have agreed with the 17th, but I think it's too late to repeal them now. People would be mad that they couldn't vote for anyone, and it would probably turn out with abandoning the constitution further and making us a complete democracy.


"Borg. Sounds Swedish."

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