This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@ Elhonna I see now. It is the basic law that keeps other laws in check, right?
Right!
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@ Elhonna I see now. It is the basic law that keeps other laws in check, right?
Right!
Then, it is supposed to be used as guideline in making new laws?
It's supposed to set limits on how much power the government has to make laws. If we as a country want to fundamentally change how much innate power the government has, it's a much slower process and a much larger percentage of people need to agree on it than when we change individual laws within the framework.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Ok- yes.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
That's cute. The reason I corrected you initially, is because "guideline" isn't really a rigid enough word for its role. It's more correct than saying it has nothing to do with the law (hence my yes to your yes-no answer), but the part where that sentence most falls apart is "to be referred to from time to time."
The Constitution is the set of binding rules that the government is not allowed to operate outside of. Period. When one branch attempts to, the others are supposed to prevent it. What you're asking is how about we take the only thing that prevents the people in power from having absolute power, and instead of holding them accountable to it legally, we just ask that they refer to it once in a while as...what, as a source of inspiration for their decision?
The constitution is to the government what the body of law is to the average citizen. What you're asking is what if, instead of forcing people to follow the law, we just asked that they refer to it once in a while when making their decisions. Tell me how effective you think that would be?
If the constitution was not binding, then as soon as one party or the other got into power, they could pass laws that would make the president king for life, outlaw the other party, extend their own terms in office indefinitely, etc. Since we don't vote on every law, but only to re-elect, no one would be able to stop them because the checks and balances outlined in the Constitution would be suggestions and not enforceable. If they remove the election process entirely, they don't need to worry about public opinion because no one is getting voted out. If they want the populace on their side, they can just control and censor all the media and all of the information to make it look like things are much better than they are. They can pass laws that will allow them to disarm the civilian population, then install martial law with the government controlled military. They can imprison and silence dissidents, etc.
Those are the types of things that are outlawed in the Constitution, and that's why they need to be bound by it.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@Elhonna That is fair point. But, I interpreted "refer from time to time" as "I know my limits, but in this case, I am not sure let me check". So, I follow law, but refer to it, when I do not know whether or not I cross the line. You see where my interpretation comes from?
But that's not what the article says- in the same sentence where it says "refer from time to time" it also says "a myth foisted upon the voters." A "myth"- you know- something that is not real. That whole article is discussing what if the Constitution was not treated as a law, and Congress knowingly disregarded and operated outside of it. I don't understand how you could read that, and interpret it as "What if they were still following the law, but had to check back every once in a while just to make sure."
So yes, I guess it would be ok if by "A guideline that they refer to from time to time," you mean that it operates exactly as it does now, but every congressman would have a little copy on his desk so he could look at it while he was passing laws, and would physically be "referring to it."
But that is not at all what that article is about and that interpretation would in no way lead to your earlier statements about how because it wasn't able to be changed easily, laws couldn't adapt quickly. In fact, I can't even understand how you're relating this supposed misunderstanding to all of your arguments before.
Post by
gamerunknown
That's not to say that the framers of the Constitution decided that it'd be sufficient to ensure a perfect Government for all posterity.
In fact, in the Declaration of Independence they said:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Post by
MyTie
You know, I refer to words written nearly 6K years ago, and try to base my actions on them. I find myself defending words written 200 years ago as not "too old". What part of the constitution specifically do you feel are outdated?
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@Gamer- that says that the people can and should alter and abolish the government. What this article discusses is letting the government- not the citizenry- abolish all restrictions upon itself. If the people want to change the Constitution, then process is there to do it. If they want to abolish it and make a new government from the ground up, there will be a revolution. But it can't be made easy for the government officials to change the constitution themselves when that's the only thing keeping them in check.
Has everyone in this debate actually read the Constitution? I would recommend it. It's not that long a read, and it puts into scope what it is that we're discussing. I find that a lot of people who haven't read the constitution think it's much more involved, or covers many more topics (or more controversial topics) than it actually does. Most of what people complain about these days are all the laws that have been passed after the fact.
Post by
MyTie
That's not to say that the framers of the Constitution decided that it'd be sufficient to ensure a perfect Government for all posterity.
In fact, in the Declaration of Independence they said:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
This says people > government. This doesn't say government > rules of government.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Oh yeah- that article is inflammatory question after inflammatory question. It's meant to get an emotional response, push panic buttons, etc. No real substance to it at all. The purpose, I think, is to try and shock people into thinking about if the government is overstepping its bounds, and whether we can or should do something about it. But it goes about it with the worst kind of rhetoric, addresses no real issues and is overall pretty useless.
I happen to think that in the last decade or so there has been a move towards a level of government control and supervision that is beyond what they should be allowed, and that we should really take a more active stance against it (like we did with SOPA). But this article is not the way to approach the issue at all.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
You are referring to Bible, right? Well, that has its own limitations today (like homosexuals, you know?).We disagree on this topic. I'll side with God. You should pray I'm wrong. =)
Has everyone in this debate actually read the Constitution? I would recommend it. It's not that long a read, and it puts into scope what it is that we're discussing. I find that a lot of people who haven't read the constitution think it's much more involved, or covers many more topics (or more controversial topics) than it actually does. Most of what people complain about these days are all the laws that have been passed after the fact.
Will read over weekend. But, for now bear with me.
I've read it... many many many times. Most of the time, I don't read it all the way through, but read the part that is applicable to the subject that interests me. I can remember taking classes that covered it as well, and having to analyze each part.
Post by
gamerunknown
Has everyone in this debate actually read the Constitution?
Yoop, we had to go over it for Government and Politics class and the historical reasons for its limitations (think it was Georgia that threatened secession if the two-thirds clause wasn't added) and expansions (elastic clause/general welfare clause). We didn't go into stuff that is apparently now controversial, such as income taxes or foreign aid. Congress passed a law granting foreign aid to Haiti just 16 years after declaring independence I think, though Madison was one of the ones that voted aginst it. Actually, it would have been useful if they warned us not to confuse the Constitution and Declaration of Independence as well, since I kept wondering where the phrase "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness" was in the Constitution.
England decided to call its entire bulk of laws a "Constitution" and that the legislature has ultimate power over the Constitution and can amend it with a simple majority at will. It's known as an "unentrenched constitution". One of the reasons I support the EU is that they drew up an actual constitution with a bill of rights that all EU citizens would be subject too. Less capacity for local governments to trammel rights.
Post by
Morec0
Plastic-eating Mushroom:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/this-could-be-big-abc-news/more-mere-magic-mushrooms-154207424.html
There is hope for this world yet, a few more beneficial mutations and a little more careful manuvering and we may just survive.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.