My views on the Constitution...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by NuclearGuru, May 27, 2010.

  1. I realize that all you "strict Constitutionalist" conservatives are going to flame the hell out of me but oh well. The Constitution was written 223 years ago in a much different time that today. I think it is insane to hold the Constitution as some infallible doctrine that works no matter what year it is. It was written in a time when agriculture was the basis of the economy. It was written a century before the Industrial Revolution. It was written when much of the world was ruled my monarchs. The world is nothing like it was back then and people think it is still valid today? That makes no sense to me. I have no problem with using it, but when there are "strict Constitutionalists" that oppose even amendments, I think it is insane. At best you people are reactionaries. I have a lot more to add but I don't really feel like typing it all right now. Anyone else feel the same.
  2. ^^^ I don't know to many "strict constitutionalists" that opposing Amending the constitution, thats what its for. Yes, times have changed and thats why the constitution should change.

    For example the 18th amendment that prohibited the usage of Alcohol. It passed by the required majority rule and banned alcohol. Then later on the required majority repealed that amendment by the 21st amendment.

    The problem of today is the "interpretation" of the constitution, especially article 1, section 8 known as the "interstate commerce clause.

    If it wasn't for the activist judges "interpretating" the constitution we wouldn't have things like the war on drugs. How is marijuana different than alcohol and why didn't the war on drugs need an Amendment to the Constitution like the progressive's war on alcohol?

    Edit: the war on drugs is unconstitutional
  3. This. :hello:

    I think that if this government actually went back to a "strict constitutionalist" view, that the people would be a lot better off. We wouldn't have a lot of problems we have now like the war on drugs, our current foreign policy, our current tax code, etc.
  4. How is the consitution not relevant to today?

    Should people not have free speech, religion and association because its 2010?

    Should people not have guns because it is 2010?

    Should people have to quarter soldiers because it's 2010?

    Should people not be protected from unreasonable searches? Lets get rid of probable cause and all that because it's 2010?

    Should it be a crime not to report that you did a crime because it's 2010?

    Should people not have the right to a lawyer because it's 2010?

    Should people not have the right to a trial because it's 2010?

    Should we allow cruel and unusual punishment because it's 2010?

    Should we allow the government to ban anything they want because it's 2010?

    Should we allow the federal government unlimited power because because it's 2010?

    Or are you proposing some radical change in how the three branches of government work>?

  5. Very nice post m8 I couldnt have said it better myself :laughing:
  6. You realize the Constitution is more than just the Bill of Rights, right?

  7. I am sure he does but you must realize the bill of rights is a very important part of the constitution.

  8. Yes hence the question at the end

    so what is wrong with it? You didn't state any specific thing just random things about it.

    Or did you just post this because someone told you government run health care or some other program is unconstitutional?

  9. No, those were all very *progressive* views - for the time. So progressive they managed to last as long as they have. It would have been conservative to not have maintain the status quo than make these amazing changes.

    On a side note, I love whenever the right describes the founding fathers as "visionaries", I've heard Beck use that a few times and it makes me chuckle.

    What also gets me laughing is when I see the conservative women who say The Constitution/Bill of Rights needs returned to it's original form. I'm glad they're so willing to give up their right to vote.

    I haven't heard anyone on my side of the aisle mention taking any of those things away. I would argue it's more liberal to defend those things than it is to want to do away with them.

  10. You should probably read the Constitution before professing to know anything about it... It is a very simple document that establishes our basic rights and the limits of Federal government.

    Did you know the Constitution can be amended? What would you want to change about it?

    Do you think that the President should have the power to declare war without an approval from Congress? The people you're aligning yourself with do. When Ron Paul reminded the committee on international relations of this fact before Iraq/Afghanistan this was the response he got from Chariman Henry Hyde:

    "There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them…There are things no longer relevant to a modern society…Why declare war if you don’t have to?…We are saying to the President, use your judgment…So, to demand that we declare war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn’t done anymore…."

    Do you really agree with this dangerous view? That because the Constitution was written a couple hundred years ago we should just stop worrying about amending it and instead ignore it all together? REALLY?

    They were visionaries. They've literally predicted everything that has happened to this once great Republic. What the fuck are you laughing about?

    Show me one example where someone has said this, ever.
  11. Seems were still fighting for these very Rights that our country was founded on, so in many ways, things stay the same, don't they?

    And don't sit here and act like the Constitution was whipped up in a day. The ideals captured in these documents stemmed from literally hundreds of years of oppression. The authors weren't "visionaries", they just had a shitload of real-world experience.

    And as far as "strict Constitutionalists", outside of the educational system, you would be hard pressed to find anyone who can even remember the verbiage of the Constitution and the 27 Amendments to it, much less try and explain and/or challenge it.

    And the reason that people oppose amendments is because the world today is driven by greed. When you really look at 90% of the amendments being proposed today, the end result is to line someones pockets, on top of the fact that we need more rules and amendments like we need more taxes. :rolleyes:

  12. Visionary = Progressive

    And you want my aunt's phone number? =D
  13. damn arronman

    respect xD
  14. Oh, so you're saying Beck should call them Progressives? The founders called themselves liberals because they were libertarian, should we still call them liberals even though they would detest the authoritarian credo of the modern neoliberal?

    The term progressive today represents a violent ideology opposite to the one envisioned by the founders. To call the founders progressive would only confuse people.

    Do you understand that definitions change?

    Why does your aunt think the Constitution should be returned to its "original form", whatever that means? I've never heard that before so I'm confused.

  15. Progressive | Define Progressive at

    I'm having a hard time understanding what your saying because of the definitions behind your labels. It's clear we both define progressive differently, largely I'd believe it's because we have different opinions on arguments presented by those labelled progressive today.

    I consider the proliferation of civil liberty and individual rights to be progressive. I consider those ideas to be progressive thoughts.

    I've never heard the founding fathers refer to themselves as liberal. I absolutely understand there is a huge difference between Locke and today's liberal.

    My aunt, and this mostly comes from the Sarah Palin crowd I've been exposed to seem to enjoy toting the idea that Constitution and Bill of Rights should never be changed - why? I have no fucking clue, that's why I think their guano crazy.

    But to say "I think we should have an agency that monitors the pollution in the air" or "Maybe an agency should ensure their is a minimum level of lead in our paint" does not imply "The government should mandate how every citizen should live their life". This was a point made by John Stewart during a Beck parody (Video: Conservative Libertarian | The Daily Show | Comedy Central) which was fantastic.

    It's easy to apply your own meaning to a label and say it's true. It's like if I said all Conservatives wanted us to go back to living in caves and that fire was magic and it scares them.
  16. Maybe she's thinking of the Articles of Confederation? :confused:

  17. No, she's talking about the Bill of Rights even though she has NFC. Basically there should never have been any amendments and no new law or legislation should have been created since then.
  18. You just cited the non-political definition. Progressivism is synonymous with neoliberalism. They took the label specifically to cast libertarian/fiscal conservatives in a negative light. I am not a reactionary because I support the Constitution, they are reactionaries for supporting authoritarianism, the oldest known failure in governance.

    So do I, but progressivists claim to want to equalize society through force. That's what I disagree with.

    That it should never be changed, or shouldn't have been changed? I have a hard time believing someone can be that absolute.

  19. She's a Sarah Palin fan, that's all I can further offer on the issue. So she probably doesn't know either.

    I think everyone should have the same chance to prove they are unequal.
  20. #20 Lionel Hutz, May 27, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: May 27, 2010
    I already +repped you earlier but great post! In fact, Judicial Review is one of those things that has a VERY hazy past. The power of judges to "decide" whether or not a law is constitutional is not expressly provided in the constitution.. The reason it's become a mainstay in American politics is all due to "legal precedent".

    Keep in mind, I'm not saying that Judicial Review is exclusively a bad idea .... but still. People should know these things.

Share This Page