Constitution

[ItsZippy]

If you ever want to change how you run you legal system, your politics, what powers your President has, how the government is elected, etc.

You do have problems, for example, the fact that different laws apply in different states, which would require a constitutional change.

 

[katy perry is hot]

If you ever want to change how you run you legal system, your politics, what powers your President has, how the government is elected, etc.

You do have problems, for example, the fact that different laws apply in different states, which would require a constitutional change.

I can see your point there. The whole issues with states can get pretty irritating.

We can change our legal system, new laws are added all the time. It's just certain laws can't be under the constitution. And what powers our president has was changed during the time Cheney Bush was President anyway.

 

[ItsZippy]

Yes, but changing them is much more difficult. I do appreciate the argument that it restricts what the government can, but I think you are underestimating the public. If the British government started removing our rights, I think we'd probably have something to say about it - we'd either vote or force them out quite quickly.

Also, the constitution doesn't always work, does it? Guantanamo Bay? This is unconstitutional, so we'd better hide it off American soil... If a government wants to restrict the rights of the people, it will do so.

 

[katy perry is hot]

Yes, but changing them is much more difficult. I do appreciate the argument that it restricts what the government can, but I think you are underestimating the public. If the British government started removing our rights, I think we'd probably have something to say about it - we'd either vote or force them out quite quickly.

Also, the constitution doesn't always work, does it? Guantanamo Bay? This is unconstitutional, so we'd better hide it off American soil... If a government wants to restrict the rights of the people, it will do so.

Actually, the reason it's off American soil is just for that reason. It is unconstitutional. So technically, the constitution isn't being broken.

And the reason the first patriot act (the one before the revised version in 05/06 that severely reduced the permissions the executive branch had to "monitor" terrorists) was able to get through was because of post 9/11 paranoia. No one was thinking of the constitution. Everyone was thinking about where the next attack will be and how to stop it.

 

[Deleted member 1609]

And what powers our president has was changed during the time Cheney Bush was President anyway.

Actually, you're incorrect there. From 2001-2009, we were governed by an authoritarian regime led by the governor of Texas. We're still governed by an authoritarian regime, but at least the leader was quasi-democratically elected.

 

[ItsZippy]

Actually, the reason it's off American soil is just for that reason. It is unconstitutional. So technically, the constitution isn't being broken.

Exactly, so a written constitution doesn't work. If, instead of not doing things that are unconstitutional, you do them somewhere else, your constitution isn't working.

 

[Gimgak]

Actually, the reason it's off American soil is just for that reason. It is unconstitutional. So technically, the constitution isn't being broken.

Exactly, so a written constitution doesn't work. If, instead of not doing things that are unconstitutional, you do them somewhere else, your constitution isn't working.

Yeah, same thing with the FBI which is just a way to get around what the Police can legally do.

For me it's like seeing a sale sign in a store when they marked the item up a day before. Deep down you know it's bullsheet but it makes you feel just a bit better.

 

[katy perry is hot]

Well just because there are some major flaws (like gitmo), that doesn't mean that there is no hope for the constitution. One major benefit of the constitution is the judicial system being able to declare unjust laws unconstitutional. For example, the partial birth abortion ban by the Bush administration was declared unconstitutional by numerous federal judges..

 

[Justin M]

Well just because there are some major flaws (like gitmo), that doesn't mean that there is no hope for the constitution. One major benefit of the constitution is the judicial system being able to declare unjust laws unconstitutional. For example, the partial birth abortion ban by the Bush administration was declared unconstitutional by numerous federal judges..

And a large portion of Obama's health care bill was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge in Virginia this week as well. Nowadays it seems the only people looking out for the Constitution are the judges, and not the people we elected to do so.

 

[katy perry is hot]

And a large portion of Obama's health care bill was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge in Virginia this week as well. Nowadays it seems the only people looking out for the Constitution are the judges, and not the people we elected to do so.

Yup. Not that large of a portion as the media made it out to be, just the part that people would be forced to buy health insurance. I believe two democratic president appointees said it was constitutional and this guy said it wasn't.. I suppose it'll make its way to the supreme court soon.

 

[Watch Me Sink]

Well just because there are some major flaws (like gitmo), that doesn't mean that there is no hope for the constitution. One major benefit of the constitution is the judicial system being able to declare unjust laws unconstitutional. For example, the partial birth abortion ban by the Bush administration was declared unconstitutional by numerous federal judges..

But was upheld in the supreme court in Gonzales v. Carnhart.

 

[katy perry is hot]

Well just because there are some major flaws (like gitmo), that doesn't mean that there is no hope for the constitution. One major benefit of the constitution is the judicial system being able to declare unjust laws unconstitutional. For example, the partial birth abortion ban by the Bush administration was declared unconstitutional by numerous federal judges..

But was upheld in the supreme court in Gonzales v. Carnhart.

Sure but what I mean is that our constitution gives the ability to the Judicial branch to stop unconstitutional laws immediately.

 

[ItsZippy]

But in Britain, if a government attempts to implement an unjust law, the people will soon remove them from power. We have an upper chamber which will prevent unjust laws from being passed. I find democracy works jhust as well as a check on laws as a constitution does.

 

[Deleted member 1609]

But in Britain, if a government attempts to implement an unjust law, the people will soon remove them from power. We have an upper chamber which will prevent unjust laws from being passed. I find democracy works jhust as well as a check on laws as a constitution does.

We live in the United States, though, where a simple majority of the population wants the government to shut down every mosque. In the United Kingdom, people are simply more intelligent and educated, so maybe that's why that works for you guys.

 

[katy perry is hot]

But in Britain, if a government attempts to implement an unjust law, the people will soon remove them from power. We have an upper chamber which will prevent unjust laws from being passed. I find democracy works jhust as well as a check on laws as a constitution does.

We live in the United States, though, where a simple majority of the population wants the government to shut down every mosque. In the United Kingdom, people are simply more intelligent and educated, so maybe that's why that works for you guys.

Not all people, my friend's grandparents won't shut up about how the "Pakis" are invading England how they all need to be shot.

 

[ItsZippy]

But in Britain, if a government attempts to implement an unjust law, the people will soon remove them from power. We have an upper chamber which will prevent unjust laws from being passed. I find democracy works jhust as well as a check on laws as a constitution does.

We live in the United States, though, where a simple majority of the population wants the government to shut down every mosque. In the United Kingdom, people are simply more intelligent and educated, so maybe that's why that works for you guys.

Not all people, my friend's grandparents won't shut up about how the "Pakis" are invading England how they all need to be shot.

So if we're not more intelligent in Britain, and if we get on fine with the checks we have, why do you need a constitution?

 

[Nuke]

Yes, but making an amendment takes a incredibly long time.

So you have a problem with the consent of the people to amend how the government operates at its core taking too long or requiring multilateral/bipartisan support?

It also prevents any meaningful discussion of moral/rights based issues.

The Constitution doesn't deal with morals. It sets the core operating structure of the Government.

Too often do people ignore a suggestion because it is unconstitutional, when it could be beneficial.

That's because the states reserve the right to do X so the Federal Government would be overstepping its power to go further. Doesn't mean the state can't do it. So basically you want a more centralized structure, which can lead to dictatorship and oppression.

@Last post:

Zippy, so you would revolt and lose lives in order to not have a Constitution if an oppressive dictatorship emerged? Seriously? I don't think that's worth it.

 

[alfred01]

Being a professional fence sitter I can see the argument for both sides. I believe a Constitution should be like the Law. It should appear stable while being flexible to suit the times. Look at the U.S. Constitution. How many amendments does it have? A Constitution should have guaranteed rights and protection's but should never be considered the final word.

 

[Nuke]

wat

There aren't really that many amendments...Ever seen Louisiana's?

They can amend it, you know. That's how it's flexible. If the people see it fit to amend the Constitution, they do that.

But really...if your governmental framework has to be adjusted to suit the times, then we'd have the most ridiculous thing ever. I don't even know how it would work. Maybe we just delete elections here and there, and whatever we feel like doing?

 

[alfred01]

wat

There aren't really that many amendments...Ever seen Louisiana's?

They can amend it, you know. That's how it's flexible. If the people see it fit to amend the Constitution, they do that.

But really...if your governmental framework has to be adjusted to suit the times, then we'd have the most ridiculous thing ever. I don't even know how it would work. Maybe we just delete elections here and there, and whatever we feel like doing?

"Nuke" perhaps I wasn't very clear in what I was saying. Yes the Constitution can be amended and that's the way it should be. Provisions in a current Constitution will undoubtedly become outdated in say 50-100 year's, so yes, the flexibility is necessary. With regards to your last paragraph, with all due respect, we are not talking about government framework. Constitutions are designed to outline the rights and freedoms of it's citizen's, not the structure of the government.