Constitution

[Deleted member 1609]

The most vital thing, in my opinion, is that there be a list of things that the government simply cannot do. For example, restricting freedom of speech and press should be constitutionally barred.

 

[alfred01]

The most vital thing, in my opinion, is that there be a list of things that the government simply cannot do. For example, restricting freedom of speech and press should be constitutionally barred.

Agreed! As well as denying the government from interfering with what should be freedoms of the individual.

 

[Nuke]

A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed. These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is. When these principles are written down into a single or set of legal documents, those documents may be said to comprise a written constitution.

A Constitution, by definition, sets up the framework of a government, its organizational structure, etc.

Snobo...lol, opposite here. I think that the Constitution should be what the government is allowed to do, and it cannot do anything more.

But yeah...Alfred, have you ever read a Constitution? They outline how the government works. A Constitution can also say, for example, that the government cannot do X, Y, and Z.

 

[Deleted member 1609]

Snobo...lol, opposite here. I think that the Constitution should be what the government is allowed to do, and it cannot do anything more.

You oppose a bill of rights, then? That's basically what a bill of rights is. It's a list of things that the government cannot do. Without that list, in my opinion, the government would get out of control (not that it hasn't already).

 

[Nuke]

Ahh, good point. But...I said that they are allowed to do something. And the Bill of Rights says, in the 10th Amendment, that all rights not specifically designated to the Federal Government in the Constitution go to either the people or the states.

The government really doesn't pay attention to the Constitution, anymore, though, in my opinion.

BUT ANYWAY, if a Constitution doesn't say that the Government can take away your freedom of speech, you should be alright. Then again, government lawyers are probably pretty good. So yes, a Bill of Rights is still necessary, but it should just be more restrictions to make sure the government doesn't say, for example, that they need to take away rights for the military.

 

[Deleted member 1609]

The part of the Constitution that is mostly ignored now is the Bill of Rights (see the "USA PATRIOT Act").

 

[Watch Me Sink]

The part of the Constitution that is mostly ignored now is the Bill of Rights (see the "USA PATRIOT Act").

I thought the mostly ignored part of the Constitution was the "We the people..." part.
(Hint: it doesn't say we the lobbyists)

 

[Nuke]

The part of the Constitution that is mostly ignored now is the Bill of Rights (see the "USA PATRIOT Act").

I thought the mostly ignored part of the Constitution was the "We the people..." part.
(Hint: it doesn't say we the lobbyists)

I'd say both of those plus the "Promote" in "Promote the General Welfare" are ignored. Because, if you know what it means, the government actually cannot give away any welfare checks. They can't do affirmative action, either. But no one pays attention to the Federalist Papers these days. Except Glenn Beck. He's awesome.

 

[NBK*Twitch]

But no one pays attention to the Federalist Papers these days. Except Glenn Beck. He's awesome.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You listen to Gleen Beck .