The constitution?

brandon10

I asked this in another thread. I don't understand the obsession with a document that was written so long ago. My grandparents can barely work a remote control, why would I want to let the words from so long ago dictate the way society is governed today?

Americans get so worked up about the constitution. But if this document is so great, then why all the amendments?

I guess I'm just looking for answers from my American friends on either side of the political spectrum. What's with the obsession over the constitution?

Blockhead

brandon10 wrote:

I asked this in another thread. I don't understand the obsession with a document that was written so long ago. My grandparents can barely work a remote control, why would I want to let the words from so long ago dictate the way society is governed today?

Americans get so worked up about the constitution. But if this document is so great, then why all the amendments?

I guess I'm just looking for answers from my American friends on either side of the political spectrum. What's with the obsession over the constitution?

(1) I doubt you can cite anyone who has described the US Constitution as "totally right",that's why there's a built-in Amendment process.

(2) What's "so great" is that it's lasted for centuries, while standing as the foundation for pretty much the most powerful, successful, innovative country on Earth.

LikeAnOcean

Blockhead wrote:

(2) What's "so great" is that it's lasted for centuries, while standing as the foundation for pretty much the most powerful, successful, innovative country on Earth.

The U.S. hasn't existed very long when you compare it to other countries and empires. 200 something years is pretty brief. We'll see if it gets us another century..

gimmesometruth27

i like it because it guarantees and outlines our freedoms and what the government can/can't do. most of those ammedments have been added to guarantee freedoms, like giving women and african americans the right to vote. the constitution is not to guarantee discrimination, which is why i will always be vehemently opposed to a constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriage or to add the banning of abortion to the constitution, or to discriminate against any person or group at any time.

i think people cling to it in certain circumstances, such as the second ammendment, when they can not logically and rationally justify their need to own 11 ak-47s. most of them when you asked "why do you need those sorts of firearms?? " they say something like "because the constitution says i can have them." instead of giving a real, honest, and compelling argument for why they should be allowed to buy those weapons. it is always "because the second ammendment says i can"..

unsung

It protects the people from the government. At least that was the intention. Now you get anally probed to fly on an airplane and get wiretapped without warrants in the name of protecting us from terror.

puremagic

The only obsession with the Constitution is simply a means of getting people fired up without thinking. We are so stuck in this 9/11 mentality of the -enemy at the gate- when you hear the phrase, the Constitution, you feel your individual rights are at stake, so you don't question the motivates. Funny thing is, that in most cases, people don't know if they have referenced the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence or a Supreme Court ruling. The scariest thing is, they don't care.

Smellyman

Not to derail the thread, but it makes the bible or quran even more absurd.

Go Beavers

People wave it in the air and toss it around in order to manipulate others. I like the checks and balances that are built in.

brianlux

One indication that it is a well balanced document is the fact that people from various political persuasions from one end of the spectrum to the other tend to find it useful. The built emphasis on freedoms are essential and most everyone deems that as favorable. The only problem seems to be our difficulty in discerning the responsibilities of freedom vs. license.

FiveB247x

It's an archaic document with some good ideas but meaningless if the citizens don't do their part. The erosion of our nation is the lackluster involvement of the people for whom it was written which in turn has made that document and it's meaning dwindle more and more. Nowadays, it's all behind us and pretty impenetrable..between government being in bed with big business or lobbying, campaign finance or just the sheer ignorance of the populace.. our nation is spiraling down. Enjoy the ride America, you deserve the crash.

brandon10

Some good responses. I'm learning a little more about how Americans feel about it.

Another question, why is it brought up so much in political debate? I do notice that both sides of the aisle seem to find it useful.

In Canada we have something similar called the "Charter of rights and freedoms". But I don't notice it being debated a whole lot during uncertain political times. It's basically just a document making sure everyone has equal rights when pertaining to voting, criminal justice, and language. I find it odd that the American constitution pertains to things like guns, slaves, and abortion. Those certainly aren't issues I'd want my great great great grandparents deciding.

Another question, why do some candidates claim do be more constitutional than others? And is it always such a bad thing to not follow every word of the constitution?

Sorry for all the questions, just trying to understand a little better.

FiveB247x

Basically, those issues have been polarizing topics through our nations history (obviously at different times). Also, some believe the exact word should be taken as is where others believe it should open for interpretation and applied to the present times. Lastly, politicians just use the document as a talking point. If you actually study the document and it's implementation over the course of our nations history, so many things have been done outside of realms of it's power and intent, it undermines it's value and meaning.

brandon10 wrote:

Some good responses. I'm learning a little more about how Americans feel about it.

Another question, why is it brought up so much in political debate? I do notice that both sides of the aisle seem to find it useful.

In Canada we have something similar called the "Charter of rights and freedoms". But I don't notice it being debated a whole lot during uncertain political times. It's basically just a document making sure everyone has equal rights when pertaining to voting, criminal justice, and language. I find it odd that the American constitution pertains to things like guns, slaves, and abortion. Those certainly aren't issues I'd want my great great great grandparents deciding.

Another question, why do some candidates claim do be more constitutional than others? And is it always such a bad thing to not follow every word of the constitution?

Sorry for all the questions, just trying to understand a little better.

brandon10

unsung wrote:

It protects the people from the government. At least that was the intention. Now you get anally probed to fly on an airplane and get wiretapped without warrants in the name of protecting us from terror.

That's sort of the way I understood it as well. I thought it was a way for Americans to separate themselves from an oppressive British Govt. But I find it a little odd that so many Americans are fearful of their Govt after all these years.

VINNY GOOMBA

I'm not a huge fan of laws or force. I think most laws are well-intentioned, and even have great titles on occasion, but also are easily co-opted or are simply used for one group of people to gain advantage over another while barely addressing the problem described in the title. The bigger the government gets, the more attractive it is for special interests to use its power to get what they want. The more (bad) laws that are written, the bigger the government gets. Hence, my respect for the Constitution: A strict interpretation of the Constitution reads that the federal government should be small with very specific duties, most of the rest of the governance is passed onto the states. It is more about restricting government than restricting people, which is what most local laws are designed to do, as long as they respect the life, liberty, and property of the people. It doesn't grant us our rights, but it certainly recognizes our rights right in black and white, which I believe are universal, two hundred-plus years ago and 2 million years into the future: protection of speech, protection of self, protection of privacy, protection against self-incrimination, and the right to rule ourselves. In my ideal world, the states would be super unrestrictive as the federal government should be, delegating powers to counties, to cities and towns, down to the family and ultimately, individual. Since not everyone wants to live in "Libertopia," this idea also allows for peple to be highly ruled, locally through democracy. Again, that's not my idea or ideal for me either, but I do think it allows for people like me (who like as little rule as possible over them), and today's neo-conservative or neo-liberal (who love laws, but can't agree on which ones to force others to accept) to peacefully co-exist with levels of governance that suit us all best, in our respective locations. However "big government" people want it big everywhere, and the compromise I offer, "govern yourselves to your hearts' content" is always ignored-- those ideas do not exist to people who think they know what is best for everyone else.
It definitely makes you think about the true power of law. What is the benefit of having so many laws? If laws could solve all of our problems, with millions of laws, we should have no problems by this point. What we have are too many bad laws, an over-abundance of lawyers ready to milk them for all they are worth. These same laws give incrdible power to politicians (mostly former lawyers who write more bad laws to keep their friends paid) by representing special interests, all while the people beg for these laws to pass since their titles (and little else) imply that they are for "the common good." We have agencies being run by the same robber barons, who are appointed, not elected, to police the industry they just exploited and defrauded. It is important to beware the regulations when you can't trust the regulators-- that which should be illegal becomes legal all too often, and to me that IS big business policing itself in a far more dangerous way than the free market ever could: Goldman Sachs running the Treasury / SEC / The Fed / etc... to use one example.

So, considering that the SUPREME LAW of the land can be read that the laws which screw us over the most all are null and void, since they aren't explicitly allowed in the Constitution, I have to like that document, and urge others to see it the way that I do. I also like how there are checks and balances between branches as safeguards against unjust laws being passed or enforced. I think people who often feel betrayed by the law, and how politicans and businessman both have no respect for the law / or play by entirely different rules all together, have a friend in that document. Considering it can and should be interpreted as a document which restrains government while attempting to protect life and liberty, I'm not surprised that more people aren't using it to strike down more unjust laws.

VINNY GOOMBA

FiveB has great posts all the way around in this thread.

FiveB247x

Thanks!

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

FiveB has great posts all the way around in this thread.

brandon10

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

I'm not a huge fan of laws or force. I think most laws are well-intentioned, and even have great titles on occasion, but also are easily co-opted or are simply used for one group of people to gain advantage over another while barely addressing the problem described in the title. The bigger the government gets, the more attractive it is for special interests to use its power to get what they want. The more (bad) laws that are written, the bigger the government gets. Hence, my respect for the Constitution: A strict interpretation of the Constitution reads that the federal government should be small with very specific duties, most of the rest of the governance is passed onto the states. It is more about restricting government than restricting people, which is what most local laws are designed to do, as long as they respect the life, liberty, and property of the people. It doesn't grant us our rights, but it certainly recognizes our rights right in black and white, which I believe are universal, two hundred-plus years ago and 2 million years into the future: protection of speech, protection of self, protection of privacy, protection against self-incrimination, and the right to rule ourselves. In my ideal world, the states would be super unrestrictive as the federal government should be, delegating powers to counties, to cities and towns, down to the family and ultimately, individual. Since not everyone wants to live in "Libertopia," this idea also allows for peple to be highly ruled, locally through democracy. Again, that's not my idea or ideal for me either, but I do think it allows for people like me (who like as little rule as possible over them), and today's neo-conservative or neo-liberal (who love laws, but can't agree on which ones to force others to accept) to peacefully co-exist with levels of governance that suit us all best, in our respective locations. However "big government" people want it big everywhere, and the compromise I offer, "govern yourselves to your hearts' content" is always ignored-- those ideas do not exist to people who think they know what is best for everyone else.
It definitely makes you think about the true power of law. What is the benefit of having so many laws? If laws could solve all of our problems, with millions of laws, we should have no problems by this point. What we have are too many bad laws, an over-abundance of lawyers ready to milk them for all they are worth. These same laws give incrdible power to politicians (mostly former lawyers who write more bad laws to keep their friends paid) by representing special interests, all while the people beg for these laws to pass since their titles (and little else) imply that they are for "the common good." We have agencies being run by the same robber barons, who are appointed, not elected, to police the industry they just exploited and defrauded. It is important to beware the regulations when you can't trust the regulators-- that which should be illegal becomes legal all too often, and to me that IS big business policing itself in a far more dangerous way than the free market ever could: Goldman Sachs running the Treasury / SEC / The Fed / etc... to use one example.

So, considering that the SUPREME LAW of the land can be read that the laws which screw us over the most all are null and void, since they aren't explicitly allowed in the Constitution, I have to like that document, and urge others to see it the way that I do. I also like how there are checks and balances between branches as safeguards against unjust laws being passed or enforced. I think people who often feel betrayed by the law, and how politicans and businessman both have no respect for the law / or play by entirely different rules all together, have a friend in that document. Considering it can and should be interpreted as a document which restrains government while attempting to protect life and liberty, I'm not surprised that more people aren't using it to strike down more unjust laws.

You said a lot in there. A very good read. A couple things struck me. I notice you want very limited federal government. And that you would like to see more decisions being made at the state, county, or even city/town level. That could make for some very fucked up towns I imagine. But if that's what the locals would want, then who am I to stop them. In this scenario who would be paying for infrastructure, education and that sort of thing? I imagine this ending up in some very different belief systems from State to State. Would the States stay very "United" in this scenario? And if a local community decides they want to ban everyone from owning firearms, then is it the federal governments right to overturn that because of the constitution? Even if the majority of the people want to ban the arms in their community?

VINNY GOOMBA

brandon10 wrote:

You said a lot in there. A very good read. A couple things struck me. I notice you want very limited federal government. And that you would like to see more decisions being made at the state, county, or even city/town level. That could make for some very fucked up towns I imagine. But if that's what the locals would want, then who am I to stop them. In this scenario who would be paying for infrastructure, education and that sort of thing? I imagine this ending up in some very different belief systems from State to State. Would the States stay very "United" in this scenario? And if a local community decides they want to ban everyone from owning firearms, then is it the federal governments right to overturn that because of the constitution? Even if the majority of the people want to ban the arms in their community?

Well, I can't imagine the towns being too fucked up (or any worse than they already are) if they are held to the same standards as the federal government in terms of not being able to restrict people's fundamental rights. In the case of arms banishment, no state should be allowed to restrict people from owning all forms of arms since it is their fundamental right to protect themselves. But maybe they can dis-allow certain types of arms to be sold there? Possession of the arms not eligible for sale would be a different issue. Some towns / states may ban them outright, others would only stop people from buying or selling guns within their locality, but could own them if bought elsewhere. Private property is yet another form of governance. If you don't like guns, you shouldn't have to allow guns into your house or place of business.

That to me, is the beauty of it-- more choices in governance, a freer flow of ideas to choose from, all with respect to the same basic guidelines that the federal government is to adhere to. Overtime, I believe the states would approach a certain uniformity as the states would learn from each other and try and implement the best ideas. I think progress works best through freedom of choice, not through coercion.

brandon10

Vinny, what about funding? Because obviously some states are wealthier than others. In this scenario, is there funding from the federal government for things like infrastructure?

VINNY GOOMBA

brandon10 wrote:

Vinny, what about funding? Because obviously some states are wealthier than others. In this scenario, is there funding from the federal government for things like infrastructure?

Funding should be decided and raised as locally as possible. Will projects be financed through savings? Bonds? It's for them to decide. Same for education. Some may take on a more socialized approach, others may decide that if you don't have kids in school, you don't pay the school taxes. No matter how much government intervention there is, some states will always have more money than others. The fact that money is printed with debt attached to it to federally fund a lot of local projects doesn't mean it's right or even a good idea. Nearly every state and the federal government are horribly in debt-- which means none of these governments have the money to be doing things on the scale in which they are currently doing them. Every dollar of debt is representative of money that is printed or borrowed and owed to someone else.

In my city, we renovate a courthouse because we were getting some federal funding to do it, both grants and loans. It wasn't necessary, but it was a nice idea if it was carried out properly. It wasn't. It went way over budget, the only reason the city decided to do it was because it was going to relatively "free" with the federal government's money. Well, it's not free anymore, and it is one of the reasons that the taxes in my city are now 72% higher than last year. 72%! And that's after they were raised 28% the year before! Compounded, that's 220% higher than the year before. Receiving funding from other states or the federal government is not always a blessing. It can certainly be a curse, too. In hindsight, our city should have decided against the court house, because now we are all on the hook for it.

Go Beavers

FiveB247x wrote:

Thanks!

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

FiveB has great posts all the way around in this thread.

Don't really agree with the "lackluster involvement" comments and "nation is spiraling down". It suggests that there was this ideal time in America's past where the people had the power and were all actively involved. Seeing how women couldn't vote until 1920, you could say that half the population was completely shut out of the process, as well as other minorities. Thankfully, we have amendments.