The US Constution is 'Out of Date'?

[StephenTC]

Hi everyone,

So I don't know what it is, but most of my friends will only vote democrat (one recently I got into a mega argument with over Hillary Clinton) and really make me worried about the mindset of America.

From one of my close friends, and other people I've mini-debated with, the most concerning thing I've heard is something along the lines: "The US Constitution is out of date" and a "I don't think it is correct to want to live it, in this day and age, word by word."

This horrifies me. The United States Constitution is not something to be just an ideology, a silly trinket from our past. The US Constitution LIMITS our government to impede on our rights! Why would we want to allow our government more restrictions?

So my question is... how do you respond to comments like that!? (without losing my mind :p)

Edit: I also wanted to add. A politician would have to be crazy to actually say something along these lines. I think we all know though, that a lot of politicians think this way nowadays. Do you all see this becoming a major hot topic in the years to come? I do!

[dude58677]

Hi everyone,

So I don't know what it is, but most of my friends will only vote democrat (one recently I got into a mega argument with over Hillary Clinton) and really make me worried about the mindset of America.

From one of my close friends, and other people I've mini-debated with, the most concerning thing I've heard is something along the lines: "The US Constitution is out of date" and a "I don't think it is correct to want to live it, in this day and age, word by word."

This horrifies me. The United States Constitution is not something to be just an ideology, a silly trinket from our past. The US Constitution LIMITS our government to impede on our rights! Why would we want to allow our government more restrictions?

So my question is... how do you respond to comments like that!? (without losing my mind :p)

Edit: I also wanted to add. A politician would have to be crazy to actually say something along these lines. I think we all know though, that a lot of politicians think this way nowadays. Do you all see this becoming a major hot topic in the years to come? I do!


The only thing that has changed in the last 200 years is technology, not the need for a Constitution and Bill of Rights.

[KewlRonduderules]

Thinking like that creates a dangerous precedent. Do they really want their freedom of expression infringed upon? Do they really want their homes search without warrants. Do they really want to be detained for no reason?

Have they even read the Constitution?

Amazing the mind set of lots of people! Scary too!

[sirachman]

Sorry not alot unless you can convince them its not and their ideology is flawed. Your dealing with socialists its a self defeating ideology which tends to make its believers lack the ability to think for themselves because they are so often thinking for the group.

[MS0453]

Thinking like that creates a dangerous precedent. Do they really want their freedom of expression infringed upon? Do they really want their homes search without warrants. Do they really want to be detained for no reason?

Have they even read the Constitution?

Amazing the mind set of lots of people! Scary too!

Seriously.

Ask them if they understand what their mindsets are responsible for.

[Buzz]

As long as humans exhibit human nature, the constitution will never be outdated.

[Unspun]

The US Constitution is out of date and a I don't think it is correct to want to live it, in this day and age, word by word.

Refer to Article V of the U.S. Constitution.


The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

If you don't like it, use the Constitutional process to change it!

That's what I usually use as an answer to those type of statements..

[dude58677]

Hi everyone,

So I don't know what it is, but most of my friends will only vote democrat (one recently I got into a mega argument with over Hillary Clinton) and really make me worried about the mindset of America.

From one of my close friends, and other people I've mini-debated with, the most concerning thing I've heard is something along the lines: "The US Constitution is out of date" and a "I don't think it is correct to want to live it, in this day and age, word by word."

This horrifies me. The United States Constitution is not something to be just an ideology, a silly trinket from our past. The US Constitution LIMITS our government to impede on our rights! Why would we want to allow our government more restrictions?

So my question is... how do you respond to comments like that!? (without losing my mind :p)

Edit: I also wanted to add. A politician would have to be crazy to actually say something along these lines. I think we all know though, that a lot of politicians think this way nowadays. Do you all see this becoming a major hot topic in the years to come? I do!

Poor monetary policy is poor monetary policy regardless of how many Times Square ball drops we see.

[spacebetween]

Refer to Article V of the U.S. Constitution.



If you don't like it, use the Constitutional process to change it!

That's what I usually use as an answer to those type of statements..

Exactly what I was going to say.

I also make the argument that human nature hasn't really changed, although that's a bit more philosophical.

[lynnf]

Hi everyone,

So I don't know what it is, but most of my friends will only vote democrat (one recently I got into a mega argument with over Hillary Clinton) and really make me worried about the mindset of America.

From one of my close friends, and other people I've mini-debated with, the most concerning thing I've heard is something along the lines: "The US Constitution is out of date" and a "I don't think it is correct to want to live it, in this day and age, word by word."

This horrifies me. The United States Constitution is not something to be just an ideology, a silly trinket from our past. The US Constitution LIMITS our government to impede on our rights! Why would we want to allow our government more restrictions?

So my question is... how do you respond to comments like that!? (without losing my mind :p)

Edit: I also wanted to add. A politician would have to be crazy to actually say something along these lines. I think we all know though, that a lot of politicians think this way nowadays. Do you all see this becoming a major hot topic in the years to come? I do!


there is only one way to change the Constitution: amend it! any other way, including ignoring it, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

and, by the way, it is not a "living"document - the term "living Constitution" is a oxymoron! it has a way, and only one legitimate way
to be changed and that is amendment.

lynn

[tremendoustie]

Hi everyone,

So I don't know what it is, but most of my friends will only vote democrat (one recently I got into a mega argument with over Hillary Clinton) and really make me worried about the mindset of America.

From one of my close friends, and other people I've mini-debated with, the most concerning thing I've heard is something along the lines: "The US Constitution is out of date" and a "I don't think it is correct to want to live it, in this day and age, word by word."

This horrifies me. The United States Constitution is not something to be just an ideology, a silly trinket from our past. The US Constitution LIMITS our government to impede on our rights! Why would we want to allow our government more restrictions?

So my question is... how do you respond to comments like that!? (without losing my mind :p)

Edit: I also wanted to add. A politician would have to be crazy to actually say something along these lines. I think we all know though, that a lot of politicians think this way nowadays. Do you all see this becoming a major hot topic in the years to come? I do!

So, naturally, they'll be pushing for an ammendment to address the changes they think should be made, right? Rather, than, of course, supporting the government's willful violation of the law ...

I wonder if that argument would fly next time I get pulled over. "Those speed limits are outdated!" No, I can't convice enough people to change the law, but I think it's outdated so I can ingore it right? And I didn't even take an oath about highway driving.

We do have a means to change the constitution. If they can't get enough support to make it happen then maybe it's not as outdated as they think.

[emilysdad]

"The US Constitution is out of date" and a "I don't think it is correct to want to live it, in this day and age, word by word."

So then, "The Ten Commandments are out of date", and " I don't think it is correct to want to live it, in this day and age, word by word."

This response makes for interesting conversation.

[Malakai0]

Don't fault people too much, just educate them on what the constitution is.


Remember the last few generations have basically been taught exactly what your friend said in school

My primary education consisted of:
UN = Only savior for the world, to keep us from destroying ourselves in another world war.
Socialism = Compassionate modern political philosophy (never outright, they never said socialism is better than freedom, they said pretty things like social safety nets and helping the worlds poor).


We have to get people past their bad educations.

[dude58677]

So, naturally, they'll be pushing for an ammendment to address the changes they think should be made, right? Rather, than, of course, supporting the government's willful violation of the law ...

I wonder if that argument would fly next time I get pulled over. "Those speed limits are outdated!" No, I can't convice enough people to change the law, but I think it's outdated so I can ingore it right? And I didn't even take an oath about highway driving.

We do have a means to change the constitution. If they can't get enough support to make it happen then maybe it's not as outdated as they think.

The war in Iraq is a failure. and we had 9-11.The founding fathers stated that they support a non-interventionist foreign policy. So 9-11 and the Iraq war prove they are right. Why can't this be the case with any other issue?

[ConstitutionGal]

I think the public school system is largely to blame for this mindset. It is derived from the belief that Rights are Granted by Government instead of by our Creator. People have forgotten that governments are instituted among men to protect the Rights of the Individual and not to steal from Peter to give Paul hand-outs for some 'common good' (which is a Communistic point of view). This drivel is being taught in the government run schools right along with all the 'world citizen' garbage and, I believe, it is all being done to make a merger with Canada and Mexico more palpatable to the public.

[TheNewYorker]

The constitution isn't just a goddamned piece of paper. It's not an idealology. It's the HIGHEST LAW OF THE LAND. When politicians take office, they take an oath to uphold that law.

[micahnelson]

Ask them what specifically is out of date.

Should be permissible for a government to take guns away from citizens? What should we expect from an armed government disarming citizens?

Should be permissible for the government to censor the news because of the dangerous times in which we live? If that is the case, we will only know what the government wants us to know.

Should it be permissible for the government to promote family values in the schools? How would you react if the school administrator's family values, say Islamic valuesfor instance, were promoted among young girls?

Should it be permissible for the government to try americans secretly and without due process if they are involved in terrorism? If so, do you trust people in washington dc not to abuse this power, and how would you know if they did?

The constitution is an old document that stops the old threat of tyranny from becoming new again.

[hard@work]

It is out of date. It doesn't do enough to protect our liberty and to protect us from government. It is also out of date because it is being ignored, which is illegal. And finally it is out of date because the people who it protects have forgotten that it is there for them.

Not because the ideas are out of date.

[pazzo83]

Refer to Article V of the U.S. Constitution.



If you don't like it, use the Constitutional process to change it!

That's what I usually use as an answer to those type of statements..

YUP! That is EXACTLY what I say as well. If you want to change the constitution, there is already a process to do that. Follow it.

[hard@work]

The constitution isn't just a goddamned piece of paper. It's not an idealology. It's the HIGHEST LAW OF THE LAND. When politicians take office, they take an oath to uphold that law.


And we have legal means to change it. However they cannot do this easily without our consensus. So they break the law and ignore it.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

If you can't convince them to vote Ron Paul, try and at least convince them to not vote, well, unless they're voting democratic

[RoyalShock]

Do you ever wonder if what people really mean when they say the Constitution is "out of date", is "I want to change the foundation of the country without having to go through that annoying amendment process"?

Through judicial "legislation" and entitlement programs, a lot of people have already learned that the "law of the land" can be trampled on with little or no consequence because it's defenders have vanished.

Ugghhh. I'M getting sick to my stomach now.

WE NEED RON PAUL!!!

[micahnelson]

Do you ever wonder if what people really mean when they say the Constitution is "out of date", is "I want to change the foundation of the country without having to go through that annoying amendment process"?

Through judicial "legislation" and entitlement programs, a lot of people have already learned that the "law of the land" can be trampled on with little or no consequence because it's defenders have vanished.

Ugghhh. I'M getting sick to my stomach now.

WE NEED RON PAUL!!!

Id be willing to bet they are thinking.

Constitution is old. Old things are bad. Change is good.

[StephenTC]

Id be willing to bet they are thinking.

Constitution is old. Old things are bad. Change is good.

Exactly, and that's what freaks me out so badly. I can't get a straight response as to why. (Because they all know that's exactly why)

[Danny Molina]

It's just a piece of paper...

[DirtMcGirt]

Of all the organized governments who's constitution has lasted the longest?

[Ron LOL]

I usually ask "what's so crazy about following the constitution?" The answer I always get is some variation on "it's old" -- and when I push for a specific example of an antiquated idea, nobody can ever give one.

IOW, people are full of crap.

[iloveronpaul]

I hear this all the time and it makes me very sad for our country.

If they want to change the Constitution there is a process.

What happened to the rule of law? :(

[Talldude1412]

Exactly, and that's what freaks me out so badly. I can't get a straight response as to why. (Because they all know that's exactly why)

That mindset is terrifying. It is based on some belief that "change" is inherently positive. It scares me that they think any progression is good, so long as things keep changing. I mean, we could "change" or "progress" into a feudal monarchy, but that wouldn't be so great right? Just utterly frustrating when people base their political opinions on some predetermined paradigm of whats inherently "good" without some basis on logic or reason.

[FreeTraveler]

I think the public school system is largely to blame for this mindset. It is derived from the belief that Rights are Granted by Government instead of by our Creator. People have forgotten that governments are instituted among men to protect the Rights of the Individual and not to steal from Peter to give Paul hand-outs for some 'common good' (which is a Communistic point of view). This drivel is being taught in the government run schools right along with all the 'world citizen' garbage and, I believe, it is all being done to make a merger with Canada and Mexico more palpatable to the public.

There was a REASON that the FedGov got involved in education, and you've stated it quite well.

[Kade]

There is a need for a second constitutional convention. The congress should be chosen by localities and then statewide from the pool of local electorates. The state representatives can be chosen through population representatives. Your city would choose someone, who would then run in the statewide election for the few alloted seats. (Remember this is a national document) The convention should be composed of the people with no ties to their own progress or wealth, like the original, and it should be a heated Socratic style debate. It should also include the insight of all people through various forms of the media, including the "hated" blogs. The law schools should elect mediators. (I know of no group who has more the interest of civil liberties than law school professors).

Ultimately, through a somewhat and mildly technocratic way, we should be able to forge a successor to the Constitution that can last and provide the ultimate protection against the encroaching federal government.

The Constitution is not too old. It is old because certain groups of people are textualists, and not original intent. The language of the constitution has not survived. The courts have dissected the constitution to mean certain things based on many varying schools of thought. Women's rights for instance, and anti-slavery, the application of the bill of rights to states, etc..etc.. many of them most of you would not, and should not want to be removed. The Constitution should be a document that ultimately pertains to all states, but limits severely the power of the federal government outside what is written.

We do it the way Jefferson envisioned. A majority elected by the pure majority. Each person in America is ultimately represented and it takes away the power of the government to tell us what should and should not be rule and law.

"The Lex majoris partis, founded in common law as well as common right, [is] the natural law of every assembly of men whose numbers are not fixed by any other law."

" always in mind that a nation ceases to be republican only when the will of the majority ceases to be the law."
[B]
"This corporeal globe, and everything upon it, belong to its present corporeal inhabitants during their generation. They alone have a right to direct what is the concern of themselves alone, and to declare the law of that direction; and this declaration can only be made by their majority. That majority, then, has a right to depute representatives to a convention, and to make the constitution what they think will be the best for themselves."

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

Hi everyone,

So I don't know what it is, but most of my friends will only vote democrat (one recently I got into a mega argument with over Hillary Clinton) and really make me worried about the mindset of America.

From one of my close friends, and other people I've mini-debated with, the most concerning thing I've heard is something along the lines: "The US Constitution is out of date" and a "I don't think it is correct to want to live it, in this day and age, word by word."

This horrifies me. The United States Constitution is not something to be just an ideology, a silly trinket from our past. The US Constitution LIMITS our government to impede on our rights! Why would we want to allow our government more restrictions?

So my question is... how do you respond to comments like that!? (without losing my mind :p)

Edit: I also wanted to add. A politician would have to be crazy to actually say something along these lines. I think we all know though, that a lot of politicians think this way nowadays. Do you all see this becoming a major hot topic in the years to come? I do!

I often find it humorous that liberals are the first to point out to point out violations of the Constitution by the Bush administration when it comes to things like wiretapping, but dismiss the Second Amendment entirely as an anachronism. It's the exact opposite with alot of the neoconservatives.

Thomas Paine wrote in Rights of Man that a government that cannot visibly produce a written Constitution in actuality has no Constitution. This was the case of Great Britain in that day. In such a government, the rule of law is arbitrary and amounts to whatever the current leaders say the rules are. This is, in essence, rule without principle, which is the equivalent of despotism. Anyone who says that a Constitution is outdated and should no longer be followed is, really, advocating despotism.

[FreeTraveler]

The very LAST thing we need is a second constitutional convention. We'd end up with Paris Hilton and Oprah Winfrey as the "Founding Mothers", and a Constitution that assumed no "natural" rights, but "rights" of free food, housing medical care, babysitters, Land Rovers, and cellphones, all paid for by anybody stupid enough to actually work.

I'll support a constitutional convention 50 years after FedGov gives up it's last involvement in the educational system and the MSM has been replaced by the free market of the Internet for at least that long.

In the meantime, let's admit the founding fathers were a LOT smarter and more educated than today's average voter, and the LAST thing we want to do is screw up the best document for managing a country ever written.

[Kade]

Of all the organized governments who's constitution has lasted the longest?

Rome. The Mos maiorum.

[Kade]

The very LAST thing we need is a second constitutional convention. We'd end up with Paris Hilton and Oprah Winfrey as the "Founding Mothers", and a Constitution that assumed no "natural" rights, but "rights" of free food, housing medical care, babysitters, Land Rovers, and cellphones, all paid for by anybody stupid enough to actually work.

I'll support a constitutional convention 50 years after FedGov gives up it's last involvement in the educational system and the MSM has been replaced by the free market of the Internet for at least that long.

In the meantime, let's admit the founding fathers were a LOT smarter and more educated than today's average voter, and the LAST thing we want to do is screw up the best document for managing a country ever written.

You bring up good objections. I expected lambasting, but I can deal with your assessment. I fear today's majority, and honestly believe that today we do have equivalents in thought to the founding fathers, but they are voices silences by the groans of the ignorant. I'll support a second constitutional convention when Jefferson's precepts are in place, most notably, that the current rule of law does not decide on our elected.

"assembly of men whose numbers are not fixed by any other law"

[Lord Xar]

I guess when a socialist or a fascist government takes control, they can and will be able to rewrite the constitution.

See, the constitution was created and is SUPPOSE to be following so that the government cannot morph into something horrific without the consent of the people.

I don't want to draw parrallels.. but can and should you rewrite the "bible"?

You can't rewrite the message because public perception has been manipulated by the MSM to now change the constitution so that it corrupts the Republic.

The constutition is Americans insurance policy against the government.

*******************************************

[Kade]

I often find it humorous that liberals are the first to point out to point out violations of the Constitution by the Bush administration when it comes to things like wiretapping, but dismiss the Second Amendment entirely as an anachronism. It's the exact opposite with alot of the neoconservatives.

Thomas Paine wrote in Rights of Man that a government that cannot visibly produce a written Constitution in actuality has no Constitution. This was the case of Great Britain in that day. In such a government, the rule of law is arbitrary and amounts to whatever the current leaders say the rules are. This is, in essence, rule without principle, which is the equivalent of despotism. Anyone who says that a Constitution is outdated and should no longer be followed is, really, advocating despotism.

I'm a liberal. I don't reject the second amendment. I also don't reject a written constitution. I see a need to create another one, for the current generation, but I fear the majority today.

[Kade]

I guess when a socialist or a fascist government takes control, they can and will be able to rewrite the constitution.

See, the constitution was created and is SUPPOSE to be following so that the government cannot morph into something horrific without the consent of the people.

I don't want to draw parrallels.. but can and should you rewrite the "bible"?

You can't rewrite the message because public perception has been manipulated by the MSM to now change the constitution so that it corrupts the Republic.

The constutition is Americans insurance policy against the government.

*******************************************

The bible is garbage. We shouldn't even be thinking about comparing the two. You also spelled "parallel" and "constitution" wrong. Consistently throwing out the battle cry about the evil MSM and evil socialists and evil fascist and whatever else sounds good on paper is not getting anyone, anywhere. The problem is compounded from so many directions. So many failures on both sides, allowing the battlefield of ideas to stagnant was the most egregious. Now, the prevailing view and mindset is the concept of a Big Brother type government, what we must work for is the unhinging of the special interests on all sides mingling themselves in the most powerful government body in the world.
This list includes businesses, lobbyist, religions...
The intellectuals need to be brought back in... give the scholars a go.

[polomertz]

My friend and I actually just had this same extremely heated argument just this morning!! He's a Kucinich supporter and I'm a Paul supporter.

We boiled it down to the difference between the two of us was that he believes that people are NOT GOOD at their root and will NOT make the right choices even if they're given the proper information and the proper choices. Therefore you need a governing body to make these decisions for the "good of all or collective."
My argument is that people ARE GOOD at their root - they just need the right tools which includes all the information and all the choices, then will make the right decision and therefore you don't need a regulatory body - just get out of their way. We couldn't get past that part and was where we differed philosophically.

I also think people should understand that The Declaration of Independence is more important for our freedoms than The Constitution. It's the document that let us write a Constitution in the first place.

[murrayrothbard]

As long as humans exhibit human nature, the constitution will never be outdated.

As long as humans exhibit human nature, a constitution will be unable to constrain government power...

[murrayrothbard]

The constitution isn't just a goddamned piece of paper. It's not an idealology. It's the HIGHEST LAW OF THE LAND. When politicians take office, they take an oath to uphold that law.

The United States Constitution really is just a piece of paper. It is a piece of paper with rules written on it that possesses no power of its own. It IS an inanimate physical object.

[Andrew-Austin]

The philosophy of freedom and limited government is always alive and popular amongst Americans.

Unfortunately Americas have no part in government today.

[Richandler]

People who think politics and government are any different today than it was 2000 years ago are ignorant of history. If you want your constitution changed or think it's out of date, by all means move to North Korea or Iran. Their constitutions are completely different than ours created much more recently and I'm sure you'd appreaciate them much more.

[Kapt Nemo]

Edit: I also wanted to add. A politician would have to be crazy to actually say something along these lines. I think we all know though, that a lot of politicians think this way nowadays. Do you all see this becoming a major hot topic in the years to come? I do!



You do remember what G.W.Bush said about the Constitution?


I don't give a god damn, I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way. Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a god damn piece of paper!" George W. Bush


I think this speaks volumes about what most politicians think about it... jmho though...

[apropos]

The very LAST thing we need is a second constitutional convention. We'd end up with Paris Hilton and Oprah Winfrey as the "Founding Mothers", and a Constitution that assumed no "natural" rights, but "rights" of free food, housing medical care, babysitters, Land Rovers, and cellphones, all paid for by anybody stupid enough to actually work.

I'll support a constitutional convention 50 years after FedGov gives up it's last involvement in the educational system and the MSM has been replaced by the free market of the Internet for at least that long.

In the meantime, let's admit the founding fathers were a LOT smarter and more educated than today's average voter, and the LAST thing we want to do is screw up the best document for managing a country ever written.

Very much agree. There is a not-so-unbelievable myth out there citing a government regulation for the sale of cabbage that lasts 27,000 words. The Declaration of Independence is about 1,300 words. I think the EU Constitution is over 160,000.

Frankly, I don't want people like Hillary, W, McCain, the ACLU, and Ted Kennedy writing what amounts to a new constitution. The attitude and perspective of our leaders are entirely different from that of the Founding Fathers. We'd end up with Caesar if another constitution was drafted today by today's bureaucrats.

[murrayrothbard]

We boiled it down to the difference between the two of us was that he believes that people are NOT GOOD at their root and will NOT make the right choices even if they're given the proper information and the proper choices. Therefore you need a governing body to make these decisions for the "good of all or collective."

You should point out that this is a self-refuting argument:

1) People are NOT GOOD.
2) People will NOT make the right choices.
3) 1 and 2 => Government is needed to make the right choices

-BUT-

4) "Government" is just a group of people
5) 1,2, and 4 => Government agents are NOT GOOD and will NOT make the right choices

therefore 3 CANNOT be true given his premises....;)

[Kade]

As long as humans exhibit human nature, a constitution will be unable to constrain government power...

There are several types of people on this forum.

The net-lubes. Technically savvy, outworldish, and often disjointed youths. Passionate, mildly irrational. World of Warcrafters.

Political apathetics (former now) They are sold. Probably the most passionate. Money givers, and organizers.

Anarchists. Dissenting, angry, annoying, obnoxious as hell anarchists. I love them all the more for it.

Former Neo-cons and republicans. Still have the stain of Theocracy on their shirts, but they provide endless entertainment. Probably the most ill-informed. Their hearts are in the right place.

Pacifist contrarians. Will probably respond with something resembling "I can't be labeled." Take things very personally. Soft spoken but painfully sarcastic.

Narcissists. Easiest to spot. Always pulling the fire alarm. First to shout down a newb, last to concede an issue. Stubborn as all hell, and righteously arrogant. Gotta love em.

and finally, the libertarian, intellectual rationalist imbued with common sense and a natural distaste for organized ignorance. You sir, are one them.

Most of us come here because in the end, we woke up and saw that we no longer could see the government's feet.

[ThePieSwindler]

The United States Constitution really is just a piece of paper. It is a piece of paper with rules written on it that possesses no power of its own. It IS an inanimate physical object.

Agreed - although the intent was grand, no piece of paper can stop a government that wants to expand. They will always twist words and meaning, and the courts will legislate etc. The Constitution is excellent in theory, and we need to get back to its principles, but it is the people in power and the populace that make make sure of that. Usually the former will manipulate the latter, and no piece of paper, however well intentioned, is going to stop the will of the masses. This is one of the unfortunate consequences of democracy. The fact that the US is a republic did help slow the growth and is a mechanism that is slightly better at protecting individual rights, but as we have seen, it falls as well because democracy is still at the heart of the system. This i the dilemma of government - limited government is ideal, but if government is allowed to exist at all, it will eventually grow and the people's whims will shift and sway away from the principles of limited government. The best we can do is what we are doing now - trying to get back to following the government structure laid out in that piece of paper.

[polomertz]

You should point out that this is a self-refuting argument:

1) People are NOT GOOD.
2) People will NOT make the right choices.
3) 1 and 2 => Government is needed to make the right choices

-BUT-

4) "Government" is just a group of people
5) 1,2, and 4 => Government agents are NOT GOOD and will NOT make the right choices

therefore 3 CANNOT be true given his premises....;)


Thanks, we'll see how that goes.

[conner_condor]

Hi everyone,

So I don't know what it is, but most of my friends will only vote democrat (one recently I got into a mega argument with over Hillary Clinton) and really make me worried about the mindset of America.

From one of my close friends, and other people I've mini-debated with, the most concerning thing I've heard is something along the lines: "The US Constitution is out of date" and a "I don't think it is correct to want to live it, in this day and age, word by word."

This horrifies me. The United States Constitution is not something to be just an ideology, a silly trinket from our past. The US Constitution LIMITS our government to impede on our rights! Why would we want to allow our government more restrictions?

So my question is... how do you respond to comments like that!? (without losing my mind :p)

Edit: I also wanted to add. A politician would have to be crazy to actually say something along these lines. I think we all know though, that a lot of politicians think this way nowadays. Do you all see this becoming a major hot topic in the years to come? I do!


Tell that to the people who fought these wars for that document. Tell that to the survivors of the dead. Look in the mirror and tell yourself how many people died for us to be free and to keep that contract in tack. Did they die for nothing? That is what makes this country so great, People like that needs a kick in the ass for not knowing what was sacrificed for that peice of paper. I along with many others have not.