View Poll Results: Are the U.S. constitution and its amendments sacrosanct? Yes or No?

Voters
26. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    11 42.31%
  • No

    15 57.69%
Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 114

Thread: Are the U.S. constitution and its amendments sacrosanct? Yes or No?

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Are the U.S. constitution and its amendments sacrosanct? Yes or No?

    Quote Originally Posted by MusicAdventurer View Post
    Are the U.S. constitution and its amendments sacrosanct and an accurate reflection of good ethics or is it a good piece of work that constantly needs to be altered? Is it good practice to sight part(s) of the constitution and its amendments as solid evidence for one's argument on an ethical position?
    The Constitution has built-in methods of change, so by definition it is not sacrosanct despite being a great piece of work.

  2. #12
    Professor
    Mathematician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Seen
    09-22-17 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    2,147

    Re: Are the U.S. constitution and its amendments sacrosanct? Yes or No?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    I doubt the Founding Fathers intended to be worshiped as Gods, yes they were certainly great men but damn this kind of twisted view of the world is really sick.

    I'll give you an example, what happened to individual freedoms such as "Freedom of Speech" it seems pretty straight forward, but suddenly if I don't speak English I can't be an American? Or me and my neighbors can't live in the kind of community we want to? When did your love of this country shift from a focus on personal freedoms to one of universal conformity? I'll tell you what I think America should be about, and let's not forget that as an American my opinion on this matter means as much as yours, that America is about PERSONAL freedoms. The freedom to speak a language of my choice, although I personally agree for practical reasons the country needs an official language at the Federal level, and its my choice to live with the kind of people I want to and if me and a few hundred or thousand people from a similar culture background and start a community.

    So what about America means more to you? Is it making everyone conform to YOUR idea of what America "is?" Where's the personal freedom in that? Or should we let people live how they want to live so long as they do the same?
    My role, as someone who understands ethics and large systems due to the underlying mathematics, is to see that there is minimal risk, in terms of both likelihood and worst-case scenario, of Americans harming one another by abusing the meaning of "right" or "freedom". I had a fun argument with a liberal the other day who was claiming there should be no restrictions on what Americans can buy. That fell under their interpretation of "freedom". With this allowing some suicidal rich man to go purchase 50 atomic bombs and then toss them where he wants, it is clear this interpretation allows the potential for harm beyond a reasonable threshold. For those who whine about freedom of choice, when you take my multiple-choice exams then I'll give you a free-response version of the problems so I don't hear "I don't see the answer I want to choose." I hope this demonstrates my point that there are times when freedom of choice is not necessarily the wise choice. Model theory is a branch of mathematics which reveals how different two interpretations of the same set of sentences can be. We must determine a set of sentences which both minimizes range of interpretation and is centered on the interpretation we want.
    "With me everything turns into mathematics."
    "It is not enough to have a good mind. The main thing is to use it well."
    "It is truth very certain that, when it is not in one's power to determine what is true, we ought to follow what is more probable." -- Rene Descartes

  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    10-10-15 @ 01:31 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,069
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Are the U.S. constitution and its amendments sacrosanct? Yes or No?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    The Constitution has built-in methods of change, so by definition it is not sacrosanct despite being a great piece of work.
    Actually, it is. Especially because of the built in method of change. What is sacrosanct is foundation of thought that created those documents. It is the culmination of 800 years of struggle for freedom and the very solid thought and philosophy that went before it and went into it. The founders did not come up with these documents off the top of their heads, it was a zenith of brilliant men and women throughout history that have contributed to the idea of personal freedom and self determination.

    You can change the document all you want, but changes that digress from this centuries old struggle as well as the political historical constants evident in every previous system in every age, is a path to the very tyranny that it is designed to protect us from.

    Quote Originally Posted by molten_dragon View Post
    There's plenty in the constitution that is unclear and up for interpretation. It's up to us to interpret it in the way that best benefits the country. So no, I don't believe the constitution is sacrosanct.
    If you think there is anything unclear about the constitution, I would suggest you are woefully ignorant of the men that created it and the 800 years of wisdom they drew from. If you stop only at reading the founding documents and know nothing of what led to them, then I suppose it would seem unclear on some points. In reality, it's not unclear at all. The only thing that was unclear when they were written was whether future generations would remain cognoscente of the history of tyranny and if they would retain the goal of righting the issues left unaddressed and close forever the loopholes to tyranny.

    The founding documents were as much a statement about the historical character of man as it is protections against tyranny and protection of rights. In order to unite the colonies into a cohesive body capable of fighting together for a common cause, for the greater good, there were some frailties of man that would not be able to be addressed at that very crucial time, such as slavery, voting rights, etc. These issues had to be left out in order to form the union, as not everyone involved was a student of history, men's character or the Age of Reason... and they were left to future generations to educate the population and eradicate these evils to freedom and liberty.

    Changing the constitution for any other reason is weakening it, not strengthening it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    For someone who talks about how we should study, you don't seem to know that the Constitution was ratified only 224 years ago not 235. I mean it would seem to me that someone who had a basic knowledge as I'm sure you claim to at least have, would that taking 2011 and subtracting 1776, which gets you 235. So no at the very least no one before 1787 fought and died for a document which didn't exist yet, and if you really think Soldiers in the present or the future thinking of the Constitution while they fight and die, let me tell you thats far far far from reality and only exists in some romantic fantastical notion people like you seem to have.
    In one sense, he is right and you are wrong, in another sense, you are both wrong.

    If you accept that the constitution was and is a work in progress, part of a well defined process then one must look at the entire context of the document. The first founding document was the Declaration of Independence, which lays the groundwork and builds the framework around which all other documents are drafted.

    The Virginia Declaration of Rights was also written in 1776, though prior to the Declaration of Independence. This work would be heavily influential in every debate to follow, and it's influence can be seen first in the DOI.

    The political thought and desire for freedom did not spring into existence between 1776 and 1787... in an unbroken line it extends back to June 15th, 1215... nearly 800 years ago with the signing of the Magna Carta.

    To make sense of the constitution, to know it's clarity, there is no shortcut... not only must the thoughts and opinions of those that penned and debated these issues be known, but the school(s) of thought they studied and drew upon. And that my friends, draws back into the whole of human history and the many forms of tyranny man's weaknesses inevitably lead him to.

    The constitution is sacrosanct, changes made to it were only meant to close the holes necessitated by compromise to form the union at all. They are NOT open to future interpretation... it is the PAST that must be understood and jealously guarded against.

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    05-01-14 @ 03:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    12,879

    Re: Are the U.S. constitution and its amendments sacrosanct? Yes or No?

    Personally, I believe that the Constitution was NOT intended to be anywhere near as much of a "living" document as it is now seen. However, I would suggest that it does need to be slightly maleable in that the individuals who wrote it were somewhat naive in believing that they didn't have to include the Duties and Responsibilities of the Citizenry as much as the Rights and Priviliges thereof. It is unfortunate, but we need to go back and put in those things the Founders left out in order to correct a large number of our social and societal issues.

  5. #15
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Are the U.S. constitution and its amendments sacrosanct? Yes or No?

    Quote Originally Posted by MusicAdventurer View Post
    Are the U.S. constitution and its amendments sacrosanct? Yes or No?
    Yes.But only until you go through an amendment process to repeal or alter an already existing amendments or to add new amendments. This the constitution is a living document is nothing more than horse **** invented by anti-American subhuman pieces of **** trying to subvert the constitution. If you call yourself an American and you call yourself patriotic then the only meaning of the constitution and its amendments that matters is the authors of the constitution and those that authored various amendments and that the only way those amendments should be changed is through the amendment process.
    Last edited by jamesrage; 08-20-11 at 09:58 AM.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  6. #16
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,604

    Re: Are the U.S. constitution and its amendments sacrosanct? Yes or No?

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Yes.But only until you go through an amendment process to repeal or alter an already existing amendments or to add new amendments. This the constitution is a living document is nothing more than horse **** invented by anti-American subhuman pieces of **** trying to subvert the constitution. If you call yourself an American and you call yourself patriotic then the only meaning of the constitution and its amendments that matters is the authors of the constitution and those that authored various amendments and that the only way those amendments should be changed is through the amendment process.
    ever notice that those who are most interested in killing the constitution as it was originally written and intended are the ones who call it a "living"document?



  7. #17
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,137

    Re: Are the U.S. constitution and its amendments sacrosanct? Yes or No?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    ever notice that those who are most interested in killing the constitution as it was originally written and intended are the ones who call it a "living"document?
    Which part of the Constitution gave you the right to spout opinions on the internet? Or cell phones? When BART shut off cell phone service in the stations, which part of the Constitution did they allegedly offend? '

    The First Amendment would be a solid foundation, but you have to build out from what it says. It doesn't say "internet" or "cell phone" anywhere. If you don't change the interpretation to apply to new technologies and ideas, then it doesn't really apply anymore.

    That said, I said yes. The ideas behind the founding of the Constitution put in place everything Americans profess to believe in. If you don't interpret the words themselves to apply to our current society, then it's just a philosophical document from 18th Century gentlemen farmers.
    Last edited by rocket88; 08-20-11 at 10:26 AM.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  8. #18
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,604

    Re: Are the U.S. constitution and its amendments sacrosanct? Yes or No?

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    Which part of the Constitution gave you the right to spout opinions on the internet? Or cell phones? When BART shut off cell phone service in the stations, which part of the Constitution did they allegedly offend? '

    The First Amendment would be a solid foundation, but you have to build out from what it says. It doesn't say "internet" or "cell phone" anywhere. If you don't change the interpretation to apply to new technologies and ideas, then it doesn't really apply anymore.
    nothing in the constitution GIVES me or anyone any rights. Those rights were presumed to PRE EXIST the constitution.



  9. #19
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: Are the U.S. constitution and its amendments sacrosanct? Yes or No?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    ever notice that those who are most interested in killing the constitution as it was originally written and intended are the ones who call it a "living"document?
    How can you make this argument when there are parts of the Constitution that no one understands the meaning or purpose of even to this day

    If it's not a living document then it sure as hell is confusing and muddled - for it to be set it stone it needs to be more precise and specific, not wishy washy and permissible to alter and add onto.

    The Code of Hamurabi makes more sense sometimes. It's unfaltering, chisseled, specific and precise. No muddled meanings, multiple interpretations. "Do this, don't do that" . . .there - no questions asked.

    Obviously the founders didn't hve much concern over this because they intentionally left things open to interpretation - that's supposed to be the beauty of it.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  10. #20
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,137

    Re: Are the U.S. constitution and its amendments sacrosanct? Yes or No?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    nothing in the constitution GIVES me or anyone any rights. Those rights were presumed to PRE EXIST the constitution.
    So your right to use the internet predates the internet?


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •