• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 36.4%

  • No

    Votes: 14 63.6%
  • Total voters
    22
Cephus said:
The founding fathers were wrong. Rights are granted by society, they don't just float around in the ether somewhere.
Click to expand...

clearly a sound de facto argument but not accurate when speaking in terms of constitutional theory
 
Aunt Spiker said:
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 :shrug:

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.
Click to expand...

Let me help you out...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/histo...inds-shaped-catalog-historical-documents.html

Start reading! If you get halfway through that list and don't begin to see crystal clarity inherent in the constitution... well then I suggest you read the whole list. :) That goes for anyone that is "confused" about Our constitution, it's vision and intent and thinks it's wide open to interpretation. It's not. But to understand it, one must LEARN of the history, philosophy, evolution that preceded the founding fathers, that they were students of, and preceded by centuries the founding of this country, but more importantly, to understand why these documents and theories behind them are the most powerful and important documents in the history of civilization.
 
Not sure I understand the question.

Doesn't the Constitution provide a method for amending itself? So, doesn't that mean that it was intended to be amended at some point? If it is intended to be amended, does that make amending it part of the original intent?

idk
 
TurtleDude said:
clearly a sound de facto argument but not accurate when speaking in terms of constitutional theory
Click to expand...

It's simply reality. It doesn't matter what theory is behind the Constitution if it is factually incorrect.
 
Cephus said:
It's simply reality. It doesn't matter what theory is behind the Constitution if it is factually incorrect.
Click to expand...

lol, What is factually incorrect about the constitution?
 
Cephus said:
The founding fathers were wrong. Rights are granted by society, they don't just float around in the ether somewhere.
Click to expand...

This? This is your excuse for dismissing the whole of the constitution? Are you also dismissing the eight centuries of philosophy of human self determination? You do know what the Age of Enlightenment and Reason were all about... right?

If you did, you would know how absurd that argument is.
 
Occam's Razor said:
lol, What is factually incorrect about the constitution?
Click to expand...

It's fitting that someone with the name Occam's Razor is arguing that the interpretation of the constitution is simple.
 
MusicAdventurer said:
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?
Click to expand...



Perhaps the single most important concept that came out of the Revolution was this: Limited Government.

Not democracy in itself. As someone said once, democracy or a legislature can be as oppressive as any tyrant, if unrestrained.

The limits on government are in the Constitution. If we have no hard-wired limits on what Gov can and can't do, then we have Unlimited Government, and that is a recipe for tyranny.

The Founders feared a tyranny of the majority as much as they feared a tyranny of a King.


If the Constitution is not serving our current needs, there's a process called Amendment.

Don't bend it, Amend it!
 
Mathematician said:
It's fitting that someone with the name Occam's Razor is arguing that the interpretation of the constitution is simple.
Click to expand...

Oh, there is nothing to interpret. Simple. Though, learning the historical foundations requires significant investment in time, it too is simple... go to the source and read. Simple.
 
I voted No, now even the founder fathers didn't think so and therefor put a process in place to make changes, the problem we have today is that our governing officials wish to subvert the process.
 
TurtleDude said:
nothing in the constitution GIVES me or anyone any rights. Those rights were presumed to PRE EXIST the constitution.
Click to expand...

Ah ... as you clearly agree that we have rights independent of the constitution (i.e. we have rights regardless of the existence of the constitution), it should follow that you agree the constitution is not sacrosanct and is instead an attempt made by a group of individuals at approximating those rights. This is using your reasoning, which I agree with.
 
Occam's Razor said:
Let me help you out...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/histo...inds-shaped-catalog-historical-documents.html

Start reading! If you get halfway through that list and don't begin to see crystal clarity inherent in the constitution... well then I suggest you read the whole list. :) That goes for anyone that is "confused" about Our constitution, it's vision and intent and thinks it's wide open to interpretation. It's not. But to understand it, one must LEARN of the history, philosophy, evolution that preceded the founding fathers, that they were students of, and preceded by centuries the founding of this country, but more importantly, to understand why these documents and theories behind them are the most powerful and important documents in the history of civilization.
Click to expand...

Excellent choices for reading material. While these may be within the links you provided, I have found these to be highly pertinent documents to understanding the Constitution:

Avalon Project - Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention - Notes on the Debates of the Federal Convention

Elliot's Debates Home Page: U.S. Congressional Documents - This provides for Jonathan Elliot's five volumes of "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

When one reads these two sets of documents along with the Federalist Papers, one has a much greater understanding of the formation of our Constitution and its meaning.

Occam, thanks for your links. My library just expanded... again. I will happily investigate them for their usefulness.
 
deltabtry said:
I voted No, now even the founder fathers didn't think so and therefor put a process in place to make changes, the problem we have today is that our governing officials wish to subvert the process.
Click to expand...

Euler is credited for founding the study of graph theory, based on a paper he wrote in 1736. However, it took about two and a half centuries, two mathematicians, and a computer to prove the Four-Color Theorem. Good lucking convincing me that those credited with founding knew all the important details on what they founded.
 
Cephus said:
The founding fathers were wrong. Rights are granted by society, they don't just float around in the ether somewhere.
Click to expand...

You are correct that in a democracy we only get legally supported rights via societies decision. However, rights are ethical/philosophically based and therefore exists regardless of the law in every person's mind. This is to say that our rights are subjective in that people decide for themselves what rights people should have and that they exist regardless of the law. In a democracy, if enough people agree on particular rights, those rights are granted ... this however does not mean that there are not other rights that have not yet been acknowledged. In a democracy, the people decide what rights will be legally supported. The constitution is only a snapshot of a majorities honoring of certain rights at one time in history. Therefore, by definition, the constitution should always be scrutinized and ethically challenged as society grows. It is certainly not a set of undeniable truths.
 
Mathematician said:
Euler is credited for founding the study of graph theory, based on a paper he wrote in 1736. However, it took about two and a half centuries, two mathematicians, and a computer to prove the Four-Color Theorem. Good lucking convincing me that those credited with founding knew all the important details on what they founded.
Click to expand...
They didn't, that why we can change as time goes on.
 
LesGovt said:
Excellent choices for reading material. While these may be within the links you provided, I have found these to be highly pertinent documents to understanding the Constitution:

Avalon Project - Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention - Notes on the Debates of the Federal Convention

Elliot's Debates Home Page: U.S. Congressional Documents - This provides for Jonathan Elliot's five volumes of "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

When one reads these two sets of documents along with the Federalist Papers, one has a much greater understanding of the formation of our Constitution and its meaning.

Occam, thanks for your links. My library just expanded... again. I will happily investigate them for their usefulness.
Click to expand...

Ahh, thanks for the link suggestions. They will be added to the list @ http://www.debatepolitics.com/histo...alog-historical-documents.html#post1059742884

Just a note, this list was a work of many contributors like you, I simply maintain it.
 
MusicAdventurer said:
Ah ... as you clearly agree that we have rights independent of the constitution (i.e. we have rights regardless of the existence of the constitution), it should follow that you agree the constitution is not sacrosanct and is instead an attempt made by a group of individuals at approximating those rights. This is using your reasoning, which I agree with.
Click to expand...

Actually, the original Constitution had very little to do with rights and much more to do with the structure of our government. They primarilly left the discussion of rights to the States. Among other issues concerning how the government would operate, there was a strong emphasis for having the Federal Government split into three branches so as to provide checks and balances and to provide for split sovereignty between the Federal Government and the State Governments with each having authority to operate in its own arena. As Madison said in Federalist No. 45:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States. If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, are all vested in the existing Congress by the articles of Confederation. The proposed change does not enlarge these powers; it only substitutes a more effectual mode of administering them."
 
TurtleDude said:
essentially yes based on the premises of the founders. BTW there is nothing in the constitution where the people delegated their rights to the federal government on this issue either
Click to expand...

To those (me being on of them) who do not hold the constitution as sacrosanct and see it as a document that may or may not represent societies current ethical positions, your argument using the constitution as evidence of what is ethically right or wrong, holds no water. Try making an argument from a cogent ethical standpoint.
 
LesGovt said:
Actually, the original Constitution had very little to do with rights and much more to do with the structure of our government. They primarilly left the discussion of rights to the States. Among other issues concerning how the government would operate, there was a strong emphasis for having the Federal Government split into three branches so as to provide checks and balances and to provide for split sovereignty between the Federal Government and the State Governments with each having authority to operate in its own arena. As Madison said in Federalist No. 45:
Click to expand...

I am well aware of this .. however between the constitution and its amendments, certain rights were declared implicitly or not.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Not sure I understand the question.

Doesn't the Constitution provide a method for amending itself? So, doesn't that mean that it was intended to be amended at some point? If it is intended to be amended, does that make amending it part of the original intent?

idk
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head! This is exactly what I hoped some people would realize ... it funny when people hold the constitution (and its amendments) as a declaration of some absolute truth when the constitution itself has already been amended several times.
 
MusicAdventurer said:
You are correct that in a democracy we only get legally supported rights via societies decision. However, rights are ethical/philosophically based and therefore exists regardless of the law in every person's mind. This is to say that our rights are subjective in that people decide for themselves what rights people should have and that they exist regardless of the law. In a democracy, if enough people agree on particular rights, those rights are granted ... this however does not mean that there are not other rights that have not yet been acknowledged. In a democracy, the people decide what rights will be legally supported. The constitution is only a snapshot of a majorities honoring of certain rights at one time in history. Therefore, by definition, the constitution should always be scrutinized and ethically challenged as society grows. It is certainly not a set of undeniable truths.
Click to expand...

Rights exist because the people of a particular society say they do. Absent the people, the rights don't exist. It absolutely does mean that there are no other rights that have yet to be acknowledged, except in the sense that people haven't thought them up and agreed to them yet. Rights change over time and, as such, you are right that the Constitution and other founding documents should not be held up as the ultimate, unchanging standard. They need to change and grow with us, they do not need to hold us back.
 
Goshin said:
The Founders feared a tyranny of the majority as much as they feared a tyranny of a King.
Click to expand...

Of course they did, they were all rich and most owned slaves (not that they didn't have the countries overall interest in mind to some degree). Not to imply that democracy does not have its downsides of course.
 
Last edited:
deltabtry said:
I voted No, now even the founder fathers didn't think so and therefor put a process in place to make changes, the problem we have today is that our governing officials wish to subvert the process.
Click to expand...

Definition of SACROSANCT

1: most sacred or holy : inviolable
2: treated as if holy : immune from criticism or violation <politically sacrosanct programs>

I don't believe that the Constitution was meant to be above criticism, but I do believe it was meant to be above violation. Perhaps, that is what the Authors meant when they made the Constitution the supreme law of the land. As far as changes go, yes, they provided for a method to amend the Constitution. They planned for an orderly change to the Constitution.
 
I see no reason why any and all parts of the constitution cannot be rewritten, removed, or added to. It's just a piece of paper. The ideas in it are not magically better because they appear in the constitution. And not every idea in it is good. As always, we should distill the bad ideas out, and try new ideas, and keep the ones that are good.

I mean, can we really say that a bicameral legislature is morally superior to a unicameral one? Is a supreme court with lifetime appointments intrinsically better than elected judges? Or perhaps we should choose them by lottery. Who knows. Is is better to have a qualified right to Habeas Corpus, as opposed to one that cannot ever be abridged? Are we better off without an amendment guaranteeing the right of privacy, or without the Equal Rights Amendment? How about the balanced budget amendment? How about codification of statutes so that a person can know for sure what laws affect them on a day to day basis?

A good idea is good of its own merit, not because it was good yesterday. We should always be trying to come up with better ideas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom