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 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 114

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

  1. #51
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:48 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,189

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MusicAdventurer View Post
    I am well aware of this .. however between the constitution and its amendments, certain rights were declared implicitly or not.
    Really? Where do you find the implied rights of free speech or religion in the original Constitution? How about the right of assembly or to possess a gun or to prevent troops from using quarters during time times of peace? These are not implied in the original Constitution. The Authors of the Constitutional Convention voted down adding a Bill of Rights. They said that the States were to protect the rights of the people.

  2. #52
    Educator

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    08-15-13 @ 01:41 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,034

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Rights exist because the people of a particular society say they do. Absent the people, the rights don't exist.
    If you are saying that people are needed in order for them to think up rights, I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    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.
    If you are saying that rights do not yet exist in the sense that they are not yet acknowledged by the law, I agree. However, I would add that as "rights" are thought up by people and different rights are sometimes seen differently across varying individuals, rights do exist in the minds of the people regardless of whether or not they have been acknowledged by the majority. I think it comes down to how one chooses to define rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    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.
    Could not agree more!

  3. #53
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,792

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MusicAdventurer View Post
    If you are saying that rights do not yet exist in the sense that they are not yet acknowledged by the law, I agree. However, I would add that as "rights" are thought up by people and different rights are sometimes seen differently across varying individuals, rights do exist in the minds of the people regardless of whether or not they have been acknowledged by the majority. I think it comes down to how one chooses to define rights.
    No, I'm saying that rights do not exist in any sense until humans think them up and enshrine them, either through the law or through social convention. Some people seem to think rights are magical, ethereal things that simply exist whether humans are there or not, and we simply have to discover and embrace them. That's ridiculous. Certainly, people can desire certain rights, that doesn't mean they actually have them until society determines that they do.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  4. #54
    Educator

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    08-15-13 @ 01:41 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,034

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

    Quote Originally Posted by LesGovt View Post
    Really? Where do you find the implied rights of free speech or religion in the original Constitution? How about the right of assembly or to possess a gun or to prevent troops from using quarters during time times of peace? These are not implied in the original Constitution. The Authors of the Constitutional Convention voted down adding a Bill of Rights. They said that the States were to protect the rights of the people.
    While you are correct that there are many ethical standpoints (rights, freedoms etc. .. I think people have been using the term "rights" liberally as referring what founding rules/regulations are ethically sound) that are not specifically represented in the constitution specifically. I would add that I am considering the Bill of Rights, the constitution, the amendments etc. as the general founding documents for our country, which many people hold sacrosanct. I believe that these founding documents are not sacrosanct. You know what I mean? Its the spirit of the matter, which it appears we clearly agree on.

  5. #55
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761
    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Times change, and so should our Constitution. I find that Founding Fatherism is one of the sillier religions in our society; the dudes who wrote the Constitution were just some politicians. They had some good ideas, some awful ideas, and some ideas that may have been good at the time but simply didn't survive the test of time. It's strange that people can argue that their values were what made this country great, while at the same time lamenting that we don't follow their values.
    Yes, times do change, but one fact of human nature is that people that have found or are given power ALWAYS seek to gain more power.

    The constitution itself IS little more than a scrap of paper, the power is in the description of what it means to be sovereign.
    - A slave cannot speak freely, a sovereign person can speak his mind.
    - A slave cannot be armed or he might rebel, a sovereign individual has the right to defend himself with whatever weapons are available.
    - a slave does not have the right to a fair trial, and can have their belongings searches without cause. A sovereign person can demand a warrant be presented in order to have their belongings searched.
    - a slave has the condition of his health controlled by the master. A sovereign is responsible for his own health.
    - A slave has no wealth, that belongs to the master. A sovereign has control over his own resources in the ways he sees fit.

    Now, because in a complex society, we do need SOME level of government, but that government needs to be controlled because of the nature of giving man rule over sovereign men, that power causes those given that power to seek greater power, in virtually every case.

    So, you have to be very careful over the powers given to government or the potential arrives where you can wind up with a dictator. Its happened many times through history, and that is why we must keep government as much within the bounds of the constitution, or the people could very well lose control of the government... (it could be argued that the government has already gone out of control, but that's another issue)

    There are reasons why the founding fathers wanted a limited government... Though some of those founding fathers saw the constitution as a means to give the government ever expanding powers.

  6. #56
    Educator

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    08-15-13 @ 01:41 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,034

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    No, I'm saying that rights do not exist in any sense until humans think them up and enshrine them, either through the law or through social convention. Some people seem to think rights are magical, ethereal things that simply exist whether humans are there or not, and we simply have to discover and embrace them. That's ridiculous.
    I think people have been using the term "rights" liberally .. I have come to the conclusion that when most people say rights they are referring to ethical truths. Ask any anthropologist, psychologist etc. and they will tell you that ethical truths can vary from person to person, state to state, country to country etc. Therefore they are subjective and need no law or majority to exist. I agree that rights exist because of the existence of humans, i.e. they can be conceived by the individual and society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Certainly, people can desire certain rights, that doesn't mean they actually have them until society determines that they do.
    Ethical beliefs or truths (ethics are subjective, not objective) exist regardless of whether or not a majority agrees with them; the majority agreeing on a particular ethic over another simply means that is more popular than another, not that it is more "right" that another ethic.

  7. #57
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:48 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,189

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MusicAdventurer View Post
    While you are correct that there are many ethical standpoints (rights, freedoms etc. .. I think people have been using the term "rights" liberally as referring what founding rules/regulations are ethically sound) that are not specifically represented in the constitution specifically. I would add that I am considering the Bill of Rights, the constitution, the amendments etc. as the general founding documents for our country, which many people hold sacrosanct. I believe that these founding documents are not sacrosanct. You know what I mean? Its the spirit of the matter, which it appears we clearly agree on.
    We agree on? Hmmmm. How about a 5 question true/false quiz to see if we agree:

    1. The appropriate and constitutional way to change the Constitution is to amend it according to the prerequisites of Article V.
    2. The first clause of Article I, section 8 is a clause regarding taxation and does not add any other authority to Congress.
    3. The last clause of Article I, section 8 adds no authority to Congress other than providing them with the power to implement the foregoing clauses.
    4. The Constitution authorizes Congress to enact retirement insurance for the citizens of the United States.
    5. The Constitution authorizes Congress to enact health care insurance plans for the elderly and the poor or for anyone else for that matter.

    We shall see if we agree.

  8. #58
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    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?
    Amending it, YES.... simply re-envisioning or re-interpreting it to meet the preferences of today's society, NO.

  9. #59
    Educator

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    08-15-13 @ 01:41 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,034

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

    Quote Originally Posted by LesGovt View Post
    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.
    The question was not pertaining to what debaters thought the original intent of the writers of the constitution, amendments, bill of rights etc. (founding documents) was. Instead, it was questioning the degree to which each debater personally believes that the constitution is or is not sacrosanct and a valid source to base one's ethical argument on. The way your post reads, you are stating what you thought the intent of our founding fathers was, not what you actually believe should be true.

  10. #60
    Educator

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    08-15-13 @ 01:41 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,034

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

    Quote Originally Posted by LesGovt View Post
    We agree on? Hmmmm. How about a 5 question true/false quiz to see if we agree:

    1. The appropriate and constitutional way to change the Constitution is to amend it according to the prerequisites of Article V.
    If by "appropriate" you mean "constitutional", I agree with the above and below items. However, if you are somehow proposing that some guidlines in the founding documents (including those that pertain to ways of making changes to said documents) are somehow absolute truths and/or sacrosanct and thus should not be subject to change .. we disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by LesGovt View Post
    2. The first clause of Article I, section 8 is a clause regarding taxation and does not add any other authority to Congress.
    3. The last clause of Article I, section 8 adds no authority to Congress other than providing them with the power to implement the foregoing clauses.
    4. The Constitution authorizes Congress to enact retirement insurance for the citizens of the United States.
    5. The Constitution authorizes Congress to enact health care insurance plans for the elderly and the poor or for anyone else for that matter.

    We shall see if we agree.
    When I initially read your following statement:

    Quote Originally Posted by LesGovt View Post
    I don't believe that the Constitution was meant to be above criticism
    I may have erroneously misunderstood your position as I simply skimmed that particular post ... indeed the rest of that post seemed to be in disagreement with my position (see below):

    Quote Originally Posted by LesGovt View Post
    I don't believe that the Constitution was meant to be above criticism, but I do believe it was meant to be above violation.
    By this do you mean that changing the manner in which the founding documents are amended is immoral? If so then yes, we disagree. I believe all things made from humans are imperfect and thus should be subject to criticism and reform if need be.

Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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
  •