• 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
MusicAdventurer said:
Could not agree more



while I agree that changing them should not be as easy as say the president signing a petition ... I do think the current process is outdated



you are entitled to your opinion



Please explain what you think the traditional "living document" theory is .. I am curious to see just how radical (ooo scary word) conservatives see such a "theory"
Click to expand...
General Welfare clause is the most abused clause in the Constitution, with the Interstate Commerce Clause running a close second. They have been twisted beyond recognition to expand the Constitution adding powers never envisioned.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The traditional "living document" theory is bunk and would require us not to read the rules, in order for it to be true.
Click to expand...
Arguing that the constitution should mean whatever we want it to mean at any given time is no different that arguing that it is meaningless.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
Agree.
Article V has a procedure for this.
Click to expand...

Except that they basically negated the ability effectively make change in the way they delineated said procedure (I am sure our founding fathers were laughing all the way to the bank after they made that procedure... arrogance and greed). Seriously people, has everyone been so brainwashed that we think our founding fathers were some kinds of saints? Blind patriotism has got to be a cardinal sin.

On a side note ... has anyone every heard of the book called "Lies My Teacher Told Me"? I have yet to read it, but I have heard it debunks a lot of the things that were brainwashed into youth via public education.
 
MusicAdventurer said:
Umm .. when did we make needed changes to the founding documents that help arrange our governmental system in 2008 ... must have missed that one .. holy crap .. fill me in please, please please
Click to expand...

I see you are having a bit of a problem keeping track of your own conversations. Read what you said that I was responding to. I'm sure you can figure it out.
 
LesGovt said:
I see you are having a bit of a problem keeping track of your own conversations. Read what you said that I was responding to. I'm sure you can figure it out.
Click to expand...

Lol, good to see I got a rise out of you :) .. hey man, make an erroneous statement and I'll call you out on it

Just to clear things up for those just coming in ... here is what you said:

LesGovt said:
We got change in 2008 and look what that has wrought. Please no more change for a century or two. :doh
Click to expand...

and I replied:

MusicAdventurer said:
Umm .. when did we make needed changes to the founding documents that help arrange our governmental system in 2008 ... must have missed that one .. holy crap .. fill me in please, please please
Click to expand...

you can dodge the question with insults all you want, it won't change the fact that you made an erroneous statement
 
MusicAdventurer said:
Lol, good to see I got a rise out of you :) .. hey man, make an erroneous statement and I'll call you out on it

Just to clear things up for those just coming in ... here is what you said:

and I replied:

you can dodge the question with insults all you want, it won't change the fact that you made an erroneous statement
Click to expand...

What you posted is true, but you failed to post what you had said prior to my statement about 2008. Try a little honesty next time.
 
LesGovt said:
What you posted is true, but you failed to post what you had said prior to my statement about 2008. Try a little honesty next time.
Click to expand...

I can only assume you are talking about the following statement I made:

MusicAdventurer said:
As I knew you would .. you are after all a conservative .. this means you shy away from progressive change ... you know taking "conservative" steps .. such resistance to change is maladaptive as change is the only thing that is certain in this life
Click to expand...

I can only assume that you took this to mean I was talking about something other than altering our founding documents. Considering the fact that this specific statement alone (without reading my previous posts to the thread) was general and could be taken out of context, I can see what you are saying. But you must know that your interpretation was not how I meant it. If you go back a bit and read my previous posts you should see what I mean.
 
Last edited:
MusicAdventurer said:
I can only assume you are talking about the following statement I made:

I can only assume that you took this to mean I was talking about something other than altering our founding documents. Considering the fact that this specific statement alone (without reading my previous posts to the thread) was general and could be taken out of context, I can see what you are saying. But you must know that your interpretation was not how I meant it. If you go back a bit and read my previous posts you should see what I mean.
Click to expand...

You made a general statement as an attempt to be a put-down to me. That was your sole purpose. Next time, please try to stay on topic.
 
LesGovt said:
You made a general statement as an attempt to be a put-down to me. That was your sole purpose. Next time, please try to stay on topic.
Click to expand...

I did not mean it as an insult to you personally .. I was questioning the nature of conservatism as a whole I find resistance to change to be sad .. I see such tendencies as a cog in the wheel of progress .. I'm entitled to my opinion .. it's difficult when the only thing stopping progress is people's tendencies to resist change out of fear .. still if I offended you I am sorry .. however I will give the definition of conservative below (it is in line with my statement; I might add that everyone was getting a little off topic):

Conservative define: (Google)

adjective

1. Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion

noun

1. A person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics


Don't hate the messenger .. so far I think you're a respectable person

The above is conservative defined ... perhaps you do not not see conservatism in this light?
 
Last edited:
Getting back to the OP .. I am still wondering what people's answer's are to the following questions:

1.) Do you believe our founding documents are sacrosanct? Yes or No?

2.) Do you believe our founding documents are valid sources on which to base one's ethical argument? Yes or No?

My answers are as follows:

1.) No
2.) No

is that a surprise? :)
 
Last edited:
MusicAdventurer said:
I did not mean it as an insult to you personally .. I was questioning the nature of conservatism as a whole I find resistance to change to be sad .. I see such tendencies as a cog in the wheel of progress .. I'm entitled to my opinion .. it's difficult when the only thing stopping progress is people's tendencies to resist change out of fear .. still if I offended you I am sorry .. however I will give the definition of conservative below (it is in line with my statement; I might add that everyone was getting a little off topic):

Conservative define: (Google)

adjective

1. Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion

noun

1. A person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics


Don't hate the messenger .. so far I think you're a respectable person

The above is conservative defined ... perhaps you do not not see conservatism in this light?
Click to expand...

For my view of conservatism, please go to Philosophy Discussions and see my thread there on What is a Conservative.
 
LesGovt said:
For my view of conservatism, please go to Philosophy Discussions and see my thread there on What is a Conservative.
Click to expand...

Does that line up with your actual actions in terms of what you argue for? Or is the definition I found more suitable?
 
Getting back to the OP .. I am still wondering what people's answer's are to the following questions:

1.) Do you believe our founding documents are sacrosanct? Yes or No?

2.) Do you believe our founding documents are valid sources on which to base one's ethical argument? Yes or No?

My answers are as follows:

1.) No
2.) No

is that a surprise?
 
MusicAdventurer said:
Does that line up with your actual actions in terms of what you argue for? Or is the definition I found more suitable?
Click to expand...

I believe I am a follower of Russell Kirk's philosphy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom