• 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:
Ah .. satisfied with how our government is running now aye?

If you haven't noticed .. things aren't getting done .. usually a sign that the system is outdated. One cannot base decisions regarding what is too fast on history as we are in a day and age that is like no other and is much much faster in pace. I knew there'd be naysayers .. its almost like people think by faster I mean one day or something .. wow .. how doubting Thomas of you.
Click to expand...
LOL.. have to love ya MusicAdventurer, no things don't get done for the very fact that our officials don't follow the constitution, but they do managed to piss all over it, that why things aren't getting done..
 
MusicAdventurer said:
Ah .. satisfied with how our government is running now aye?

If you haven't noticed .. things aren't getting done .. usually a sign that the system is outdated. One cannot base decisions regarding what is too fast on history as we are in a day and age that is like no other and is much much faster in pace. I knew there'd be naysayers .. its almost like people think by faster I mean one day or something .. wow .. how doubting Thomas of you.
Click to expand...

LOL! Maybe we should slow down our thinking so we make good decisions rather than fast decisions. Gridlock and outmoded are two different things. There is nothing wrong with the system. There is something wrong with us. We cannot agree on anything. What's the solution. I have one. You agree with me and let's just call it a day. Fair enough? :roll:
 
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...
what is your definition a conservative? Now be honest and to have a debate it would be common courtesy to know what prism you see us through.
 
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...

We got change in 2008 and look what that has wrought. Please no more change for a century or two. :doh
 
deltabtry said:
what is your definition a conservative? Now be honest and to have a debate it would be common courtesy to know what prism you see us through.
Click to expand...

Off topic but a good place.

You seem like one of the reasonable conservatives here, and as you brought this up I have a question.

I have very traditionally conservative upbringing, and most of my personal code of conduct is "conservative" as well.

I usually find myself arguing from the "left", because to me, modern conservatism doesn't jibe with my upbringing.

Is there an appropriate term for "predatory" conservatives?

Neocon is burned out.

I ask because their is a clear distinction in my thinking between the conservatism I grew up with and the conservatism currently ascendant in our politics. I would like to be able to separate the two by distinct terms, to avoid confusion.
 
What if...? said:
Off topic but a good place.

You seem like one of the reasonable conservatives here, and as you brought this up I have a question.

I have very traditionally conservative upbringing, and most of my personal code of conduct is "conservative" as well.

I usually find myself arguing from the "left", because to me, modern conservatism doesn't jibe with my upbringing.

Is there an appropriate term for "predatory" conservatives?

Neocon is burned out.

I ask because their is a clear distinction in my thinking between the conservatism I grew up with and the conservatism currently ascendant in our politics. I would like to be able to separate the two by distinct terms, to avoid confusion.
Click to expand...
I am a conservative and the meaning of it in my terns is, that I live and breath the constitution as it was written. I believe the men of that day our founding father's drafted the constitution with no hidden agenda in mind. The constitution a document that isn't perfect yet our founding father's allowed a avenue for change if need be. I am also a Libertarian which I also categorize as conservative, we live in a republic which in my mind allows us to live as we see fit, so long as it doesn't hurt the very society we live in. I can go on but, I hope this short explanation will do.
 
deltabtry said:
I am a conservative and the meaning of it in my terns is, that I live and breath the constitution as it was written. I believe the men of that day our founding father's drafted the constitution with no hidden agenda in mind. The constitution a document that isn't perfect yet our founding father's allowed a avenue for change if need be. I am also a Libertarian which I also categorize as conservative, we live in a republic which in my mind allows us to live as we see fit, so long as it doesn't hurt the very society we live in. I can go on but, I hope this short explanation will do.
Click to expand...

Deltabtry, please look at the attached link and see if this is a good definition of what a conservative is. pease let us know. Thanks.

The Russell Kirk Center: The Essence of Conservatism by Russell Kirk
 
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...
Interesting word choice, sacrosanct. Sacrosanct: beyond alteration, criticism, or interference, especially due to religious sanction; inviolable; sacred.
 
LesGovt said:
Deltabtry, please look at the attached link and see if this is a good definition of what a conservative is. pease let us know. Thanks.

The Russell Kirk Center: The Essence of Conservatism by Russell Kirk
Click to expand...
I like it and it's the truth, the problem we have are labels a shallow way of describing things and a easy way out, which in turn does us all a injustice of what things really are. I am a conservative as I said, and I subscribe to the very definition of the written word in that document, which also allows me to view change a reasonable and possible when we see fit. The link is spot on but I will add the word Republic meaning:
A republic is a form of government in which the people, or some significant portion of them, retain supreme control over the government, not the other way around as we see today. Oh BTW I am a strong advocate of the tenth amendment, and with this being said this will be the avenue to realign ourselves to the true meaning of who we are.
 
Last edited:
This video clip was a defining moment for me at a very young age many years ago, non the less it makes a great point and pretty much places my beliefs spot on. If this actually happened they way it is portrayed in this clip, I would be both actors to the T.
 
Last edited:
deltabtry said:
I like it and it's the truth, the problem we have are labels a shallow way of describing things and a easy way out, which in turn does us all a injustice of what things really are. I am a conservative as I said, and I subscribe to the very definition of the written word in that document, which also allows me to view change a reasonable and possible when we see fit. The link is spot on but I will add the word Republic meaning:
A republic is a form of government in which the people, or some significant portion of them, retain supreme control over the government, not the other way around as we see today. Oh BTW I am a strong advocate of the tenth amendment, and with this being said this will be the avenue to realign ourselves to the true meaning of who we are.
Click to expand...

Glad you approved of it. Russell Kirk is the American Philosopher of conservatism. Edmund Burke was the original philosopher and Kirk borrows much from Burke. If you are interested, please let me recommend a book to you by Russell Kirk. It is The Conservative Mind, From Burke to Elliot. It was first published decades ago, but remains as true today as it did then. He also has a website even though he is no longer around to view it. It is The Russell Kirk Center

I think I will see about starting a thread on "What is a Conservative" using Kirk text. I wonder if we can find a "What is a Liberal" to contrast with it?

Whatif, by chance, did you review the link about conservatism? If yes, did you have any thoughts to share?
 
deltabtry said:
This video clip was a defining for me at a very young age many years ago, non the less it makes a great point and pretty much places my beliefs spot on. If this actually happened they way it is portrayed in this clip, I would be both actors to the T.
Click to expand...


I'm in general agreement with the observations about a republic. I'm more than pleased to live in one.
 
Not only are they not sacrosanct, they were specifically intended not to be.
 
LesGovt said:
Glad you approved of it. Russell Kirk is the American Philosopher of conservatism. Edmund Burke was the original philosopher and Kirk borrows much from Burke. If you are interested, please let me recommend a book to you by Russell Kirk. It is The Conservative Mind, From Burke to Elliot. It was first published decades ago, but remains as true today as it did then. He also has a website even though he is no longer around to view it. It is The Russell Kirk Center

I think I will see about starting a thread on "What is a Conservative" using Kirk text. I wonder if we can find a "What is a Liberal" to contrast with it?

Whatif, by chance, did you review the link about conservatism? If yes, did you have any thoughts to share?
Click to expand...
Yes I think I will take you up on that recommendation, and I will also pass it along to my son. Also for, "what if" the link is good and true, but also look up republic and Libratarian as well. Although words to be guided by, it will be common sense that will always prevail.
 
deltabtry said:
Yes I think I will take you up on that recommendation, and I will also pass it along to my son. Also for, "what if" the link is good and true, but also look up republic and Libratarian as well. Although words to be guided by, it will be common sense that will always prevail.
Click to expand...

I may have erred, but I set up a new thread under Philosophical Discussion under Non-Political Forums.
 
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...

The Constitutional amendments are pretty important, that's why any intention of changing them, must be done through a complicated process.
Any argument to the contrary is clearly ridiculous.

The traditional "living document" theory is bunk and would require us not to read the rules, in order for it to be true.
 
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...

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
 
deltabtry said:
I am a conservative and the meaning of it in my terns is, that I live and breath the constitution as it was written. I believe the men of that day our founding father's drafted the constitution with no hidden agenda in mind. The constitution a document that isn't perfect yet our founding father's allowed a avenue for change if need be. I am also a Libertarian which I also categorize as conservative, we live in a republic which in my mind allows us to live as we see fit, so long as it doesn't hurt the very society we live in. I can go on but, I hope this short explanation will do.
Click to expand...

No wonder why conservatives get all squeamish when we talk about the founding documents as "living documents" or entertain the possibility (and likelihood) that said documents need updating.. from the above statement "I live and breath the constitution as it was written" ... this "conservative" really does see the founding documents as sacrosanct ... you guys realize no document is perfect nor is any man right? No system is perfect .. thinking anything else seems naive to most intellectuals who have risen above the years of brainwashing.

I am sure (and as your beloved constitution implies) that our founding fathers (whom you hold so dear) would have scolded you for thinking that things should not be bettered.

I might also mention that our founding fathers were a little arrogant and selfish in that they were a select group of people who had money, slaves, land, and so on. They drafted the constitution in a manner that would protect their interests, i.e. at least their immediate future all the way to their great grand kids and beyond. I don't think they knew that the mechanisms they included for change (which they purposely made so that it would be nearly impossible to make any significant changes) would last as long as they did and prove to be as big a problem as it has.

These guys saw things only from the perspective of "what can we make so that our country will stay financially strong for many many years .... as they were rich themselves, they rally had no concept or interest in including mechanisms for upward class movement .. if anything they may have thought the idea of upward class movement was a "neat" concept .. however, they really had no idea how it could actually happen in a manner that was reflective of equal opportunity. Our founding fathers knew what they didn't want, but were not able to fully dream of what could be.
 
Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...
Utter nonsense, the Constitution has been amended to reflect modern times. The original intent of each active clause IS sacrosanct legally, and should never be circumvented.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
To err is human!
Click to expand...

My point exactly regarding our founding documents. This is why our founding fathers included a way to change things. However, they were overly protective and thus arrogant (thinking they would be the best thinkers for centuries to come) when they created shenanigans in order to negate the mechanisms for change that they built in. This is essentially a way of trying to look wise and humble i.e. "look, I created ways for it to be changed, I am acknowledging my imperfection" while at the same time saying "look, I did create a way for change, but I am so confident that I am perfect that I will make it next to impossible for change to occur" ... arrogance.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The Constitutional amendments are pretty important,
Click to expand...

Could not agree more

Harry Guerrilla said:
that's why any intention of changing them, must be done through a complicated process.
Click to expand...

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

Harry Guerrilla said:
Any argument to the contrary is clearly ridiculous.
Click to expand...

you are entitled to your opinion

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...

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"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom