• 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!

Should we get rid of the constitution

Do you agree or disagree with dumping the constitution

  • Total voters
    49
iliveonramen said:
It depends on who you're speaking of. There wasn't this uniform voice of what exactly government should look like. From day one there were competing visions on the power of the different branches.
Click to expand...

That is why I'm interested in those where the ideas written originated. If we do this its pretty clear for example the commerce clause is abused heavily.

This is a problem I have....Libertarians/Small government types project their beliefs onto the founders.
Click to expand...

No, I don't. What I want is not in the paper. For example, I would have never added eminent domain at all and if I had my way I would take it out. I also would have never given the states the amount of power that was given, but would have limited them to only a few functions as well.

From day 1 there were battles between the size and strength of government...and ultimately...a lot of proponents of smaller government expanded the power of the federal government while in office.

Also...the Constitution does no such thing. It's vague and left open to interpretation for a reason. I'd like to point out that as early as Jefferson the Government led by a small government guy bought a whole lotta land and divvied it up and that power is not in the constitution if you take a literal view.
Click to expand...

I never claimed the founders even stuck to what is written. I know for fact Madison, Jefferson, Adams and Washington all failed to follow what is written. The only one I'm letting off the hook even a little bit is Washington since he admitted it. It's also not that vague to excuse the expansions people like you support. For example, we both know there is no way welfare falls under any clause for the federal government.
 
Paschendale said:
I see no reason why a full update of the constitution would be a bad thing. A great deal of supreme court common law could be folded into the document itself and put into black letter law, rather than relying on controlling cases. Contentious issues like the reach of the commerce clause could be settled and put into the constitution. Rights that are flimsier in our present law, like privacy, could be afforded the strength of a full amendment. We could have a version that doesn't contain language of slavery, even though it's officially crossed out now. The core principals, however, wouldn't change. The character of this country has not dramatically altered. We still believe in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We still believe in limited government. We still believe in checks and balances, delegation of powers, representative democracy, equal treatment under the law, and more. The ideals of the constitution are certainly still the core ideals of the nation, but the form of the constitution is outdated and could use an update.
Click to expand...

Because it would take 10 years and $10B and we would end up with something that would never be ratified.
 
iliveonramen said:
The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution had one purpose...to expand Federal powers. If the people of the United States wanted some loose federation of states they wouldn't of junked the Articles of Confederation.

Also...lets be honest here....the Federalist papers were just Madison and Hamilton convincing individuals to junk the Articles of Confederation and adopt a stronger Federal authority.
Click to expand...

The question this poll ask is are you in favor of dumping the constitution. You are changing the subject a bit with should the constitution ever have been enacted to replace the Articles of Confederation. This is a great subject and deserves a thread of its own and if you start one I will be more than happy to participate. Seriously I am not avoiding the issue here, it is a subject that is well worth discussing but I have to get to work. I'll check in on my lunch break and see where you have gone with this, we may not disagree quite as much as you think.
 
Paschendale said:
I see no reason why a full update of the constitution would be a bad thing. A great deal of supreme court common law could be folded into the document itself and put into black letter law, rather than relying on controlling cases. Contentious issues like the reach of the commerce clause could be settled and put into the constitution.
Click to expand...

No way would I make the government stronger as the default position. If we are going to rewrite the constitution the only way I will agree is if we make it smaller than it was originally.

Rights that are flimsier in our present law, like privacy, could be afforded the strength of a full amendment.
Click to expand...

I'm not in favor of putting rights in amendments again. In fact, I don't support amendments at all. They were a mistake to ever do in the first place. There should be an established understanding of what rights are and that is it. None of this nonsense where we reveal the obvious that speech is protected. It's obviously protected by the foundation set out. As for privacy, yes its protected by the foundation they set out. Its a bit obvious. There is no need for an amendment on the matter.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
That is why I'm interested in those where the ideas written originated. If we do this its pretty clear for example the commerce clause is abused heavily.
Click to expand...

I think the main lesson learned is that the Constitution is a guiding document but for the most part the founders did what was required in order to effectively govern the country.

As for the Commerce Clause I just disagree. The use of the Commerce Clause is no different than other justifications used in interpretating the document by the Founders. Why supposedly should we be constrained to some literal reading of the Constitution when the Founders themselves weren't?

No, I don't. What I want is not in the paper. For example, I would have never added eminent domain at all and if I had my way I would take it out. I also would have never given the states the amount of power that was given, but would have limited them to only a few functions as well.
Click to expand...
That's fine...as long as you argue on the merits of your actual views. The only reson I pointe to Libertarians and small government types is they consistently (not all) point to "The Founders" and use that as some argument in their views. They act like their view is "moral" because it's based on tradition but that's just not the case. It's just policies they want and if you can't make a coherent strong argument for those views outside of some argument that "that's how it's suppose to be" then the policies may just be...well bad policies.

I never claimed the founders even stuck to what is written. I know for fact Madison, Jefferson, Adams and Washington all failed follow what is written. The only one I'm letting off the hook even a little bit is Washington since he admitted it. It's also not that vague to excuse the expansions people like you support. For example, we both know there is no way welfare falls under any clause for the federal government.
Click to expand...
Well there was no reason to even believe there was a need for massive welfare programs in a pre-industrialized substence farming nation. Things change...sticking to a literal Constitution I would argue is by far the BEST! way to ensure it's ripped up and re-written because it becomes a document that doesn't meet the needs of running a large modern country.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
The question this poll ask is are you in favor of dumping the constitution. You are changing the subject a bit with should the constitution ever have been enacted to replace the Articles of Confederation. This is a great subject and deserves a thread of its own and if you start one I will be more than happy to participate. Seriously I am not avoiding the issue here, it is a subject that is well worth discussing but I have to get to work. I'll check in on my lunch break and see where you have gone with this, we may not disagree quite as much as you think.
Click to expand...

Very true...I apologize...I do think the "Sanctity" of the Constitution needs to be dispelled and is important to the idea of whether or not it's ok to rewrite the Constitution. The Founders and the Constitution seem to of turned into some mythic document that can never be improved.

I agree though...it's getting off topic.
 
Fisher said:
Because it would take 10 years and $10B and we would end up with something that would never be ratified.
Click to expand...

Amendments, I'm okay with. A new Constitutional Convention scares me especially in the current political culture that is so divided and filled with animosity toward fellow Americans of opposing parties.
 
iliveonramen said:
I think the main lesson learned is that the Constitution is a guiding document but for the most part the founders did what was required in order to effectively govern the country.
Click to expand...

If you don't allow it to lead you its not really guiding anything.

As for the Commerce Clause I just disagree. The use of the Commerce Clause is no different than other justifications used in interpretating the document by the Founders. Why supposedly should we be constrained to some literal reading of the Constitution when the Founders themselves weren't?
Click to expand...

I didn't say literally reading the constitution, but understand where the ideas come from and why they are listed as powers.

That's fine...as long as you argue on the merits of your actual views. The only reson I pointe to Libertarians and small government types is they consistently (not all) point to "The Founders" and use that as some argument in their views. They act like their view is "moral" because it's based on tradition but that's just not the case. It's just policies they want and if you can't make a coherent strong argument for those views outside of some argument that "that's how it's suppose to be" then the policies may just be...well bad policies.
Click to expand...

Since we are using constitutional arguments what do you want us to do?

Well there was no reason to even believe there was a need for massive welfare programs in a pre-industrialized substence farming nation. Things change...sticking to a literal Constitution I would argue is by far the BEST! way to ensure it's ripped up and re-written because it becomes a document that doesn't meet the needs of running a large modern country.
Click to expand...

You don't need a welfare system in modern society. In fact, while its creates growth and demand both are undesirable since it will only rise prices and lower wages. If you desire to raise profits and create disparity though it does a good job.
 
Smeagol said:
Amendments, I'm okay with. A new Constitutional Convention scares me especially in the current political culture that is so divided and filled with animosity toward fellow Americans of opposing parties.
Click to expand...

I suspect that a real Constitutional Convention would have to result in some sort of division of the US in order to reach a consensus. In case you have not noticed the Blue people who mock the Red people are the ones who totally freak out when there is a discussion of that.
 
As for the question, I will have to go with no. While I hate how it has turned out and I don't like some of the original parts a large part of the population wants a massive government and frankly I don't want them to have any sort of influence on writing a new constitution.
 
I don't know about getting rid of the constitution but it's clear that the government is completely and utterly broken.
 
I disagree with dumping it, but I do believe it needs a complete and thorough overhaul and revision to deal with the changes in language and situation that the country finds itself in at this time.
 
Tigger said:
I disagree with dumping it, but I do believe it needs a complete and thorough overhaul and revision to deal with the changes in language and situation that the country finds itself in at this time.
Click to expand...

I want the forum to notice that I actually agree with something Tigger said. I even gave him a "like."

Maybe there is hope for the future after all. :)
 
Smeagol said:
The Constitution has within it provisions for modification to adjust with the times. I think it could use a couple of amendments:

1. Give the POTUS the line item veto however allow line item expenditures to be overturn by the same number of votes the initial bill passed by, still keeping the budget as congress' baby.
2. Eliminate the Electoral College.
3. Ban corporate and union campaign donations.
4. Limit super-pack contributions to the same amount and rules regulating the campaign.
5. Ban lobbyists from donating to campaigns.
6. Repeal the 17th Amendment.
7. Standardize all ballots nationally.
8. Grant every citizen with one of those new "real ID" driver's licenses a passport, since the same information is required at application.
9. Any American citizen spied on by the government upon the conclusion of the investigation must be notified at the initiative of the government, given the data collected on him and given the option of having that data destroyed and never accessible by the public under the FOIA under an expanded right to privacy.


Just a few...
Click to expand...
I applaud the ideas and proposals, even if I do not agree with some..
Our government has to do some explaining with this spying business - if true - this is something that must be done very carefully - privacy is not my gig..
Repeal ?
Repeal nothing...even the 2nd...so tempting to do this...
 
Captain America said:
I want the forum to notice that I actually agree with something Tigger said. I even gave him a "like."

Maybe there is hope for the future after all. :)
Click to expand...

Thanks, but somehow I get the feeling your revised Constitution and mine would look incredibly different.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
The question this poll ask is are you in favor of dumping the constitution. You are changing the subject a bit with should the constitution ever have been enacted to replace the Articles of Confederation.
Click to expand...

It's not really a change of subject, since my belief that the constitution should not have been that which replaced the AoC is exactly the reason why I am in favor of dumping the constitution.
 
Jetboogieman said:
I don't know about getting rid of the constitution but it's clear that the government is completely and utterly broken.
Click to expand...

Oh ??
Maybe your definition of broken is different than mine.
But our government can be greatly improved using Smeagols suggestions.
 
Tigger said:
Thanks, but somehow I get the feeling your revised Constitution and mine would look incredibly different.
Click to expand...

Your constitution would be one sentence: "People get the (dark ages) rights that we give them and if they don't stfu then they will be put to death."

That's not really a constitution.
 
Tigger said:
Thanks, but somehow I get the feeling your revised Constitution and mine would look incredibly different.
Click to expand...

LOL! No doubt Tig. But at least both of us recognize that in a country that boasts it's "freedom," that the citizenry should not be enslaved to the will of the citizens born 200 years ago. I equate that to having to wear the same sized shoe we were given when we were babies. Feet grow. So do nations.
 
ecofarm said:
Your constitution would be one sentence: "People get the (dark ages) rights that we give them and if they don't stfu then they will be put to death."

That's not really a constitution.
Click to expand...

No, it would be considerably more than that, thank you very much. Though you are correct that it would be a very different document than what the Founders put together as well. It would lay out the Duties and Responsibilities of a Citizen as well as the Rights/Privileges thereof. It would lay out the limits of the Government in immutable terms and without the means to change it in the future. It would require people who don't like it, to remove themselves from the country, or to be removed. It's really pretty much that simple.
 
Tigger said:
No, it would be considerably more than that, thank you very much. Though you are correct that it would be a very different document than what the Founders put together as well. It would lay out the Duties and Responsibilities of a Citizen as well as the Rights/Privileges thereof. It would lay out the limits of the Government in immutable terms and without the means to change it in the future. It would require people who don't like it, to remove themselves from the country, or to be removed. It's really pretty much that simple.
Click to expand...

Oh, please. You want the death penalty for gays and smoking pot. You think beating women is a moral responsiblity. Do you honestly think anyone should read the opine of such about right and wrong? Spare me.
 
Captain America said:
LOL! No doubt Tig. But at least both of us recognize that in a country that boasts it's "freedom," that the citizenry should not be enslaved to the will of the citizens born 200 years ago. I equate that to having to wear the same sized shoe we were given when we were babies. Feet grow. So do nations.
Click to expand...

That's where we differ. I'd keep the concept of a lot of what is already in the Constitution itself. Though there would be additions for the Duties and Responsibilities of a Citizen (a word that would replace "The People") and a definition of who the Citizens are compared to the Residents. My Constitution would not be anywhere near as maleable or forgiving as the document we currently live with.
 
Tigger said:
No, it would be considerably more than that, thank you very much. Though you are correct that it would be a very different document than what the Founders put together as well. It would lay out the Duties and Responsibilities of a Citizen as well as the Rights/Privileges thereof. It would lay out the limits of the Government in immutable terms and without the means to change it in the future. It would require people who don't like it, to remove themselves from the country, or to be removed. It's really pretty much that simple.
Click to expand...

Regardless of what the "new and improved," constitution might say, there always needs to be a way for future generations to amend it with the times as they see fit. It is rather arrogant for our generation, or past generations, to dictate to future generations as to how they should live simply because we say so.
 
Captain America said:
Regardless of what the "new and improved," constitution might say, there always needs to be a way for future generations to amend it with the times as they see fit. It is rather arrogant for our generation, or past generations, to dictate to future generations as to how they should live simply because we say so.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. There are major portions of the Constitution which should not be open to Amendment. If people don't want to live in that sort of country, they can always go to Canada or to Europe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom