• 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!

Do you care if the Constitution is violated?

Do you care?


  • Total voters
    55
Depends what part of the constitution and when the violated law in question was added. I don't really care for the 'wisdom' of the founders, being a bunch of bigoted slavers from a time and place that is unrecognizable to our own. Having said that, they did get some things right, like freedom of speech, and later amendments like prohibition were complete failures. I also seriously doubt the broken political system today could come up a remotely functional constitution, if they were charged with making a more modern government and list of 'inalienable' rights
 
Except that we're not.

The various separated powers that are supposed to act as a check on one another, and stop any violation of our Constitutional rights, much too often instead collude against us, conspiring to commit these violations.

I don't disagree.

When you find something better, let me know ;) it's the nature of the human beast.
 
Simple question do you care if the Government violates the Constitution?
"The government should never violate the Constitution"

This, of course, is the 'correct' answer. The fantasy answer. And is the answer I chose.

Reality is, of course, far different. Since the beginning of time mankind had made rules for itself then sought to violate said rules. Rules are for others (people who cannot be trusted), not ourselves.
 
None of the above ! . In truth, IS our Constitution being "violated" ? It is a rather vague instrument and open to interpretation . I suspect that it is the interpretation that the conservatives have a problem with .
 
Only those who do not agree with what Constitution clearly and unambiguously says, and do not wish for it to be obeyed, claim that there is any argument about “interpretations” of it.

Spoken like a true autocrat.

The Constitution does not give this power to the federal courts. In fact, Jefferson warned against this abuse.

And Madison intended it all along. The constitution does give this power to the courts, by the way. The supreme court has jurisdiction over all cases arising under the constitution, not all cases arising under the constitution except those where the petitioner contends that the law in question violates the constitution. That's not an abuse.
 
It is violated on a daily basis by people, businesses and the government... and that won't ever change.

Lol you know that the constitution affects only the government and not businesses or people...
 
And Madison intended it all along. The constitution does give this power to the courts, by the way. The supreme court has jurisdiction over all cases arising under the constitution, not all cases arising under the constitution except those where the petitioner contends that the law in question violates the constitution. That's not an abuse.

James Madison- The States, in their sovereign capacity, are the parties to the constitutional compact; and are thus the final authority on whether the federal government has violated the Constitution. There can be no tribunal above the authority of the States to decide whether the compact made by them has been violated by the federal government.....
 
Lol you know that the constitution affects only the government and not businesses or people...

The US Constitution also includes it's 27 Amendments... but apparently you DIDN'T know that. :lol:
 
The US Constitution also includes it's 27 Amendments... but apparently you DIDN'T know that. :lol:

And?

What of these amendments?

I think the thirteenth amendment is maybe the only thing a company or individual can truly break since the amendment reads that slavery shall not exist within the US (and that would mean US private entities cannot engage in it).
 
well the constitution has be blatantly violated, and not even the USSC could not say it has not.

before the 17th amendment to the constitution was ever even created, some states were already directly electing senators from their states by the people...which directly contradicts the constitution.

texas for example elected its first senator by direct election in 1906, seven years before the 17th.

One of the biggest mistakes was allowing direct election of Senators.
 
I think the thirteenth amendment is maybe the only thing a company or individual can truly break since the amendment reads that slavery shall not exist within the US (and that would mean US private entities cannot engage in it).

...and the 1st with regards to speech and religion and the 9th with regards to the right to privacy.

And?

What of these amendments?

And? You laughed at me, told me I was wrong AND? You were wrong. End of story.
 
I think you are missing the point here....these cases don't magically appear.... all of them are based in the interpretations of the plaintiffs.
....you know, the interpretations you say don't matter.

it's absurd to argue their interpretations do not matter... they are at the very root of constitutional cases.
they very well may end up being wrong... but those interpretations are absolutely imperative to our system.... as the courts do not review laws upon passage, those claims you find to "not matter" represent the entire basis for our federal courts.

The courts decide how far they go. Doesn't matter how many times you try to challenge a law as unconstitutional, if the lowest court decides your case has no merit whatsoever, it isn't going very far without some serious evidence of bias on the part of that court or a really big mistake. The Circuit court is likely going to reject you as is the SCOTUS.
 
Since federal government has decided to use the commerce clause to control all regulate business and all of the society instead of just handing trade disputes between states there is countless regulations on the books. As it stands most of the population agrees with this use of the commerce clause, so I either deal with the abuse or move.

It's also not just that the Constitution is violated in pretty much all areas, but that amendments like four teeth, sixteenth, and seventeenth amendment were added that go against the very goals of the Constitution.
 
I voted "...should never..."

I don't worry too much about it. Don't play gotcha games over it. With our checks and balances, we're fairly protected.

The so called checks and balances have only proven to empower the state.
 
Since federal government has decided to use the commerce clause to control all regulate business and all of the society instead of just handing trade disputes between states there is countless regulations on the books. As it stands most of the population agrees with this use of the commerce clause, so I either deal with the abuse or move.

It's also not just that the Constitution is violated in pretty much all areas, but that amendments like four teeth, sixteenth, and seventeenth amendment were added that go against the very goals of the Constitution.
One of the goals of the Constitution was that it be changeable via Amendments.
 
I dunno. I took an oath to defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. To the best of my knowledge, no one has yet to relieve me of that obligation.

But the idea that American society, 100/200 hundred years from now, will be yoked or enslaved to any "constitution," that was created by men that lived 400 years ago, does kind of turn my stomach. They are doing that now in the middle east and those people are really screwed. They CAN'T progress alongside the rest of the modern world. Their religious constitution does not allow for it.

I believe a constitution is needed. However, I do believe the American people, by majority consensus, should have the right to amend it in any way they see fit to better suit their time in history.
 
Where does it say that?

well first..... .the DOI contains the founding principles of america, and those principles are embodied in the constitution of the founders.

the organic laws of america are the fountain of america.

The Organic Laws of the United States of America can be found in Volume One of the United States Code which contains the General and Permanent Laws of the United States. U.S. Code defines the organic laws of the United States of America to include the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, and the Constitution of September 17, 1787.

principles like natural law, rights endowed, equality under law, government secures rights life-liberty- property ...which is the end of government.

if the constitution were to have an amendment in it stating congress and the states governments are granting the people a right, that government has a power over life liberty or property , that government is here to make people lifes better by providing them with things[material goods and services], then those kinds of amendment would violated those founding principles.

the u.s. federal government, via its own federal law recognizes the founding principles of america, and states that no state constitution can be repugnant to those principles.
 
Last edited:
I dunno. I took an oath to defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. To the best of my knowledge, no one has yet to relieve me of that obligation.

But the idea that American society, 100/200 hundred years from now, will be yoked or enslaved to any "constitution," that was created by men that lived 400 years ago, does kind of turn my stomach. They are doing that now in the middle east and those people are really screwed. They CAN'T progress alongside the rest of the modern world. Their religious constitution does not allow for it.

I believe a constitution is needed. However, I do believe the American people, by majority consensus, should have the right to amend it in any way they see fit to better suit their time in history.

you mean by state convention, or by state ratification?
 
well first..... .the DOI contains the founding principles of america, and those principles are embodied in the constitution of the founders.

the organic laws of america are the fountain of america.

The Organic Laws of the United States of America can be found in Volume One of the United States Code which contains the General and Permanent Laws of the United States. U.S. Code defines the organic laws of the United States of America to include the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, and the Constitution of September 17, 1787.

principles like natural law, rights endowed, equality under law, government secures rights life-liberty- property ...which is the end of government.

if the constitution were to have an amendment in it stating congress and the states governments are granting the people a right, that government has a power over life liberty or property , that government is here to make people lifes better by providing them with things[material goods and services], then those kinds of amendment would violated those founding principles.

the u.s. federal government, via its own federal law recognizes the founding principles of america, and states that no state constitution can be repugnant to those principles.

Liberty was one of the so called founding principles contained in the Declaration of Independence in the clear statement of rights for ALL MEN. So if no state constitution can be repugnant to LIBERTY why were southern states like Alabama and Mississippi admitted when their constitutions limited rights and did not grant the to ALL MEN?
 
Liberty was one of the so called founding principles contained in the Declaration of Independence in the clear statement of rights for ALL MEN. So if no state constitution can be repugnant to LIBERTY why were southern states like Alabama and Mississippi admitted when their constitutions limited rights and did not grant the to ALL MEN?


"Slaves are considered as property, not as persons"
 
Who effing cares about some old paper from the days of powdered wigs and buckled shoes? Like get with the times, people--we aint in the 1700s any more. The teabaggers' precious constitution is dead and its high time we burried it. We have a President whose, like super smart about law and stuff and understands whats best for the people, and I say let him just say what should be done.
 
"Slaves are considered as property, not as persons"

Slaves were human beings owned as property. As such they certainly were included in Jeffersons ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL phrase. Jeffersons own writings clearly state this beyond any doubt or dispute. We further have the evidence at the Constitutional Convention that slave owners and other delegates from slave owning states believed that these persons should be counted as people in the census. This is a direct admission that slave holders themselves and their representatives considered slaves as full persons. They were very much persons and I have seen NO evidence that says otherwise. Do you have any to present that slave owners and those who permitted it believed that people from Africa were not human beings?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom