• 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 the Principles of the Constitution Even Matter Anymore?

Read the intro and vote accordingly


  • Total voters
    11

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Conservatives want maximum control to remain where the Constitution placed it-at the state and local level, where the individual has maximum control over his own affairs and community. This is a core, identifying principle of our founding regularly under assault by liberals.

There is now a Constitutional Amendment to ban state governors from appointing Senators. It may very well be inappropriate for Senate vacancies to be filled this way, but according to everything we're supposed to stand for, that is a matter for individual states to decide, not something states are supposed to have dictated to them by completely unaccountable ivory tower elites in Washington.

So the question is, should the federal government even be considering such an Amendment?
 
Last edited:
The constitution has been under fire all through the Reagan year and the George Bush years.

Look at this terrible expensive war, which benefits nothing to the USA.
Look at our horrible national debt the greatest in history. We are partially owned by China now. All thanks to Bush.

We are holding thousands of people without a trial, which the constitution is against. We are losing our freedom of our 1st Amendment, Bush hated it when we the people of the USA did not agree with him while he f***ed up everything

The GOP has practically destroyed the united States and you make the dumb statement that the Constitution is under attack from Liberals. Take your head from the sand and start looking around.

The GOP is not what it use to be. I was registered and an active Republican until the second term of Reagan. The hand writing was on the wall and it was filling the Walls with BS. Conservative use to be something to be proud of. What the heck is happening to America? It is like watching a many years long bad movie in the television, which started with Reagan.

American will not be ruled by Corporate CEO dictator no matter how much Bush and his buddies want this.

We live in a world where Liberals have become the traditional conservatives and the GOP has become radicalized to the extreme.

We need to abandon the World Trade Organization, and NAFTA, and start taking care of Americans and America.

God Bless America, and protect us from the Evil of the Radicalized Right Wingers.
 
Last edited:
Conservatives want maximum control to remain where the Constitution placed it-at the state and local level, where the individual has maximum control over his own affairs and community. This is a core, identifying principle of our founding regularly under assault by liberals.

There is now a Constitutional Amendment to ban state governors from appointing Senators. It may very well be inappropriate for Senate vacancies to be filled this way, but according to everything we're supposed to stand for, that is a matter for individual states to decide, not something states are supposed to have dictated to them by completely unaccountable ivory tower elites in Washington.

So the question is, should the federal government even be considering such an Amendment?

Sure, they should consider it. Senators hold a FEDERAL office, not a STATE office, so the federal government is well within its rights to determine how senators should be selected. Besides, the whole point of a constitutional amendment is to amend the Constitution, so arguing that it violates the principles of the Constitution doesn't make sense.

With that said, I think it would be a bad idea to actually ratify this proposed amendment. Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't have a problem with banning governors from appointing the vacancies since it should be up to the people IMO...but what happens if someone blows up the Capitol Building and kills everyone inside? In an emergency, I think governors should be able to appoint replacements.
 
Sure, they should consider it. Senators hold a FEDERAL office, not a STATE office, so the federal government is well within its rights to determine how senators should be selected.

As is standard with liberals, your "make up whatever I feel like" bastardization of the Constitution is demonstrably erroneous. See the 10th Amendment. The Constitution is a strict enumeration of powers. What is not included in it is off-limits to the federal government to decide. Nowhere does it include any mention of dictating to the states how to fill vacancies.

Try again.

Besides, the whole point of a constitutional amendment is to amend the Constitution, so arguing that it violates the principles of the Constitution doesn't make sense.

Arguing against an Amendment that would perpetuate the outright reversal of everything the Constitution is supposed to stand for doesn't make sense? Nice counterpoint.
 
As is standard with liberals, your "make up whatever I feel like" bastardization of the Constitution is demonstrably erroneous. See the 10th Amendment. The Constitution is a strict enumeration of powers. What is not included in it is off-limits to the federal government to decide. Nowhere does it include any mention of dictating to the states how to fill vacancies.

Try again.

OK, I'll try again: The purpose of a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT is to AMEND the CONSTITUTION. If they wanted to, they could make an amendment abolishing the concept of statehood altogether, or dissolving the US government, or calling George Bush a poopyhead. And that would be entirely legal. There are no restrictions on what kind of amendments can be passed.

The 10th Amendment is irrelevant, because it specifically says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states." If this amendment was ratified, that power to appoint senators WOULD be prohibited by the Constitution to the states.

aquapub said:
Arguing against an Amendment that would perpetuate the outright reversal of everything the Constitution is supposed to stand for doesn't make sense? Nice counterpoint.

The Constitution already has restrictions on who can serve as a senator based on age, citizenship, and residency. The Constitution has even been amended to guarantee direct election of senators. This would hardly be an enormous leap. An "outright reversal of everything the Constitution is supposed to stand for"? Don't be such a drama queen. The day-to-day business of our government would change very little.

This amendment is probably a bad idea, but it's ridiculous to say that the federal government should have no say over how federal offices are filled.
 
Last edited:
Conservatives want maximum control to remain where the Constitution placed it-at the state and local level, where the individual has maximum control over his own affairs and community. This is a core, identifying principle of our founding regularly under assault by liberals.

There is now a Constitutional Amendment to ban state governors from appointing Senators. It may very well be inappropriate for Senate vacancies to be filled this way, but according to everything we're supposed to stand for, that is a matter for individual states to decide, not something states are supposed to have dictated to them by completely unaccountable ivory tower elites in Washington.

So the question is, should the federal government even be considering such an Amendment?
The federal government can propose whatever amendment it wants, and the states, by ratifying it, can give up that power, if they want.

Why the states would want to is beyond me...
 
Originally Posted by aquapub
Conservatives want maximum control to remain where the Constitution placed it-at the state and local level, where the individual has maximum control over his own affairs and community. This is a core, identifying principle of our founding regularly under assault by liberals.

There is now a Constitutional Amendment to ban state governors from appointing Senators. It may very well be inappropriate for Senate vacancies to be filled this way, but according to everything we're supposed to stand for, that is a matter for individual states to decide, not something states are supposed to have dictated to them by completely unaccountable ivory tower elites in Washington.

So the question is, should the federal government even be considering such an Amendment?

I think most of you do not know how an amendment is added.

The Road to Ratification: Amending the U.S. Constitution
The Road to Ratification: Amending the U.S. Constitution

The basic procedures to amend the U.S. Constitution are set forth in Article V. While the process appears simple, the road to ratification is not an easy one. In its entire history, the U.S. Constitution has been amended only 27 times. The first 10 amendments-which constitute the Bill of Rights-were added in 1791. It has been over a decade since the last amendment-Amendment XXVII-was ratified.

An examination of the ratification process reveals the difficult hurdles that a proposed amendment must overcome to be added to the U.S. Constitution.
Step 1. Passage by Congress

The language of a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution first must be agreed upon by Congress. A two-thirds vote of both houses is required to pass the legislation proposing the amendment. Unlike most acts of Congress, a proposal for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not involve the President of the United States. After its passage by Congress, the proposed amendment is sent directly to the Office of Federal Register at the National Archives. (Note: Usually, a bill goes first to the White House for the President’s signature or veto.)

Step 2. Notification of the States

Next, the states must be notified of the passage of a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This process is:

1. After the legislation proposing a constitutional amendment is passed by Congress, it is sent to the National Archives.
2. The national archivist prepares certified copies of the language of the proposed amendment for each state.
3. A packet is sent to the governor in each state. The packet include a letter from the national archivist requesting return notification that the packet was received, the certified copies of the language, 50 slip law copies, and a form for the state to fill out if the proposed amendment is ratified.

Step 3. Ratification by the States

Ratification of the amendment language as adopted by Congress is an up-or-down vote in each legislative chamber. A state legislature may make no changes to the language, or its ratification is invalid.

A state legislature that has rejected an amendment may subsequently return to it and vote affirmatively for the ratification. On the other hand, it is generally held that once a legislature has voted affirmatively, the ratification cannot be rescinded by the legislature.

It is sometimes forgotten that “state ratification” of an amendment actually means ratification by the state legislatures. The affirmative action of a state legislature on legislation to ratify a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution is final. Just as the President has no formal role in proposing amendments, governors have no constitutional role in their ratification. Technically, a governor’s signature on the bill or resolution is not necessary. Often states jockey to be the first to pass a U.S. constitutional amendment, and the courts have validated legislation passed by a state legislature prior to the receipt by the governor of the certified amendment language.

[Note: More detail about state legislative procedures to ratify a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution will be added shortly; the information is being updated.]

Step 4. Tracking State Actions

Under the U.S. Constitution, proposed amendments must be ratified by three-fourths of the states in order to take effect. The official count is kept by Office of the Federal Register at the National Archives. For each proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Office maintains an open file on state ratification and tracks states’ actions.

If legislation ratifying the amendment is passed by a state, the legislature must return to the National Archives the following items:

1. The enacted legislative document containing language that mirrors (is identical to) the certified text of the proposed amendment.
2. The ratification form with the required authenticating signature(s) and title(s).

If the language passed by a state legislature does not mirror the official text, the National Archives holds the legislative document and notifies the state. The letter sent to the state recommends that the state clarify its actions in order to avoid court challenges.

Whenever the requisite number of states (38) have ratified a proposed amendment, the national archivist proclaims it as a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Actual certification is published immediately in the Federal Register and eventually in the United States Statutes-at-Large.


Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
 
The constitution should matter... But you have politicians who could care less.

I'll let you find out said this...

It's just a piece of paper..
 
The constitution has been under fire all through the Reagan year and the George Bush years.

Look at this terrible expensive war, which benefits nothing to the USA.
Look at our horrible national debt the greatest in history. We are partially owned by China now. All thanks to Bush.

We are holding thousands of people without a trial, which the constitution is against. We are losing our freedom of our 1st Amendment, Bush hated it when we the people of the USA did not agree with him while he f***ed up everything

The GOP has practically destroyed the united States and you make the dumb statement that the Constitution is under attack from Liberals. Take your head from the sand and start looking around.

The GOP is not what it use to be. I was registered and an active Republican until the second term of Reagan. The hand writing was on the wall and it was filling the Walls with BS. Conservative use to be something to be proud of. What the heck is happening to America? It is like watching a many years long bad movie in the television, which started with Reagan.

American will not be ruled by Corporate CEO dictator no matter how much Bush and his buddies want this.

We live in a world where Liberals have become the traditional conservatives and the GOP has become radicalized to the extreme.

We need to abandon the World Trade Organization, and NAFTA, and start taking care of Americans and America.

God Bless America, and protect us from the Evil of the Radicalized Right Wingers.

He never said this amendment was the liberals doing. He's asking if the government should consider it. Read before posting. Just because it's aquapub doesn't mean it's always partisanship. Just mostly.
 
The constitution should matter... But you have politicians who could care less.

I'll let you find out said this...

It was George Bush and he said "it's just a goddamned piece of paper".

I don't really take much exception to that since it was said in the heat of the moment under intense questioning of his authority as commander in chief where the Patriot Act was concerned.
 
It was George Bush and he said "it's just a goddamned piece of paper".

I don't really take much exception to that since it was said in the heat of the moment under intense questioning of his authority as commander in chief where the Patriot Act was concerned.

That kind of thought process leads to disregarding the constitution in order to further ones goals imo.

I don't believe any American should ever consider the constitution "just a goddamned piece of paper." PERIOD.
 
That kind of thought process leads to disregarding the constitution in order to further ones goals imo.

I don't believe any American should ever consider the constitution "just a goddamned piece of paper." PERIOD.

I don't think any human being should be crucified for his words in the heat of the moment.
 
I don't think any human being should be crucified for his words in the heat of the moment.

I don't think any American should say that in the heat of the moment.
 
I don't think any human being should be crucified for his words in the heat of the moment.

I wouldnt be "crucifying" him as you so put it, if he did not follow through with such measures.
 
I wouldnt be "crucifying" him as you so put it, if he did not follow through with such measures.


I'm sure if he had actually done anything blatantly unconstitutional, the courts would have made a ruling saying so. That's what they're there for.
 
Just Being human is not a qualification for being a leader

Being human is not something that suddenly gets trascnended when on takes the oath of office. I can only think of one person in history who pulled that off.
 
I'm sure if he had actually done anything blatantly unconstitutional, the courts would have made a ruling saying so. That's what they're there for.

Right wing activists courts.........


whoops sorry heat of the moment episode on my behalf.
 
I'm sure if he had actually done anything blatantly unconstitutional, the courts would have made a ruling saying so. That's what they're there for.

The fact that the government can listen into my conversations at any given moment without my consent kinda.... well... bugs the **** out of me.

One small step, right?
 
The fact that the government can listen into my conversations at any given moment without my consent kinda.... well... bugs the **** out of me.

One small step, right?

I wasn't as concerned over that as I was their ability to seize corporate assets and freeze bank accounts on suspicion.

I don't make very many calls to Iran.
 
I wasn't as concerned over that as I was their ability to seize corporate assets and freeze bank accounts on suspicion.

I don't make very many calls to Iran.

Once again, one small step lol.

It's not that I have any reason to hide my conversations. It's more the fact that I have no say in my own privacy.
 
I don't make very many calls to Iran.

They have been caught listening in on many journalists' "domestic" calls and emails.

However, now that Bush is gone, I believe this has ceased.
 
They have been caught listening in on many journalists' "domestic" calls and emails.

However, now that Bush is gone, I believe this has ceased.

Oh yes, how could I possibly forget that Bush stepping out of office a week ago brought about sweeping changes that turned America into an Obama blessed utopia. :doh
 
Oh yes, how could I possibly forget that Bush stepping out of office a week ago brought about sweeping changes that turned America into an Obama blessed utopia. :doh

You mean it didn't? WHY WASN'T I INFORMED?!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom