• 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!

America's Laws

Who do you want to control the laws?

  • The People

    Votes: 17 56.7%
  • The President

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The Government

    Votes: 1 3.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 12 40.0%

  • Total voters
    30
  • Poll closed .

jr602az

Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
162
Reaction score
21
Location
Phoenix,Az USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Hello Everybody:)
Who do you want to control the laws & why?
 
Last edited:
The Constitution.
 
Other.. Old white guys.
 
Who do you want to control the laws & why?
Constitution 101
Congress, the representatives of the people, create the laws,
The President, the head of state elected by the states, executes them
The Court, appointed by the President and confirmed by the senate, interprets them.

The answer?
Alll three.
 
:shock: Splinter right-wing groups and vigilantes.
 
...Chuck Norris.
 
That would require a convention and a majority vote to happen...
While it's possible.. it's also not very likely.
Whch brings up the question:
If the Constitution is flawed as the basis of protection for our rights because it can be amended in such a way to allow the removal of said rights, what would those that make this argument suggest be placed in its stead?
 
Other - reality.




And if The Constitution told you to jump off a bridge (or to use government force to maintain a monopoly on regular delivery of civilian snail-mail), would you?

And remember that politicians can amend it at any time...

Well, since the Constitution doesn't tell me to do that your point is irrelevant.

The Constitution has its basis in natural law, which is what you are advocating, so I don't understand what the problem is. So long as we actually follow it our individual negative liberties will be assured.
 
It would be nice if the people were in power instead of the capitalist class that is currently ruling.
 
The Constitution. Not a Mob. Not a Despot. Not an Oligarchy.
 
The workers of the world united.

Who is a "worker" exactly? Are some people more "worker"-like than others? :confused:



That would require a convention and a majority vote to happen...

While it's possible.. it's also not very likely.

Only because it's easier to ignore the constitution rather than amend it. Politicians would vote to cover their butts and expand their power - every single time.

Oh, and here's a comic strip making fun of your position: :mrgreen:

 
The Constitution has its basis in natural law, which is what you are advocating, so I don't understand what the problem is. So long as we actually follow it our individual negative liberties will be assured.

Natural law doesn't need a "magical" piece of paper written in the 18th century and administered by a bunch of power-hungry bureaucrats.


And who should write that constitution?

Clearly it would have to be a god. Or at least a wizard of some sort...

Aw, what there heck, here's more AnCap comics:















 
Last edited:
(I hope our moderator overlords will forgive this...)








 
Last edited:
It's already been written.

By who? I know that Americans have a quasi-religious relationship to their constitution but it was not handed down by God - it was written by wealthy white men taking care of their own class interests.
 

The Founding Fathers.

I know that Americans have a quasi-religious relationship to their constitution but it was not handed down by God - it was written by wealthy white men taking care of their own class interests.

That they were wealthy white men does nothing to undermine the brilliance of the Constitution; unless, of course, you are suggesting that wealthy white men are incapable of forming a rational and morally just form of governance?

If you have any substantive criticisms of their political philosophy I'd be happy to hear them. Just remember, that the least of the Founders probably had more intelligence in their pinky toe than you or I do in our whole body...
 
The Founding Fathers.



That they were wealthy white men does nothing to undermine the brilliance of the Constitution; unless, of course, you are suggesting that wealthy white men are incapable of forming a rational and morally just form of governance?

If you have any substantive criticisms of their political philosophy I'd be happy to hear them. Just remember, that the least of the Founders probably had more intelligence in their pinky toe than you or I do in our whole body...

They were not capable of forming a rational and morally just form of government; slavery was allowed, women and black people were disenfranchised. The morally just solution to those injustices only came about following social struggles against the system set up by those godly founding fathers.

I don't blame them for setting up a government that does not live up to our modern standards of human rights. Although many were progressive political thinkers they too were children of their time and unable to cater to the more developed morality of later times.

Treating the founding fathers like a pantheon of political wisdom whose thoughts has the final words in all political discussions is a folly. Instead one should continue to build the house they laid the foundation to instead of standing looking at the foundation in awe.
 
Back
Top Bottom