• 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 .
Regicollis said:
They were not capable of forming a rational and morally just form of government; slavery was allowed, women and black people were disenfranchised.
Click to expand...

Reeaaaally. Show in the Constitution where black people and women were disenfranchised. Also show where slavery is enshrined.

My guess? You've never read it.
 
Alex Libman said:
Who is a "worker" exactly? Are some people more "worker"-like than others? :confused:
Click to expand...

I don't know what gave that impression. A "worker" in my book is anyone who is outside the ruling class of gangsters, gamblers and thief's.
 
Joe Castro said:
I don't know what gave that impression. A "worker" in my book is anyone who is outside the ruling class of gangsters, gamblers and thief's.
Click to expand...

So everyone who doesn't get money and other privileges from the government is a "worker"? I guess that automatically disqualifies anyone who's ever joined a labor union. :lol:


Joe Castro said:
"If you tremble indignation at every injustice then you are a comrade of mine" Che [signature]
Click to expand...

How convenient, I'd get to slit his throat in defense against the great injustice that he represents, and be his "comrade" at the same time... ;)
 
Last edited:
Alex Libman said:
So everyone who doesn't get money and other privileges from the government is a "worker"? I guess that automatically disqualifies anyone who's ever joined a labor union. :lol:
Click to expand...
His answer to your question boils down to "yes".
 
Alex Libman said:
So everyone who doesn't get money and other privileges from the government is a "worker"? I guess that automatically disqualifies anyone who's ever joined a labor union. :lol:
Click to expand...

Nope, that is nothing at all like I said. Government does not equal ruling class, rather it is a tiny section of it. It would be like saying elephant equals mammal. Even if it did equal ruling class, which it doesn't, your argument would still fall apart because it is illogical. You say that anyone who doesnt get privileges from the government is a worker and that Labor unions do get privileges, hence they are not workers. It's what is known as denying the antecedent, one of the most basic reasoning errors.
 
Last edited:
No, I was making fun of your self-contradicting statement above, which clearly flew miles above your head...

But please do enlighten us as to a clear definition of who is and isn't a "worker", which you claim in post #8 entitled one to share in a collective "divine right" to make and enforce unnatural laws.
 
Alex Libman said:
No, I was making fun of your self-contradicting statement above, which clearly flew miles above your head...

But please do enlighten us as to a clear definition of who is and isn't a "worker", which you claim in post #8 entitled one to share in a collective "divine right" to make and enforce unnatural laws.
Click to expand...

Seems like convenient backtracking. Which contradiction would that be? Elaborate.
 
Last edited:
Regicollis said:
They were not capable of forming a rational and morally just form of government; slavery was allowed, women and black people were disenfranchised.
Click to expand...

The Constitution does not permit slavery, nor does it serve to disenfranchise women or blacks. That such things actually occurred was merely a symptom of the time in which they lived, and given the plethora of issues they were faced with the liberation of women and blacks was not something they were prepared - or even capable - of addressing.

You might as well expect the King of England to have abdicated his throne in the name of Democracy if you're going to hold their lifestyles to modern scrutiny.

The morally just solution to those injustices only came about following social struggles against the system set up by those godly founding fathers.
Click to expand...

I never suggested they were godly. Just really, really smart.

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.
Click to expand...

This is one problem I have with liberal thinking. They arrive at destinations and never realize it because they're so insistent upon "moving forward", even if they don't know where they're going. The Founders handed us a near-perfect form of governance; we just need to implement it. In your search for something "better" you'll just end up going in circles.
 
Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

The people are ultimately responsible for who they vote into office and for allowing those representatives to stay in office if they make bad decisions, therefore it's ultimately the people who carry the whole show.

Too bad most people have abrogated their responsibility.
 
Ethereal said:
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...
Click to expand...

The Constitution was a product of it's time, nothing more. It wasn't perfect by any means, if it was there would never have been a need to amend it as has been done many times, nor would there be a need for a Supreme Court to interpret it.

I find it absurd how many people hold up this 200+ year old piece of paper as the end-all-be-all document for all time. The founding fathers, no matter how wise they may have been at the time, were just men with human foibles and human shortcomings. They were unable to see what the future might hold and their document, while it has seen this nation through 200 years, isn't going to be applicable in all situations. Funny, I don't see anything in the Constitution that is useful for setting speed limits, handing out driver's licenses or determining who gets to fly an airplane, do you?

So much for the Constitution being perfect.
 
The rightful heirs of Emperor Norton I.
 
Cephus said:
The Constitution was a product of it's time, nothing more. It wasn't perfect by any means...
Click to expand...

Never said it was perfect.

...if it was there would never have been a need to amend it as has been done many times, nor would there be a need for a Supreme Court to interpret it.
Click to expand...

Most of the Amendments in the Constitution were totally unnecessary.

I find it absurd how many people hold up this 200+ year old piece of paper as the end-all-be-all document for all time.
Click to expand...

I find it absurd how you misrepresent my argument.

The founding fathers, no matter how wise they may have been at the time, were just men with human foibles and human shortcomings. They were unable to see what the future might hold and their document, while it has seen this nation through 200 years, isn't going to be applicable in all situations.
Click to expand...

I doubt you could think of many situations in which it wasn't applicable. Go ahead, try me...

Funny, I don't see anything in the Constitution that is useful for setting speed limits, handing out driver's licenses or determining who gets to fly an airplane, do you?
Click to expand...

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

...

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So much for the Constitution being perfect.
Click to expand...

So much for you actually addressing what I said.
 
Alex Libman said:
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...
Click to expand...

The constitution has nothing in it that would reguire you to jump off a bridge... nor is there anything in it about snail mail, other than the Fed's responcibility to maintain post roads.

Politicians can't amend the constitution without a 2/3's vote, then it goes to the states and has to have a 3/4's majority vote to pass an amendment... learn a bit about your country here: Full Text of the Constitution of the United States | Freedom Documents
 
Ethereal said:
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...
Click to expand...

And probably one hell of a lot better education than 99.9% of the people now in government.
 
Last edited:
Alex Libman said:
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?
Click to expand...

Maybe if it said to in really nice prose.

Alex Libman said:
And remember that politicians can amend it at any time...
Click to expand...

Are you referring to the necessary balance (and inherent tension) between the power of the People to choose their representatives and the influence of such representatives in changing our laws?

Well, personally I support that balance of power. We should not be governed by mob rule or simple majority vote. We should not be subject to to the whims of 536 people in Washington D.C. We are best protected, in my opinion, when the two are chained together.
 
Cephus said:
The Constitution was a product of it's time, nothing more. It wasn't perfect by any means, if it was there would never have been a need to amend it as has been done many times, nor would there be a need for a Supreme Court to interpret it.

I find it absurd how many people hold up this 200+ year old piece of paper as the end-all-be-all document for all time. The founding fathers, no matter how wise they may have been at the time, were just men with human foibles and human shortcomings. They were unable to see what the future might hold and their document, while it has seen this nation through 200 years, isn't going to be applicable in all situations. Funny, I don't see anything in the Constitution that is useful for setting speed limits, handing out driver's licenses or determining who gets to fly an airplane, do you?

So much for the Constitution being perfect.
Click to expand...

You are aware that they did include the amendment process just for this reason?
 
Crunch said:
You are aware that they did include the amendment process just for this reason?
Click to expand...

Yes, which means that even the founding fathers didn't intend for the Constitution to be the foundation of all of America's laws.

So much for this thread.
 
Cephus said:
Yes, which means that even the founding fathers didn't intend for the Constitution to be the foundation of all of America's laws.

So much for this thread.
Click to expand...

How does that follow?
 
Originally Posted by Cephus
Yes, which means that even the founding fathers didn't intend for the Constitution to be the foundation of all of America's laws.

So much for this thread.
Click to expand...

Harshaw said:
How does that follow?
Click to expand...

It doesn't follow.... Cephus thinks that since the constitution has been amended 27 times it isn't really the law of the Land?

At least that is what I got from his/her post. :shock:
 
What's more, he says that the founders didn't intend it to be. Even though it says right there in Article VI:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Click to expand...
 
Crunch said:
It doesn't follow.... Cephus thinks that since the constitution has been amended 27 times it isn't really the law of the Land?

At least that is what I got from his/her post. :shock:
Click to expand...

It's certainly not the ultimate authority on everything that some people purport that it is.
 
Cephus said:
It's certainly not the ultimate authority on everything that some people purport that it is.
Click to expand...

In that regard you are correct.... it says nothing about a unified field theory nor does it address what is the best way to plunge your toilet.

However, in the vein of this thread ("America's Laws") it is the ultimate authority as to the Laws of this nation as long as it is adhered to and not perverted by the Legislative, Judicial, or Executive branches of our Government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom