• 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!

Conservatives Are Not Guardians of the Constitution

Bassman said:
The ONLY rights we have are those that are God given unalienable rights spelled out in both the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. No such thing as a "right" to health care, abortion, marriage, etc.
Click to expand...

So it would be constitutional if they made a law tomorrow saying christians, whites and conservatives are no longer allowed to marry or own property? It's not listed explicitly therefore it's fair game, right? You have many rights that are not explicitly mentioned in the constitution but fall under the umbrella of explicitly defined rights.
 
celticwar17 said:
Conservatives are more guardians of the Constitution than liberals are though
Click to expand...

An assertion utterly lacking in credible evidence.
The right wing in America is much more intellectually diverse than the left wing part of America. And you can see that in many distribution graphs, there is much more varience in opinions and positions amongst those on the republican side than the democrat side.
Click to expand...

A assertion utterly lacking in credible evidence.

I'm beginning to notice a trend here.
 
Fletch said:
Are you arguing that it is unconstitutional to have laws against prostitution, incest, bestiality, bigamy or adultery?
Click to expand...

You keep proving again and again that you're not a libertarian. Real libertarians argue that all these laws are unnecessary.



I actually, agree with libertarians on many issues. Milton Friedman is right about a lot of things.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
You keep proving again and again that you're not a libertarian. Real libertarians argue that all these laws are unnecessary.
Click to expand...

I didn't make an argument. I asked a question.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Sure there is. We have many rights, some of them social. If tomorrow they made a law that christians, conservatives, whites, or whatever category couldn't get married, own property, or vote, would you accept it as constitutional? You have many rights that are not explicitly mentioned in the constitution but fall under the umbrella of explicitly defined rights.
Click to expand...

Its not really a battle between social and non social rights. The battle is between positive and negative rights.
 
celticwar17 said:
Conservatives are more guardians of the Constitution than liberals are though... with some obvious hypocrites like in your example. "Constituionalists" are a thing within the republican /right wing side... and I don't find any of that in left wing politics. But, I don't think it's fair for you to pick random social conservatives and blend them in with all right wing constituionalists.

The right wing in America is much more intellectually diverse than the left wing part of America. And you can see that in many distribution graphs, there is much more varience in opinions and positions amongst those on the republican side than the democrat side.
Click to expand...

They say they're "Constitutionalists" but when you really press them, they're amazed that there's more to the Constitution than the 2nd and 10th Amendments...
 
Fletch said:
I didn't make an argument. I asked a question.
Click to expand...

Well, I've long argued against drug laws, prostitution laws etc. because they do more harm than good. And surely we don't need a law telling people not to have sex with animals. And adultery laws are unenforceable and extremely intrusive. I also think it's wrong that Muslims and Mormons can't marry as many wives as they want according to their religion. How is that real freedom of religion?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
And yet conservatives are more than willing to reintrepret things to fit their own subjective views. It happens on both sides. Conservatives have not been the champions of social rights, that has been largely the left's domain.
Click to expand...

If you define the left and right as Racists=right Non-racists=left. Changing much of anything is not typically in the conservative domain... it isn't their role in society.

And I don't agree with your claim, Conservative in my experience are not as willing to change things to fit their own subjective views... do they sometimes? yes, of course... but fundamentally conservatives do not like to change things.

just because you can see "conservatives" wanted to change things you don't like, doesn't make them equals to the left in this regard.

I am also assuming you think this is necessarily a bad thing. Left wing people want to change things, that can be a good thing and it can be a bad thing. When it comes to the constitution, it is fundamentally a document that is very hard to change... and should stay that way. It is fundamentally a "conservative" document and is meant to be. Now, when there are multiple back door ways of changing the Constitution, it stops having it's original purpose.
 
Last edited:
rocket88 said:
They say they're "Constitutionalists" but when you really press them, they're amazed that there's more to the Constitution than the 2nd and 10th Amendments...
Click to expand...

I can't speak for every idiot you come across... but I guess they are useful for painting the picture you want to paint to justify your beliefs.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
Well, I've long argued against drug laws, prostitution laws etc. because they do more harm than good. And surely we don't need a law telling people not to have sex with animals. And adultery laws are unenforceable and extremely intrusive. I also think it's wrong that Muslims and Mormons can't marry as many wives as they want according to their religion. How is that real freedom of religion?
Click to expand...

I agree, but states do have laws against those sorts of things--including incest and prostitution. If you read his entire opinion, he was arguing that states have had and have always had the power to criminalize certain forms of sexual behavior. Should they? Of course not, but I read the opinion as Scalia wanting to leave the decision up to the people, not the courts.
 
celticwar17 said:
I can't speak for every idiot you come across... but I guess they are useful for painting the picture you want to paint to justify your beliefs.
Click to expand...

Which other Amendments do they like. They're not big on the 1st or 14th...many are not into the 17th. The 5th depends on who is using it.
 
celticwar17 said:
I am also assuming you think this is necessarily a bad thing. Left wing people want to change things, that can be a good thing and it can be a bad thing. When it comes to the constitution, it is fundamentally a document that is very hard to change... and should stay that way. It is fundamentally a "conservative" document and is meant to be.
Click to expand...

I find the idea of an "originalist" interpretation of the constitution to be vague to the point of being meaningless.

Consider the 2nd Amendment. Should I be able to buy a shoulder mounted rocket launcher? What is an "originalist" interpretation given that this technology didn't exist when the constitution was written?
 
rocket88 said:
Which other Amendments do they like. They're not big on the 1st or 14th...many are not into the 17th. The 5th depends on who is using it.
Click to expand...
I think they probably "like" the ones they feel are the most threatened/have the most political pressure over....logically I would think that would be the case.
 
celticwar17 said:
I think they probably "like" the ones they feel are the most threatened/have the most political pressure over....logically I would think that would be the case.
Click to expand...

Unless they're the ones doing the pressuring. Which Amendments do you approve of? Personally, i'm a big fan of the 21st.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
I find the idea of an "originalist" interpretation of the constitution to be vague to the point of being meaningless.

Consider the 2nd Amendment. Should I be able to buy a shoulder mounted rocket launcher? What is an "originalist" interpretation given that this technology didn't exist when the constitution was written?
Click to expand...

What I like about it... I've done this research before... The term "arms" meant whatever a military infantry could carry on their person. If you are concerned about rocket launchers... I would propose an amendment.... THAT is the proper way to do it. I don't think you would get much disagreement on rocket launchers... and then you would actually have language in the constitution that would prevent such a thing, instead of unconstitutional laws that are constantly changing.You could even have a federal court suspend all rocket launcher sales until the amendment process was complete (pass or fail)

If you do not like a consequence of the constitution how it is.... MAKE AN AMENDMENT.... that's all i'm asking for... do it the proper way. RESPECT the constitution.
 
rocket88 said:
Unless they're the ones doing the pressuring. Which Amendments do you approve of? Personally, i'm a big fan of the 21st.
Click to expand...

I think people are allowed to have a certain opinion on an amendment.... but what the difference is is to respect the amendment as law of the land, until you can make an amendment to repeal it.

I "approve" of all amendments except the 16th... I would change that one if I could.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Odd thing to cite, since that doesn't support of demonstrate your claims, esp not "Conservatives are more guardians of the Constitution than liberals are though".
Click to expand...

It requires a few brain cells... but if you see the graphs of ideological opinions, the republican one is wider and shorter... while the democrat one is shorter and higher... it shows that political opinions amongst republicans vary more than opinions amongst democrats.

If it really doesn't fit your fancy I can dig for more, I am quite confident in my assertion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom