• 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!

Are the U.S. constitution and its amendments sacrosanct? Yes or No?

Are the U.S. constitution and its amendments sacrosanct? Yes or No?

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 36.4%
  • No

    Votes: 14 63.6%

  • Total voters
    22
I am well aware of this .. however between the constitution and its amendments, certain rights were declared implicitly or not.

Really? Where do you find the implied rights of free speech or religion in the original Constitution? How about the right of assembly or to possess a gun or to prevent troops from using quarters during time times of peace? These are not implied in the original Constitution. The Authors of the Constitutional Convention voted down adding a Bill of Rights. They said that the States were to protect the rights of the people.
 
Rights exist because the people of a particular society say they do. Absent the people, the rights don't exist.

If you are saying that people are needed in order for them to think up rights, I agree.

It absolutely does mean that there are no other rights that have yet to be acknowledged, except in the sense that people haven't thought them up and agreed to them yet.

If you are saying that rights do not yet exist in the sense that they are not yet acknowledged by the law, I agree. However, I would add that as "rights" are thought up by people and different rights are sometimes seen differently across varying individuals, rights do exist in the minds of the people regardless of whether or not they have been acknowledged by the majority. I think it comes down to how one chooses to define rights.

Rights change over time and, as such, you are right that the Constitution and other founding documents should not be held up as the ultimate, unchanging standard. They need to change and grow with us, they do not need to hold us back.

Could not agree more! :)
 
If you are saying that rights do not yet exist in the sense that they are not yet acknowledged by the law, I agree. However, I would add that as "rights" are thought up by people and different rights are sometimes seen differently across varying individuals, rights do exist in the minds of the people regardless of whether or not they have been acknowledged by the majority. I think it comes down to how one chooses to define rights.

No, I'm saying that rights do not exist in any sense until humans think them up and enshrine them, either through the law or through social convention. Some people seem to think rights are magical, ethereal things that simply exist whether humans are there or not, and we simply have to discover and embrace them. That's ridiculous. Certainly, people can desire certain rights, that doesn't mean they actually have them until society determines that they do.
 
Really? Where do you find the implied rights of free speech or religion in the original Constitution? How about the right of assembly or to possess a gun or to prevent troops from using quarters during time times of peace? These are not implied in the original Constitution. The Authors of the Constitutional Convention voted down adding a Bill of Rights. They said that the States were to protect the rights of the people.

While you are correct that there are many ethical standpoints (rights, freedoms etc. .. I think people have been using the term "rights" liberally as referring what founding rules/regulations are ethically sound) that are not specifically represented in the constitution specifically. I would add that I am considering the Bill of Rights, the constitution, the amendments etc. as the general founding documents for our country, which many people hold sacrosanct. I believe that these founding documents are not sacrosanct. You know what I mean? Its the spirit of the matter, which it appears we clearly agree on.
 
Times change, and so should our Constitution. I find that Founding Fatherism is one of the sillier religions in our society; the dudes who wrote the Constitution were just some politicians. They had some good ideas, some awful ideas, and some ideas that may have been good at the time but simply didn't survive the test of time. It's strange that people can argue that their values were what made this country great, while at the same time lamenting that we don't follow their values.

Yes, times do change, but one fact of human nature is that people that have found or are given power ALWAYS seek to gain more power.

The constitution itself IS little more than a scrap of paper, the power is in the description of what it means to be sovereign.
- A slave cannot speak freely, a sovereign person can speak his mind.
- A slave cannot be armed or he might rebel, a sovereign individual has the right to defend himself with whatever weapons are available.
- a slave does not have the right to a fair trial, and can have their belongings searches without cause. A sovereign person can demand a warrant be presented in order to have their belongings searched.
- a slave has the condition of his health controlled by the master. A sovereign is responsible for his own health.
- A slave has no wealth, that belongs to the master. A sovereign has control over his own resources in the ways he sees fit.

Now, because in a complex society, we do need SOME level of government, but that government needs to be controlled because of the nature of giving man rule over sovereign men, that power causes those given that power to seek greater power, in virtually every case.

So, you have to be very careful over the powers given to government or the potential arrives where you can wind up with a dictator. Its happened many times through history, and that is why we must keep government as much within the bounds of the constitution, or the people could very well lose control of the government... (it could be argued that the government has already gone out of control, but that's another issue)

There are reasons why the founding fathers wanted a limited government... Though some of those founding fathers saw the constitution as a means to give the government ever expanding powers.
 
No, I'm saying that rights do not exist in any sense until humans think them up and enshrine them, either through the law or through social convention. Some people seem to think rights are magical, ethereal things that simply exist whether humans are there or not, and we simply have to discover and embrace them. That's ridiculous.

I think people have been using the term "rights" liberally .. I have come to the conclusion that when most people say rights they are referring to ethical truths. Ask any anthropologist, psychologist etc. and they will tell you that ethical truths can vary from person to person, state to state, country to country etc. Therefore they are subjective and need no law or majority to exist. I agree that rights exist because of the existence of humans, i.e. they can be conceived by the individual and society.

Certainly, people can desire certain rights, that doesn't mean they actually have them until society determines that they do.

Ethical beliefs or truths (ethics are subjective, not objective) exist regardless of whether or not a majority agrees with them; the majority agreeing on a particular ethic over another simply means that is more popular than another, not that it is more "right" that another ethic.
 
While you are correct that there are many ethical standpoints (rights, freedoms etc. .. I think people have been using the term "rights" liberally as referring what founding rules/regulations are ethically sound) that are not specifically represented in the constitution specifically. I would add that I am considering the Bill of Rights, the constitution, the amendments etc. as the general founding documents for our country, which many people hold sacrosanct. I believe that these founding documents are not sacrosanct. You know what I mean? Its the spirit of the matter, which it appears we clearly agree on.

We agree on? Hmmmm. How about a 5 question true/false quiz to see if we agree:

1. The appropriate and constitutional way to change the Constitution is to amend it according to the prerequisites of Article V.
2. The first clause of Article I, section 8 is a clause regarding taxation and does not add any other authority to Congress.
3. The last clause of Article I, section 8 adds no authority to Congress other than providing them with the power to implement the foregoing clauses.
4. The Constitution authorizes Congress to enact retirement insurance for the citizens of the United States.
5. The Constitution authorizes Congress to enact health care insurance plans for the elderly and the poor or for anyone else for that matter.

We shall see if we agree.
 
Not sure I understand the question.

Doesn't the Constitution provide a method for amending itself? So, doesn't that mean that it was intended to be amended at some point? If it is intended to be amended, does that make amending it part of the original intent?

Amending it, YES.... simply re-envisioning or re-interpreting it to meet the preferences of today's society, NO.
 
Definition of SACROSANCT

1: most sacred or holy : inviolable
2: treated as if holy : immune from criticism or violation <politically sacrosanct programs>

I don't believe that the Constitution was meant to be above criticism, but I do believe it was meant to be above violation. Perhaps, that is what the Authors meant when they made the Constitution the supreme law of the land. As far as changes go, yes, they provided for a method to amend the Constitution. They planned for an orderly change to the Constitution.

The question was not pertaining to what debaters thought the original intent of the writers of the constitution, amendments, bill of rights etc. (founding documents) was. Instead, it was questioning the degree to which each debater personally believes that the constitution is or is not sacrosanct and a valid source to base one's ethical argument on. The way your post reads, you are stating what you thought the intent of our founding fathers was, not what you actually believe should be true.
 
We agree on? Hmmmm. How about a 5 question true/false quiz to see if we agree:

1. The appropriate and constitutional way to change the Constitution is to amend it according to the prerequisites of Article V.

If by "appropriate" you mean "constitutional", I agree with the above and below items. However, if you are somehow proposing that some guidlines in the founding documents (including those that pertain to ways of making changes to said documents) are somehow absolute truths and/or sacrosanct and thus should not be subject to change .. we disagree.

2. The first clause of Article I, section 8 is a clause regarding taxation and does not add any other authority to Congress.
3. The last clause of Article I, section 8 adds no authority to Congress other than providing them with the power to implement the foregoing clauses.
4. The Constitution authorizes Congress to enact retirement insurance for the citizens of the United States.
5. The Constitution authorizes Congress to enact health care insurance plans for the elderly and the poor or for anyone else for that matter.

We shall see if we agree.

When I initially read your following statement:

I don't believe that the Constitution was meant to be above criticism

I may have erroneously misunderstood your position as I simply skimmed that particular post ... indeed the rest of that post seemed to be in disagreement with my position (see below):

I don't believe that the Constitution was meant to be above criticism, but I do believe it was meant to be above violation.

By this do you mean that changing the manner in which the founding documents are amended is immoral? If so then yes, we disagree. I believe all things made from humans are imperfect and thus should be subject to criticism and reform if need be.
 
The question was not pertaining to what debaters thought the original intent of the writers of the constitution, amendments, bill of rights etc. (founding documents) was. Instead, it was questioning the degree to which each debater personally believes that the constitution is or is not sacrosanct and a valid source to base one's ethical argument on. The way your post reads, you are stating what you thought the intent of our founding fathers was, not what you actually believe should be true.

Should be true? Whew! Truth is truth. It is true that the Constitution was not meant to be a document that could not be criticized. So, from that standpoint, the truth is that the Constitution is not sacrosanct. There is a way to change the Constitution and that way could be changed with an amendment, so, in truth, that part is not sacrosanct, but, as long as it is the method to change the Constitution, it is the only constitutional method for altering the Constitution. What is sacrosanct is that the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land and that unless it is amended, it remains the supreme law of the land. What is also sacrosanct, unless amended to read differently, is that the Constitution provides for a limited Federal Government.

No offense, but I am not going to dance on the head of a pin over this subject. The meaning of the Constitution is clear to anyone who has basic knowledge of our Founding. This rest is mere rhetoric.
 
If by "appropriate" you mean "constitutional", I agree with the above and below items. However, if you are somehow proposing that some guidlines in the founding documents (including those that pertain to ways of making changes to said documents) are somehow absolute truths and/or sacrosanct and thus should not be subject to change .. we disagree.



When I initially read your following statement:



I may have erroneously misunderstood your position as I simply skimmed that particular post ... indeed the rest of that post seemed to be in disagreement with my position (see below):



By this do you mean that changing the manner in which the founding documents are amended is immoral? If so then yes, we disagree. I believe all things made from humans are imperfect and thus should be subject to criticism and reform if need be.

Could you just answer true or false to the five questions?
 
Should be true? Whew! Truth is truth. It is true that the Constitution was not meant to be a document that could not be criticized. So, from that standpoint, the truth is that the Constitution is not sacrosanct. There is a way to change the Constitution and that way could be changed with an amendment, so, in truth, that part is not sacrosanct, but, as long as it is the method to change the Constitution, it is the only constitutional method for altering the Constitution. What is sacrosanct is that the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land and that unless it is amended, it remains the supreme law of the land. What is also sacrosanct, unless amended to read differently, is that the Constitution provides for a limited Federal Government.

No offense, but I am not going to dance on the head of a pin over this subject. The meaning of the Constitution is clear to anyone who has basic knowledge of our Founding. This rest is mere rhetoric.

So you do believe that, by definition, our founding documents should be edited when necessary.

I still am not clear as to a whether or not you believe said documents are valid sources to base one's ethical argument on ... are they?
 
Could you just answer true or false to the five questions?

This is not necessary as the scope of this debate is regarding specific principles, i.e. the degree to which each debater personally believes that the constitution is or is not sacrosanct and is or is not a valid source to base one's ethical argument on; its scope was not intended to be on debating specific content of our founding documents (although I would love to go over the specifics of our founding documents with at at some later time). Its simple, either you believe our founding documents are sacrosanct and are a valid source on which to base one's ethical argument, or not.
 
Last edited:
So you do believe that, by definition, our founding documents should be edited when necessary.

I still am not clear as to a whether or not you believe said documents are valid sources to base one's ethical argument on ... are they?

I have provided my answer on that. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and holds sway over all other law. The Constitution can be changed, but can only be changed by amendment. That's my answer.
 
This is not necessary as the scope of this debate is regarding specific principles, i.e. the degree to which each debater personally believes that the constitution is or is not sacrosanct and is or is not a valid source to base one's ethical argument on; its scope was not intended to be on debating specific content of our founding documents (although I would love to go over the specifics of our founding documents with at at some later time). Its simple, either you believe our founding documents are sacrosanct and are a valid source on which to base one's ethical argument, or not.

Well, you said something about agreement so I thought it would be interesting to see if that actually existed. I'm guessing it doesn't. Carry on!
 
I have provided my answer on that. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and holds sway over all other law. The Constitution can be changed, but can only be changed by amendment. That's my answer.

So ... are the following answers correct for you? (just want to make sure I am hearing you properly):

Do you believe our founding documents are sacrosanct? Your answer is: Yes

Do you believe our founding documents are valid sources on which to base one's ethical argument? Your answer is: Yes

Do I have that right?

If so we are in disagreement.
 
So ... are the following answers correct for you? (just want to make sure I am hearing you properly):

Do you believe our founding documents are sacrosanct? Your answer is: Yes

Do you believe our founding documents are valid sources on which to base one's ethical argument? Your answer is: Yes

Do I have that right?

If so we are in disagreement.

I am not going to answer this for a third time and I will not dance on the head of a pin. Have a nice day!
 
I think people have been using the term "rights" liberally .. I have come to the conclusion that when most people say rights they are referring to ethical truths. Ask any anthropologist, psychologist etc. and they will tell you that ethical truths can vary from person to person, state to state, country to country etc. Therefore they are subjective and need no law or majority to exist. I agree that rights exist because of the existence of humans, i.e. they can be conceived by the individual and society.

"Ethical truths" are no different from opinions. Everyone has them, most of them are stupid. While people are certainly welcome to have whatever opinions they want, that doesn't give their opinions any weight. The child molester can think their "ethical truth" gives them the right to molest children. Society says otherwise.

Ethical beliefs or truths (ethics are subjective, not objective) exist regardless of whether or not a majority agrees with them; the majority agreeing on a particular ethic over another simply means that is more popular than another, not that it is more "right" that another ethic.

Since they're just opinions, sure they exist. Doesn't make them necessarily worthwhile though.
 
"Ethical truths" are no different from opinions.

Ah .. bow you are catching on .. however, most people would consider their ethical truths to be at least strong opinions

Everyone has them, most of them are stupid.

While stupid may be an oversimplified argument with little substance .. it is still your opinion and thus you have an ethical truth/value/worldview that says "most peoples opinions are stupid"

However, I am not sure what your point was beyond that

While people are certainly welcome to have whatever opinions they want, that doesn't give their opinions any weight.

Unless of course we are talking about opinions held in a democracy where the majority could have "stupid" opinion's and thus have an effect on laws/regulation/policies/etc.

The child molester can think their "ethical truth" gives them the right to molest children. Society says otherwise.

You couldn't be more correct my friend... currently society says otherwise (and according to bio-psychological theories it is unlikely that society would ever think that molesting children is "O.K.")

Since they're just opinions, sure they exist. Doesn't make them necessarily worthwhile though.

Ah .. we have a meeting of the minds .. YAY! :)
 
Last edited:
My main thoughts are that the founding documents need to be more accessible to being changed to fit the needs of an ever advancing society, which often advances along with technology.

I include all of the parts of theses documents from the constitution (yes even those delineating how change is supposed to come about .. ooohh, I said it, how dare I) its amendments and the bill of rights to laws/precedents themselves. Our whole government and legal system needs a reworking. As of now, things are too slow and expensive for our quickly changing environment.
 
My main thoughts are that the founding documents need to be more accessible to being changed to fit the needs of an ever advancing society, which often advances along with technology.

I include all of the parts of theses documents from the constitution (yes even those delineating how change is supposed to come about .. ooohh, I said it, how dare I) its amendments and the bill of rights to laws/precedents themselves. Our whole government and legal system needs a reworking. As of now, things are too slow and expensive for our quickly changing environment.
To change to quickly could have a very negative effect, as this has been proven time after time in world history. The amendment process I think was meant to be slow, but the expensive part is up for debate.
 
My main thoughts are that the founding documents need to be more accessible to being changed to fit the needs of an ever advancing society, which often advances along with technology.

I include all of the parts of theses documents from the constitution (yes even those delineating how change is supposed to come about .. ooohh, I said it, how dare I) its amendments and the bill of rights to laws/precedents themselves. Our whole government and legal system needs a reworking. As of now, things are too slow and expensive for our quickly changing environment.

No thanks. I like the Constitution and the amendment process as it is. I wish people would not pervert it for their own ends. I can think of about three or four amendments that I would like to see, but I doubt you would like any of them and none would change how amendments would be made.
 
To change to quickly could have a very negative effect, as this has been proven time after time in world history. The amendment process I think was meant to be slow, but the expensive part is up for debate.

Ah .. satisfied with how our government is running now aye?

If you haven't noticed .. things aren't getting done .. usually a sign that the system is outdated. One cannot base decisions regarding what is too fast on history as we are in a day and age that is like no other and is much much faster in pace. I knew there'd be naysayers .. its almost like people think by faster I mean one day or something .. wow .. how doubting Thomas of you.
 
No thanks. I like the Constitution and the amendment process as it is. I wish people would not pervert it for their own ends. I can think of about three or four amendments that I would like to see, but I doubt you would like any of them and none would change how amendments would be made.

As I knew you would .. you are after all a conservative .. this means you shy away from progressive change ... you know taking "conservative" steps .. such resistance to change is maladaptive as change is the only thing that is certain in this life
 
Back
Top Bottom