• 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!

What do you believe is the chief role of government?

What is the main role of government?

  • To uphold the constitution

    Votes: 30 56.6%
  • To keep America safe

    Votes: 4 7.5%
  • Other - please explain

    Votes: 19 35.8%

  • Total voters
    53
  • Poll closed .
Neither is the Constitution, unless you want to force us to obey, for all time, the hasty decisions of a small unrepresentative elite from the Eighteenth Century, when the world and the understanding of it were far different from what they are today.
But the Constitution IS a governing document. It is the written rules for the compact the states established between themselves. Are you suggesting that it is no longer relevant and that the states should abandon their union?
 
collectivist for the good of all people. "Ask not what your country can do for you ask what you can do for your country". the theme of the Constititution.



The constitution didn't ask what anyone could do for their country. It laid down the concepts for protection of the individual, and his liberties, from the government. It was about liberty, not governance (except in how it was to be limited), nor collectivism.
 
The framers certainly wanted a government to protect individual liberties but they thought those espousing weak central government were enemies to real freedom. they understood that a strong central government was needed to do the primary purpose of government, to protect freedom. They also knew a strong good government could morph into a strong despotic government so they tried to carefully create structure to make it harder for that to happen. But their goal was not weak federal government.
 
But the Constitution IS a governing document. It is the written rules for the compact the states established between themselves. Are you suggesting that it is no longer relevant and that the states should abandon their union?

Actually, the constitutions of the states would also be considered null and void, as the current people of those states did not form their own social compact either.
 
You are treating the Constitution exactly how Fundamentalists treat the Bible. No matter what the political bullies try to force us to accept as a substitute for an active and effective check by the people on their own government, the Constitutionalists' eternally binding obstructive document was merely a start-up plan to be superseded by legislation based on real-life consequences of this original but temporary legislation. It's as if whoever first built computers had been tied and bound by a start-up plan saying that they would only be used for secretarial work and had to submit any new applications to a Supreme Court tribunal or a long drawn out amendment process. Those who credit everything we the people have done by ourselves to this obsolete and unnecessary sacred text are leading us to a national collapse, because this 18th Century blueprint for oligarchy has always been a drag on our political maturity. Supreme things belong in heaven, not under the control of those who want to make themselves gods on earth.

the diffrence between the constitution and the bible in your argument is just that you can change how the constitution works by amending it where as the bible is iron clad. if you feel the constitution is out dated then update it by amending it not throwing it completely out :lamo
(if you feel the amendment process is to slow then support changing it)
 
I do think it's important that our government upholds the Constitution. I also think that government should see to it that every American is provided an attainable path to success, regardless of sex, race, disability, orientation, or class.
 
The constitution didn't ask what anyone could do for their country. It laid down the concepts for protection of the individual, and his liberties, from the government. It was about liberty, not governance (except in how it was to be limited), nor collectivism.

Well you are entitle do your opinion. but many constitutional scholars and lawyers disagree.
 
Well you are entitle do your opinion. but many constitutional scholars and lawyers disagree.

What evidence to you see in the founding documents, which implies that collectivism was a concept which the founders were concerned about? I hardly think that the federal government being given the responsibility of defense, or that the BOR is addressing collectivist concepts, but do indeed lay down what the rights of the individual are, in relation to the government.
 
Actually, the constitutions of the states would also be considered null and void, as the current people of those states did not form their own social compact either.

That's an interesting take. So because I didn't sign the constitution of my state it is null with respect to me?
 
I do think it's important that our government upholds the Constitution. I also think that government should see to it that every American is provided an attainable path to success, regardless of sex, race, disability, orientation, or class.
Your second statement appears to contradict your first.
 
To deal with issues that affect all of society, i.e. the commons.
 
Ideally - to serve the people.

In reality - to serve themselves.
 
That's an interesting take. So because I didn't sign the constitution of my state it is null with respect to me?

That is correct.

The justification our Revolutionary Fathers found in breaking away from the British Empire was that the Englishmen of the American colonies had formed a social compact with the government of Great Britain. When Great Britain abused it's power against the rights and liberties of the Englishmen of the American colonies, the Revolutionary Fathers had a casus belli for independence.

Thus, according to laws of natural rights, all people engage in a social compact with their government. In such a compact, people hand over a number of their rights and liberties to the government and in return the government provides any number of services to it's people, especially as a means to protect the rights and liberties their people still maintain.

For example, without government, if a person is wronged he may use deadly force on his own in recompense for that wrong. Under a system of government, people hand over that ability to use deadly force as recompense to the government so that the government may institute a system of courts to ensure fairness when someone is wronged.

However, the most radical thinkers who believe in a system of social compact believe that such a compact must be rewritten every so often. After all, how can one generation of people write a social compact and expect their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren to abide by it. That's like saying that I sign a contract to work for a company, but that my son and grandson must also abide by too.

Thomas Jefferson believed in this so much that he suggested that we have a new Constitution written every 19 years. He chose the number 19 years, essentially every time a new generation came about.

But what this also means is that our federal Constitution is something of an illegitimate social compact as well. After all, women, African-American slaves, and Native Americans had no say at all in it's writing even though the U.S. government demanded that such people abide by it's laws.
 
However, the most radical thinkers who believe in a system of social compact believe that such a compact must be rewritten every so often. After all, how can one generation of people write a social compact and expect their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren to abide by it. That's like saying that I sign a contract to work for a company, but that my son and grandson must also abide by too.
Interesting thoughts. I wonder what would happen if the people in my state of Pennsylvania decided to rewrite their social contract and if one area (say Pittsburgh) chose not to sign on the dotted line but chose to form their own separate contract. The idea of local self-rule appeals to my de-centralist sensibilities. Or what if one single household decided not to sign on. Sounds like anarchy, frankly, but it certainly would allow maximum choice for people to sign up with the contract that was in their best interest.

Interesting thoughts for a monday morning.
 
Interesting thoughts. I wonder what would happen if the people in my state of Pennsylvania decided to rewrite their social contract and if one area (say Pittsburgh) chose not to sign on the dotted line but chose to form their own separate contract. The idea of local self-rule appeals to my de-centralist sensibilities. Or what if one single household decided not to sign on. Sounds like anarchy, frankly, but it certainly would allow maximum choice for people to sign up with the contract that was in their best interest.

Interesting thoughts for a monday morning.

Yes, but it is important to keep in mind that there are some benefits to centralization if authority.

One is in regard to military defense. Militarized do better when there is a rigid hierarchy, even among various groups. This is why NATO has formalized the military ranks of its members so the enlisted of one country can serve under the officers of another country.

Also, it's why the Continental Congress agreed to form a unified Continental Army. I believe it was John Adams of Boston, Massachusetts, who espoused this. But he had to recommend a Virginian, George Washington, to be the commander-in-chief if it. It was do the Southern colonies would not fear a sake over by the North.

Also, one reason why the Hatfield/McCoy feud went on as bloody as it did was because if problems in extradition.

There are other benefits as well, such as mutualuzation of government debt, and standardization of infrastructure.

So the social compact is not necessarily an excuse for decentralization. After all, it is typically the federal government that protected civil rights and liberties of African-Americans and other minorities when state governments infringe upon them.

Rather, it points out the need to write a divide compact on a national scale.
 
Back
Top Bottom