• 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!

Is the Constitution relevant?

Is the Constitution relevant?

  • Yes. Absolutely. All the time.

    Votes: 21 63.6%

  • For the most lart.

    Votes: 1 3.0%

  • Depends on who's on the Supreme Court.

    Votes: 3 9.1%

  • No, not usually, anymore. It keeps getting whittled away.

    Votes: 3 9.1%

  • Phfft! We're only kidding ourselves. It's been irrelevant for at least 75 years.

    Votes: 5 15.2%
  • Total voters
    33
Relevant to me? Absolutely!

To the supreme court? It seems to depend on the make-up of the court. I wish it were relevant to everyone.
 
Absolutely it's relevant. It is to me. But relevant to the Supreme court? Maybe not so much
 
lizzie said:
Relevant to me? Absolutely!

To the supreme court? It seems to depend on the make-up of the court. I wish it were relevant to everyone.
Click to expand...

Has little to do with the make up of the Court. When it supports their political bent, a justice uses it; when it doesn't they don't. All of them are that way whether they are liberal, conservative or moderate. They are all relativists.
 
lizzie said:
Relevant to me? Absolutely!

To the supreme court? It seems to depend on the make-up of the court. I wish it were relevant to everyone.
Click to expand...

Sadly politics seems to have do more with the Supreme Court no matter who the Justice than anything else. The Justices are just as guilty of pandering to politics than anyone else.
 
It's relevant but the question is deeply problematic. The constitution is "interpreted" differently by different people. As long as that's the case, which it always has been, contrary to what anybody says the constitution is and will always be largely merely a "strong suggestion". One can always choose to interpret the constitution a different way year by year if they so choose.
 
radcen said:
Is the Constitution relevant?

ETA: "lart" should be "part"... For the most part.
Click to expand...

All it is now is window dressing, our political appointees seem think its relevant only when its convenient which hardly ever for most of them and never for some.

I wish that wasn't the case, but for the most part the constitution has given lip service for over the last hundred years. I would prefer if people took it seriously unfortunately most don't see it my way.
 
It is greatly weakened. For example, it calls for speedy trials, the right to a jury and the right to bond.

Speedy trial? You can be in jail 2 years convicted of nothing awaiting your speedy trial - and even if found not guilty you probably have lost everything nor can every get those 2 years back - so the sentence for being not guilty was only years imprisonment.

Right to bond? Bond for those who can afford it has become the not-guilty fine you pay anyway for the bond free and in increasing numbers of cases bond is denied.

Right to a jury? Not for protective orders. Not if the government wants to take your children. Not for custody in divorce cases.

When the Bill of Rights is impractical to government they ignore it or find ways to declare it doesn't apply.
 
It's relevant to me, and it should be relevant to everyone. Sadly, I don't think it's always relevant to the SCOTUS. I think they just like to hear themselves talk.
 
It is relevant only as source material. It has slowly been killed off and should be replaced with a new document that is structured to better secure the "rights" that the original claimed to protect. The current system has failed and needs replaced with a better one. Like every Democracy before the US, this democracy has fallen due to selfish greed, ignorance and just plain stupidity. Time for something new.
 
Should it be? Yes. Realty? It has not been for much longer than 75 years now.
 
A nation's constitution should absolutely be relevant when it comes to making Supreme Court decisions. As far as policy making, I think people are a little too attached to a constitution as a word for word document that cannot be changed under any circumstances. People rely too much on the constitution as a reason not to do something without understanding that constitutions can change and should change over time to fit the needs of different time periods. To claim that the United States of 2014 has the same needs as the United States of 1789 is naïve. While overarching themes such as the Bill of Rights should always remain in the Constitution, there are simply some aspects of the Constitution that are not relevant or even make sense in the 21st century, including the electoral college and the senate, to name a few.

But at the same time, while the U.S. fetishizes over the constitution the way Britain fetishizes over the monarchy, the Supreme Court is largely ignoring it. Since the OP, at least I think, is referring to how relevant the constitution is, and not how relevant it should be, I select option four.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
A nation's constitution should absolutely be relevant when it comes to making Supreme Court decisions. As far as policy making, I think people are a little too attached to a constitution as a word for word document that cannot be changed under any circumstances. People rely too much on the constitution as a reason not to do something without understanding that constitutions can change and should change over time to fit the needs of different time periods. To claim that the United States of 2014 has the same needs as the United States of 1789 is naïve. While overarching themes such as the Bill of Rights should always remain in the Constitution, there are simply some aspects of the Constitution that are not relevant or even make sense in the 21st century, including the electoral college and the senate, to name a few.

But at the same time, while the U.S. fetishizes over the constitution the way Britain fetishizes over the monarchy, the Supreme Court is largely ignoring it. Since the OP, at least I think, is referring to how relevant the constitution is, and not how relevant it should be, I select option four.
Click to expand...
You presume correctly.

Good answer, btw.
 
To me, it is relevant. Seems politicians and supporters of both parties don't feel the same way unless it benefits what they support. Mainstreams use the constitution to champion their own causes but seem to disregard it when it comes to something they do not agree with.
 
tres borrachos said:
It's relevant to me, and it should be relevant to everyone. Sadly, I don't think it's always relevant to the SCOTUS. I think they just like to hear themselves talk.
Click to expand...

Strangely, I would absolutely love for a libertarian SCOTUS, but the thought of a libertarian president or something turns me off.

I think when it comes to things like civil/social rights the libertarians happen to be 100% spot on every time.
 
I don't like the choices, I guess I would say, for the most part it is relevant. Though not as fundamental scripture with rules written in stone like constitutionalists believe.

It's a philosophical concept written on a piece of paper with sentimental value. We still have the ideals set forth from the Constitution deeply ingrained in our society. Those values are the very cornerstone of the majority of our justice system. Anybody who doesn't see that has never lived in another country or has never been born into a minority group. Half of the stuff that takes place in our society today could not happen in other countries in the same way. No other country IN THE WORLD, can say that they have matured as fast as the United States has on some very, very controversial issues. To start at nothing and then become a world power in less than 300 years, is absolutely amazing. It's only matched by Ancient Rome.
 
Kal'Stang said:
It's sad that this question is even being asked.
Click to expand...

But should be asked given where we are today with so many Constitutional concerns and government actions / activity.
 
A document made by an undiverse group of white male 17th century creationists relevant to 21st century multicultural society?

Nope.
 
ModerateGOP said:
I don't like the choices, I guess I would say, for the most part it is relevant. Though not as fundamental scripture with rules written in stone like constitutionalists believe.

It's a philosophical concept written on a piece of paper with sentimental value. We still have the ideals set forth from the Constitution deeply ingrained in our society. Those values are the very cornerstone of the majority of our justice system. Anybody who doesn't see that has never lived in another country or has never been born into a minority group. Half of the stuff that takes place in our society today could not happen in other countries in the same way. No other country IN THE WORLD, can say that they have matured as fast as the United States has on some very, very controversial issues. To start at nothing and then become a world power in less than 300 years, is absolutely amazing. It's only matched by Ancient Rome.
Click to expand...

One of the most disgusting things I've ever read about the Constitution, and unmitigated bull****. You killed everything you said after.

EDIT: I'm going back off a bit, but that sentence is still bull****......sentimental really. People died to get there.
 
Last edited:
AtlantaAdonis said:
A document made by an undiverse group of white male 17th century creationists relevant to 21st century multicultural society?

Nope.
Click to expand...

You seem confused.



Since its foundation.
 
American said:
One of the most disgusting things I've ever read about the Constitution, and unmitigated bull****. You killed everything you said after.

EDIT: I'm going back off a bit, but that sentence is still bull****......sentimental really. People died to get there.
Click to expand...

People constantly die for freedom or other ideals that they believe in. I think it's funny when strict conservatives yell at others for saying that the Constitution is sentimental but then turn around and say that the Constitution is dead and/or ruined... Isn't that the very definition of sentimental?

Still, you ignored my other point about how the ideals in the constitution is the cornerstone of our justice system.
 
Last edited:
ModerateGOP said:
People constantly die for freedom or other ideals that they believe in. I think it's funny when strict conservatives yell at others for saying that the Constitution is sentimental but then turn around and say that the Constitution is dead and/or ruined... Isn't that the very definition of sentimental?

Still, you ignored my other point about how the ideals in the constitution is the cornerstone of our justice system.
Click to expand...
It has always been my belief that the Constitution was intended from the very beginning to be both the cornerstone of our legal system AND a literal legal document. I have never considered it to be... again, as intended... a mere set of guidelines and suggestions.

I also feel that it has evolved to be even less than guidelines and suggestions. Now, it's only trotted out when convenient.

Hell, it has long been my observation and opinion that governments from local to federal knowingly and purposely enact unconstitutional laws all the time. They know that it is cost-prohibitive for the average person to challenge new laws, so the chance of their new law being overturned is pretty nil. And, even if it is challenged, the court system is pretty much on their side and will probably approve it anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom