• 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!

Do you care if the Constitution is violated?

Do you care?


  • Total voters
    55
The Constitution is a pretty good group of ideas...but it is FAR from ideal and it needs work.

And those Constitutional fanatics who think it is a perfect document...tell someone else as I do not care how great you think it is.

In fact, I don't even begin to care.

It is a solid but highly flawed 'paper' and needs lots of work.

Ok, I am curious. What are these flaws and what do you think should be changed?
 
Perfect example of why conservatism is on decline. Conservatism acts as an "elite Club" for certain people of society yet excludes the rest of us then gets out the constitution to try and argue that we should all be good little slaves and proceed to read it to us as if it was written solely to promote their social club that none of us are ever going to be invited into.

Such is why conservatism is in steep decline. Most people don't give a damn about your uppity little social club of country club Esq types and their elitism.

OR your social conservative club of elitism either.


Most Americans don't belong to either of those groups and don't want individuals from those groups dictating Law.
 
Whose interpretation of the constitution? Yours? Mine? Some bloggers? What about a blowhard on TV? I don't care if the government violates any laymen's interpretation of the constitution. I do care if the government violates the federal court system's interpretation of the constitution as that is the only one that really matters.

No, that is not the only one that matters. In our government, it is the people who have the last word on what the Constitution means. President Lincoln spoke about that in the context of Dred Scott v. Sandford, which he declined to enforce. The judiciary was designed to be by far the weakest of the three branches, and the notion that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution is the Court's own invention. There are several means available to the other two branches to frustrate or nullify Supreme Court decisions--including the impeachment of justices, however unlikely that has become. And of course the states could refuse to abide by an unpopular decision, and defy the U.S. to try to enforce it.
 
In all the cited cases the private parties were deemed to be state actors because of the relationship between the private party and the state.

So no I'm afraid you are incorrect.

Perhaps I am. It was interesting though to take the opposite side and see how you would defend. I am enlightened.

It has been defined down to those parameters, i.e. whether a private actor can be deemed a state actor depending on the relationship they have with the state entity in question.

In Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority the court got it wrong by the later more constrictive interpretation - I would argue that in all instances, any and all error must be weighted against the routine or cavalier legal association of private actors to state actors.

As for Wickersham v. City of Columbia, the way that decision came down was correct; however, I would think all the veterans needed to do was police and enforce their own policies as a condition of admittance, and when the activists refused it would be perfectly proper to call the police in which case the activists would be cited or arrested for civil disobedience or disorderly conduct.

In that way, the police are simply responding as a community resource at the behest of the veterans, but with no direct connection to the event or policy.
 
The Constitution is a pretty good group of ideas...but it is FAR from ideal and it needs work.

And those Constitutional fanatics who think it is a perfect document...tell someone else as I do not care how great you think it is.

In fact, I don't even begin to care.

It is a solid but highly flawed 'paper' and needs lots of work.

Well, Redress has already asked you...

However, I always would like to know of these bad flaws. I can understand someone calling the constitution flawed. Nothing in this world seems to be perfect. Calling it highly flawed is interesting though.

The constitution, in my opinion which you don't care about, is nearly perfect not because of what is written on it, but because it was made specifically for the people and by the people and through the people, it can change, evolve, better itself.
 
The government will violate the Constitution. Under the Eighth Amendment, a prison "must ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, and must protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners. However, a constitutional violation occurs only where the deprivation alleged is, objectively, 'sufficiently serious.'" If the prisoner is to have a legal cause of action, the defendants, e.g. prison, guards, must have been "deliberately indifferent" to the inmates health or safety. In such cases, a prisoner can bring a claim for an eighth amendment claim of deprivation of food, clothing, etc. See

The existence of this cause of action presumes violations will occur.

Further, there are often legitimate disputes regarding the scope of legislative and executive power under the Constitution. The system depends on each side to defend its turf (check and balance), which will mean that, ultimately, one side may have found to have violated the powers given by the Constitution to the other.

Violations are inherent in the system.
 
You did not respond nor refute one thing I said in the post you reproduced as your lead in.

I gave you several pieces of evidence which prove beyond any doubt that the southerners who owned slaves considered them as human beings and people.


i have always refuted everything you ever say.
 
please link to just a dozen or so.

well 1 source is to look at all of your posts where to put on your track shoes and run to the USSC.

this is a favorite tactic of yours, after you cite the founders or our founding documents, and then are provided wrong [by me], ................. that you make the court your last refuge.
 
I think 98% of people care but the problem is the Constitution has been interpreted and is interpreted in many different ways/legal mindsets.
 
well 1 source is to look at all of your posts where to put on your track shoes and run to the USSC.

this is a favorite tactic of yours, after you cite the founders or our founding documents, and then are provided wrong [by me], ................. that you make the court your last refuge.

You were challenged to present a dozen. You failed to present even one.

That failure and impotence on your part speaks volumes about your boast and claim.
 
The problem today is the government has grown to a point where it no longer serves the people but rules the people.
At one time the constitution protected the rights of the minority or the individual from the majority. Today our government believes the majority has the right to restrict or even vote away the right of the individual and or minority. That was the my turning point from voting for Obama to praying for his removal from office. This is my main fear of Hillary is the fact she believes the majority have the right to pass laws that take away or restrict the rights of the individual.

I was in the military and I was willing to die for the right of the individual to stand on a street corner and pass out literature praising the Nazi Party. You could poll a thousand soldiers and more than 90% would like to put a bullet in this persons head. Unfortunately you cannot have freedom if you don't allow this person to stand on the corner and say what he wants.
 
You were challenged to present a dozen. You failed to present even one.

That failure and impotence on your part speaks volumes about your boast and claim.

i am pressed for time now, so i am going to have to make this a continuing post to show your failures.

but i am not going to go spree to post a dozen of those failures, so i shall post 2.

i will give you 2, one being an oldie and goodie, Hamilton's Report on Manufactures, where you claimed hamilton said that government could do just about anything which was necessary and proper.......and the most recent is the one where you claiming the founders intended for firearms to be regulated by the federal government in the constitution.

as i said.... i am pressed for time at this moment , but when i return i will post the links to them, and how you failed and your deceptions in those post.

for now i have a LATE lunch engagement, BUT i shall return...
 
In my opinion, many in government these days, including our current President, interpret the Constitution however they want it to read, and the courts have been as equally guilty of that as anybody. When you cannot trust the President or Congress or the courts to comply with the Constitution as it was originally intended, we are all pretty well screwed.

And yes, I am personally bothered by that a lot.
 
i am pressed for time now, so i am going to have to make this a continuing post to show your failures.

but i am not going to go spree to post a dozen of those failures, so i shall post 2.

i will give you 2, one being an oldie and goodie, Hamilton's Report on Manufactures, where you claimed hamilton said that government could do just about anything which was necessary and proper.......and the most recent is the one where you claiming the founders intended for firearms to be regulated by the federal government in the constitution.

as i said.... i am pressed for time at this moment , but when i return i will post the links to them, and how you failed and your deceptions in those post.

for now i have a LATE lunch engagement, BUT i shall return...

You presented nothing but your own skewed words.

Present my posts and show how you refuted them.
 
Simple question do you care if the Government violates the Constitution?

I think it is often necessary for the Courts to redefine the Constitution to better fit with our present circumstances or unexpected contingencies. For example, there is a school of thought that essentially views Brown v. Board as a moment of 'Constitutional Amendment' with the legal arguments put forth serving as a smoke screen for that fact. Decisions should always be rooted in the law and have a basis in a legitimate form of Constitutional interpretation in order to retain the legitimacy of the courts--but I'm not bothered if these are smokescreens for necessary changes. This sort of flexibility has, I believe, served us well throughout our history.
 
I think it is often necessary for the Courts to redefine the Constitution to better fit with our present circumstances or unexpected contingencies. For example, there is a school of thought that essentially views Brown v. Board as a moment of 'Constitutional Amendment' with the legal arguments put forth serving as a smoke screen for that fact. Decisions should always be rooted in the law and have a basis in a legitimate form of Constitutional interpretation in order to retain the legitimacy of the courts--but I'm not bothered if these are smokescreens for necessary changes. This sort of flexibility has, I believe, served us well throughout our history.

So courts should be allowed to change it and by pass the amendment process?
 
Well, Redress has already asked you...

However, I always would like to know of these bad flaws. I can understand someone calling the constitution flawed. Nothing in this world seems to be perfect. Calling it highly flawed is interesting though.

The constitution, in my opinion which you don't care about, is nearly perfect not because of what is written on it, but because it was made specifically for the people and by the people and through the people, it can change, evolve, better itself.

Flaw 1: It was written during a different cultural and socioeconomic times.
Flaw 2: Wording can be ambiguous.

Both are absolutely crippling flaws for any legal document.
 
So courts should be allowed to change it and by pass the amendment process?

Yes. Limited by the circumstances of the decision in question and its context. We have mechanisms for striking back at egregious decisions that so baldly violate the Constitution both in letter and in spirit, and upset important policy objectives. As yet we have not needed to draw upon them. I take that as one sign that the system works quite well.
 
Yes. Limited by the circumstances of the decision in question and its context. We have mechanisms for striking back at egregious decisions that so baldly violate the Constitution both in letter and in spirit, and upset important policy objectives. As yet we have not needed to draw upon them. I take that as one sign that the system works quite well.

Ok at least you are honest about allowing the Constitution being violated.
 
Flaw 1: It was written during a different cultural and socioeconomic times.
Flaw 2: Wording can be ambiguous.

Both are absolutely crippling flaws for any legal document.

Flaw 1: And? And we amend it to keep it relevant in current times.

For example, slavery was OK and the constitution didn't do **** about it, then we thought for a little and said "**** slavery," and lo and behold, the constitution, in accordance with the times, was amended to showcase this.

Flaw 2: ambiguity is subjective, but I can't necessarily disagree with you either, so I'll just leave it at that.
 
Back
Top Bottom