• 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!

The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

Does the original intent still matter when discussing the Constitution?


  • Total voters
    60
Or none of the above.... don't forget all of the options.

I was asking do you think we should have either one of those, yes or no? Why don't you think we should have either?
 
I was asking do you think we should have either one of those, yes or no? Why don't you think we should have either?

I'm quite happy with the way it is.... I'd be even happier if we actually followed it.
 
The time is now 1:06 pm.... :mrgreen:

I eat a late lunch... on second thought, I have a date tonight, so maybe tomorrow.

what do you feel needs to be changed in the constitution as-is?
I'd be happy if even the constitution was reratified as it is, it's more I think its something that should be done just to keep us aware of whats in it, and to get us to truly debate the ups and downs of the document.
 
Were you going to address my position on the topic or go off on a tangent?

I did respond, you must have missed it. And I'm returning to what I was talking about before you branched the conversation
 
I eat a late lunch... on second thought, I have a date tonight, so maybe tomorrow.
LOL...
I'd be happy if even the constitution was reratified as it is, it's more I think its something that should be done just to keep us aware of whats in it, and to get us to truly debate the ups and downs of the document.

Someone stole my thanx button, so concider this a thanx.
 
That his opinion doesn't matter because he wasn't in Philidelphia? Sure, but I ask that you answer mine. I think limiting our framework to what a few people decided a few hundred years ago is limiting, and gives us no room to change with new technology. I also posit that they didn't all always agree on what things meant, there were some parts that they ratified after much debate and disagreement, and other parts they didn't debate at all so there's not a lot of documentation to go off of. We need to also remember that some things they'd have no answer for because it didn't exist back then. I mean, labor laws didn't exist back then because there was no real industry, for instance.
 
That his opinion doesn't matter because he wasn't in Philidelphia?
So you -are- wanting to go off on a tangent.
Enjoy.
When you want to discuss my position regarding original intent, let me know.
 
That his opinion doesn't matter because he wasn't in Philidelphia? Sure, but I ask that you answer mine. I think limiting our framework to what a few people decided a few hundred years ago is limiting, and gives us no room to change with new technology. I also posit that they didn't all always agree on what things meant, there were some parts that they ratified after much debate and disagreement, and other parts they didn't debate at all so there's not a lot of documentation to go off of. We need to also remember that some things they'd have no answer for because it didn't exist back then. I mean, labor laws didn't exist back then because there was no real industry, for instance.

The constitution doesn't cover labor laws, therefore the US government hasn't the right to pass labor laws under the laws this nation was founded on.... along with a lot of other things the government does illegally.
 
So you -are- wanting to go off on a tangent.
Enjoy.
When you want to discuss my position regarding original intent, let me know.

Dude, I posted more in that post that I thought was responding to your position. Did you not read it or something?
 
The constitution doesn't cover labor laws, therefore the US government hasn't the right to pass labor laws under the laws this nation was founded on.... along with a lot of other things the government does illegally.

And how could the constitution cover something that effectively wasn't an issue back then?
 
Has it escaped your notice that the US is also the freest country in the world and has the best standard of living? I wonder if the two go hand in hand.

Actually the US is not at the top of the list by either of those measures...but regardless, there are lots of free/prosperous countries with constitutions that are much easier to amend. Hell, Israel and the UK don't even have constitutions at all.
 
Last edited:
And how could the constitution cover something that effectively wasn't an issue back then?

If laws needed to be passed by the federal gov't that went beyond the restrictions under the constitution, then an amendment should have been passed to allow them.
 
If laws needed to be passed by the federal gov't that went beyond the restrictions under the constitution, then an amendment should have been passed to allow them.

Good luck. When was the last time an amendment about anything important passed?
 
Good luck. When was the last time an amendment about anything important passed?

Important to you, or important to me? The amendment process is designed to ensure that most agree so changes can't be made arbitrarily on a whim.

I asked earlier what you thought needed to be fixed with the constitution as-is...what do you feel needs to be changed right now?
 
Dude, I posted more in that post that I thought was responding to your position. Did you not read it or something?

Just ignore him, this is Goobieman's MO. His rallying cry is "You didn't respond to my point," which he usually utters immediately after someone responds to his point (if he made one at all). I wouldn't be surprised to see him say "You didn't respond to my point" on the first post he makes in the thread. :lol:

I generally just respond to him until he starts pulling that crap, then ignore him and talk with people who are actually debating intelligently.
 
And how could the constitution cover something that effectively wasn't an issue back then?

State issue, not a Federal issue.

Pretty simple.

The Federal Governments power was supposed to be limited.
 
Important to you, or important to me? The amendment process is designed to ensure that most agree so changes can't be made arbitrarily on a whim.

I asked earlier what you thought needed to be fixed with the constitution as-is...what do you feel needs to be changed right now?

Something that wasn't procedural, like Congressional raises, or the Order of Succession.

Well, I need to do some things before my date with the lovely Rose, so I'll catch you guys later
 
Actually the US is not at the top of the list by either of those measures...but regardless, there are lots of free/prosperous countries with constitutions that are much easier to amend. Hell, Israel and the UK don't even have constitutions at all.

Sure it is, unless you go by something as biased against the US as the UN is, then of course Cuba has more freedom and a better medical system. :roll:
 
I think limiting our framework to what a few people decided a few hundred years ago is limiting, and gives us no room to change with new technology.
This is patenetly false.
See article V - the amendment process.

I also posit that they didn't all always agree on what things meant, there were some parts that they ratified after much debate and disagreement, and other parts they didn't debate at all so there's not a lot of documentation to go off of.
They may not have all agreed on the all of particul;ars, but that doesnt invalidate my argument - they DID have a particular logic and reasoning that created the working context for the document.

The 'problems' you might find with the Constitution occour when you try to go outside that context. This isnt a problem inherent in original intent, this is a problem inherent with doing someting that the fed Gvmtn was never meant to do.

If you want it to do someting outside that context, you are free to amend it.

We need to also remember that some things they'd have no answer for because it didn't exist back then. I mean, labor laws didn't exist back then because there was no real industry, for instance.
Not sure you how think this (and all kinds of other things) are not covered by the Constitition -- there's clearly the power to regulate interstate commerce, and, beyond that, the recognition that any additional necessary power belong to the states.
 
Back
Top Bottom