• 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!

Your duty as a Citizen to understand the Constitution

Depends on which definition you're using.

Examples:

Moral duty: "I have a duty to help my fellow man" : In this case someone believes that they should help their fellow man. They know they don't have to, but they believe that they morally should.

Legal Duty: Cop: "I have a duty to uphold the law" : In this case the cop has to uphold the laws as that is the job of a cop.

The other definitions don't really matter as they're more related to paying bills and stuff like that.

The OP, and me, are referring to the moral duty of people to read and understand the Constitution and the history surrounding it.

lolz. That's not a really good argument. That's like saying, I'm angry at people for not doing the things that I think they should be doing. WTF is the point of that? Just do what you do, who cares what others do?
 
Bold: That is what I said in the post you quoted.

Not sure why you address the rest of the post towards me? Perhaps you could expand on that part?
The Constitution is considered a living document because The Constitution was created 240+ years ago and is considered by many as an outdated document. Emphasis by those considering The Constitution as a living document is more toward reinterpretations of The Constitution than on amendments to The Constitution.

Reinterpretations to The Constitution involve the gang of eleven SCOTUS and an amendment to The Constitution involves congress, state legislators and the people themselves and is the more preferred way by the founding fathers to change The Constitution.
 
Last edited:
But you said they had a duty do this and if they don't do it what happens? What's the point of that argument?

No, I said we have an obligation. Not a legal obligation, but a plain ol' obligation for the good of the country.

The result of not knowing and understanding the Constitution, is too many people that don't know when the government violated the Constitution.
 
No, I said we have an obligation. Not a legal obligation, but a plain ol' obligation for the good of the country.

The result of not knowing and understanding the Constitution, is too many people that don't know when the government violated the Constitution.

But why would people who don't care about this care about this? That's like asking a hippie to go to law school, or a an engineer to study physical fitness.
 
The vast majority of US Citizens are woefully derelict in their duty as Citizens.
Meaning what, they don't like jury duty?

Oh, wait, I know. They don't vote, right? You want compulsory voting?

No? Do you mean, pay their taxes? Hmm.


This is especially true when it comes to their understanding of the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is the single most important covenant ever written as it is the contract which ensures the freedoms and rights of the people. It is what separates the Citizens of the US from the subjects of all other countries.
Please, stop with the worship.

Most of what it talks about is how to organize the federal government, and as an afterthought (literally) it protects some of the rights of citizens. While there were some key innovations at the time it was written, there were also disastrous oversights such as an utter failure to end the horrible travesty of slavery. The Framers could not have foreseen how it would turn our nation into a "vetocracy," in which it is all too easy to throw sand in the gears, including later inventions like the filibuster. Many of its authors were concerned about maintaining their own power, as shown by the compromise of a bicameral legislature. It never says "government must be small" or "the federal government is barred from providing safety nets to older citizens" or "the federal government cannot regulate consumer safety," or whatever other libertarian fantasy you are indulging in today.

You are right that it separates us from other nations -- but that's not really in favor of the US. Many other nations have abandoned the American formula, in favor of much better articulations of the rights of citizens and residents; e.g. Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms is now a model around the world.


It is not however being followed and abided by, as the Citizens have failed to uphold their duty to educate themselves of the history and the law that the Constitution represents. They fail to understand the principals and the logic that ensures that the people remain the masters and that government remain the servant.
Yeah... no.

Your belief here is that "no one is abiding by the Constitution!" The reality is that in the vast majority of cases, the government is fulfilling its Constitutional duty; it is merely doing things you personally dislike.


As a result, the government has become the master of the people, and the people have become indentured servants, and can no longer claim to be free in any context of the word. They have sacrificed their liberty for perceived safety and comfort, and have forfeited the rights their forefathers died for without so much as a single protest.

If you truly understood the Constitution and the history surrounding it, you would be sickened by the people we have become and our failure as a society to preserve our inheritance and to preserve it for our posterity.....
If you truly understood the Constitution and the history surrounding it, you would not try to justify your own authoritarian fantasy of everyone doing what you want, because you are somehow the Perfect Interpreter of the Constitution.

By the way, I have to ask: How many years have you studied Constitutional Law? Do you have a law degree? Did you get it at Harvard or Yale? How many Supreme Court rulings have you studied? How much research have you done into the history of English Common Law, of the various state governments, of the Revolutionary War Period, of the Articles of Confederation? What are your bona fides, such that you claim to have superior knowledge of these topics to all others?
 
People have OPINIONS on what the Constitution means.
Unless you have a time machine,travel back to 1776 and ask our Forefathers what they meant.
So even Harvard Law students and historian disagree.
Yet there are plenty of people here who seem to think they know more then either of those two groups.
Vanity has a ferocious appetite,and if anyone here understand appetites,it's chefs.



You dont need a time machine at all, you just need to be able to read and understand the English language.
 
People have OPINIONS on what the Constitution means.
Unless you have a time machine,travel back to 1776 and ask our Forefathers what they meant.
So even Harvard Law students and historian disagree.
Yet there are plenty of people here who seem to think they know more then either of those two groups.
Vanity has a ferocious appetite,and if anyone here understand appetites,it's chefs.

Except we don't have to go by peoples opinions. There are several notes by the founders explaining what they meant to various groups that were concerned about parts of the Constitution. So, no need to go back in a time machine to ask. They've already answered. ;)
 
lolz. That's not a really good argument. That's like saying, I'm angry at people for not doing the things that I think they should be doing. WTF is the point of that? Just do what you do, who cares what others do?

Interesting question there. Have you noticed the way people are in today's society? Remember when American Idol had more votes than a Presidential Election did? Kardasians? The list could go on and on but I think you get the point.

But in this case, why shouldn't people care if others understand the Constitution or not? It IS a pretty important document that is the center piece to our entire political system and system of laws. Don't you want people that vote to be informed?
 
The vast majority of US Citizens are woefully derelict in their duty as Citizens.

I've found most of the people who think they really understand the constitution are the ones who seem to know the least about it.
 
How many Harvard Law students actually agree with each other on everything that they believe about the Constitution?
My guess is "two" :D


And FYI, you don't have to be a lawyer to know or understand the Constitution. It was not written in legaleze on purpose. Indeed there are quotes from the founders of the Constitution stating that it was written specifically for the layman to understand it.
Uh... That was Herbert Hoover, not the framers. (If You Believe Blog Comment Threads, It's Almost Disqualifying - The Volokh Conspiracy)

The reality is that Constitutional law is a very complex practice, especially as studying it now means reviewing 200+ years of precedent and rulings and concurrences and dissents by a variety of federal courts. E.g. incorporation of the Bill of Rights is not exactly the most straightforward of topics.
 
Except we don't have to go by peoples opinions. There are several notes by the founders explaining what they meant to various groups that were concerned about parts of the Constitution. So, no need to go back in a time machine to ask. They've already answered. ;)
Most of the thoughts of the founding fathers were on the pre-libertarian rights of American individuals. Those thoughts could've influenced the Declaration of Independence. Could've influenced, for example, "Common Sense", by Thomas Paine. The Constitution, however, was greatly influenced by Alex Hamilton and James Madison.

The Constitution was a rights and wrongs document for the federal government...period.
 
But in this case, why shouldn't people care if others understand the Constitution or not? It IS a pretty important document that is the center piece to our entire political system and system of laws. Don't you want people that vote to be informed?

You are changing the argument from people have to do this, to other people should care that others aren't doing this. That's not really what I was saying. I was saying that you are just arguing because you are pissed off that other people aren't doing what YOU want them to. Unless there is a law that explicitly states that a citizen has to memorize the Constitution. There isn't really anything you can do to make other people sit down and read it. Besides what if they come away with a different interpretation than you? What will you do then?

We already have a difference of opinion on this little thing.
 
uh no it is not the duty of the citizen to understand the constitution, in America you a free not to. However, citizens can learn the constitution and become lawyers to those others who don't know it.

This statement proves my point exactly. We have become what the movie Idiocracy depicted.

Being a Citizen of a free country requires duties as well as receiving rights. The problem is no one wants the bother of the duties. You do not have to be a lawyer to understand the Constitution, the authors wrote it in plain language purposefully so than every common Citizen could understand it and become as much an expert in the Supreme Law of the Land as any lawyer or Supreme Court Justice.
 
The Constitution is considered a living document because The Constitution was created 240+ years ago and is considered by many as an outdated document. Emphasis by those considering The Constitution as a living document is more toward reinterpretations of The Constitution than on amendments to The Constitution.

Reinterpretations to The Constitution involve the gang of eleven SCOTUS and an amendment to The Constitution involves congress, state legislators and the people themselves and is the more preferred way by the founding fathers to change The Constitution.

I do agree that SCOTUS should not be re-interpreting the Constitution. There are plenty of documents from the founding of the Constitution to know what the founders meant for each part of the Constitution. However the Founders did not address each and every instance their interpretations of the Constitution could be applied to. For instance many believe that there is no Right to Privacy. Yet the words in the particular Amendments that the Right to Privacy is derived from shows that the Founders did believe in such.
 
This statement proves my point exactly. We have become what the movie Idiocracy depicted.

Being a Citizen of a free country requires duties as well as receiving rights. The problem is no one wants the bother of the duties. You do not have to be a lawyer to understand the Constitution, the authors wrote it in plain language purposefully so than every common Citizen could understand it and become as much an expert in the Supreme Law of the Land as any lawyer or Supreme Court Justice.

No they can't lolz.
 
I do agree that SCOTUS should not be re-interpreting the Constitution. There are plenty of documents from the founding of the Constitution to know what the founders meant for each part of the Constitution. However the Founders did not address each and every instance their interpretations of the Constitution could be applied to. For instance many believe that there is no Right to Privacy. Yet the words in the particular Amendments that the Right to Privacy is derived from shows that the Founders did believe in such.
That's where amendments come in. The fourteenth amendment to change The Constitution so former slaves could be American citizens and no southern state could forbid this former slave/citizen status, for example.
 
So many words yet so little specifically stated to discuss. We the sheeple have "standing" to oppose, exactly, what? For example, the DoED (with a $73 billion annual budget?) is clearly not based on any constitutional federal power of education yet what "standing" (personal harm) can one hope to use to oppose it?

The reason the government can get away with usurping power it does not legally have according to the Constitution is that not one in a thousand people have taken the time to read and understand the document. If it were common knowledge that the government does not have the power to dictate educational standards and to control the school systems, then the people would support political candidates that supported that position, and the problem would be dealt with. Instead they are too busy watching NFL and worrying about whether someone stands up for the National Anthem. The media is able to play the ignorant people like a string instrument.
 
My guess is "two" :D

:D

Uh... That was Herbert Hoover, not the framers. (If You Believe Blog Comment Threads, It's Almost Disqualifying - The Volokh Conspiracy)

The reality is that Constitutional law is a very complex practice, especially as studying it now means reviewing 200+ years of precedent and rulings and concurrences and dissents by a variety of federal courts. E.g. incorporation of the Bill of Rights is not exactly the most straightforward of topics.

Actually it was James Madison:

It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow.

:)
 
You are changing the argument from people have to do this, to other people should care that others aren't doing this. That's not really what I was saying. I was saying that you are just arguing because you are pissed off that other people aren't doing what YOU want them to. Unless there is a law that explicitly states that a citizen has to memorize the Constitution. There isn't really anything you can do to make other people sit down and read it. Besides what if they come away with a different interpretation than you? What will you do then?

We already have a difference of opinion on this little thing.

I've never stated that people have to do this. As I already explained to you. You're the one that keeps insisting that me and the OP are saying that "people have to" when we never stated that they have to.

And I have no problem with people that come to a different conclusion than me about the Constitution. As Obi-Wan Kenobi once stated in Star Wars: "You're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
 
That's where amendments come in. The fourteenth amendment to change The Constitution so former slaves could be American citizens and no southern state could forbid this former slave/citizen status, for example.

There is no need for an amendment for the obvious. :shrug: Perhaps your argument isn't about re-interpretation as much as its about simply interpreting. There is a difference.
 
I've never stated that people have to do this. As I already explained to you. You're the one that keeps insisting that me and the OP are saying that "people have to" when we never stated that they have to.

And I have no problem with people that come to a different conclusion than me about the Constitution.

How are you going to force them to read the constitution?
 
There is no need for an amendment for the obvious. :shrug: Perhaps your argument isn't about re-interpretation as much as its about simply interpreting. There is a difference.
I think it was in 1856 that the dreaded Dred Scot case was resolved. That SCOTUS considered slaves as property. In 1868 slaves were human with the ability to gain citizen status.

Reinterpreting is when SCOTUS extrapolates the 14th amendment meant for former slaves to validate anchor babies.
 
Who said I was going to?

Then your argument is completely pointless. It's like a vegetarian wishing people would eat less meat. Then they acknowledge that there is no chance in hell that they won't and they don't do anything about it. lolz.

Short of forcing people to read said document. There is no chance you will make people who don't care about it, read it.
 
Back
Top Bottom