• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Constitutional Limitations

The Constitution of the United States should NEVER be used to limit ANY rights.

  • Strongly agree

    Votes: 5 41.7%
  • Agree

    Votes: 2 16.7%
  • meh

    Votes: 2 16.7%
  • Disagree

    Votes: 1 8.3%
  • Strongly Disagree

    Votes: 2 16.7%

  • Total voters
    12

LiberalFINGER

Active member
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
261
Reaction score
5
The Constitution of the United States should NEVER be used to limit ANY rights.
 

KD5DBL

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
76
Reaction score
4
Location
Right here
Sorry, when you put such extreme limits on your question (...NEVER... ANY... ) I have to disagree. The constitution is (or at least should be) a basic set of rules that we all must live by. By the nature of them being rules, they will put limits on some people's actions. While you may see this as bad, I can see the good in limiting someone's "right" to enter my home without a search warrant for example.

but you, of course, have the right to feel differently.... ;)
 

Attachments

KD5DBL

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
76
Reaction score
4
Location
Right here
LiberalFINGER said:
Our contitution is wired to give rights, not take away.
Interesting way to look at it...

I personally don't see the 16th ammendment giving me much of a right and is taking a good bit away from me...
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
The 16th amendment mainly had to do with the fact that the Articles of Confederation had optional taxes. You can't have a government run off of donations, nobody will pay.
 

KD5DBL

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
76
Reaction score
4
Location
Right here
heyjoeo said:
The 16th amendment mainly had to do with the fact that the Articles of Confederation had optional taxes. You can't have a government run off of donations, nobody will pay.
True... but it still made my point... The Constitution doesn't just GIVE rights... it can in some cases take things away. They took the freedom to choose out of paying your taxes.

I won't get in to the whole debate surrounding the ratification of it being incomplete...
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
What do you mean? You don't get the whole debate about how "constitutional limitations" is a paradox?

The constitution was made to give us the right to live in a peaceful society and to benefit us in the greatest possible way. Taxation is just a way to keep the government running so it can protect us.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
6,282
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Taxation is just a way to keep the government running so it can protect us.
Another debate, but why is it that we were able to "run" for YEARS without it?
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
The Articles of Confederation were hardly "running." I'll tell you where it was running us. Running us into financial dismay and total lack of foreign policy.
 

bryanf

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
80
Reaction score
1
Location
The great battleground state of Ohio
LiberalFINGER said:
Our contitution is wired to give rights, not take away.
I would argue that the Constitution was created to protect basic individual rights, but in so doing, it has to include some limitations on other rights.

People don't have a Constitutionally protected right, for example, to take away our freedom to peacefully assemble. So, it is essential to define what "rights" are, first of all. Then, if they are understood, there may be arguments that the Constitution cannot be used to restrict those rights.
 

CSA_TX

Active member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
254
Reaction score
14
Location
TEXAS
People don't have a Constitutionally protected right, for example, to take away our freedom to peacefully assemble. So, it is essential to define what "rights" are, first of all. Then, if they are understood, there may be arguments that the Constitution cannot be used to restrict those rights.
Excellent point Brianf
I have been trying to figure out why my right to keep and bear arms is continualy being infringed on.
 

KD5DBL

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
76
Reaction score
4
Location
Right here
CSA_TX said:
Excellent point Brianf
I have been trying to figure out why my right to keep and bear arms is continualy being infringed on.
Well... just remember most people don't know you as well as we do Bud.... :)
 

bryanf

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
80
Reaction score
1
Location
The great battleground state of Ohio
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is one of the clear rights of the constitution. Of course, there are people who should not have firearms, because they use them to infridge upon others rights. When your "right" to keep and bear arms is used to hinder someone else's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or any other personal rights, it reaches its limit, and must be controlled.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
There is a certain mystique about the Constitution which permits folks of varying persuasions to find, within the relatively few words carefully chosen by the founding fathers, a veritable universe of do(s) and don't(s).

Earlier, someone made reference to the second amendment. I understand there are more than 20,000 laws relating to the ownership, possession, and use of firearms within the US. Still, we hear the clamor for even more 'gun control' laws.

To me, it appears that the Constitution is used as an excuse by pettifoggers and highbinders, masquerading as honest politicians, to crank out a never ending stream of laws which are purported to solve all of the problems of mankind. Most legislation never accomplishes its announced goal so, of course, some additional legislation must be necessary. This guarantees a never ending series of interviews, photo ops, and sound bites with which the continuous campaigning must be fueled.

I think it would make sense to pay the legislators to stay home for a couple of years to let the fruits of their labors ripen. At least, that would cut down on spending and other mischief. As it is, most of them don't even know what is contained in the bills they vote on.

Prime example: The final version of the recently enacted 576 page law to implement the recommendations of the 9-11 Committee was delivered the day before the vote. In order to get home for the holidays, these guys would have voted for the D.C. Yellow Pages.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
6,282
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Welcome to Debate Politics!

:wcm

Most legislation never accomplishes its announced goal so, of course, some additional legislation must be necessary. This guarantees a never ending series of interviews, photo ops, and sound bites with which the continuous campaigning must be fueled.

I could not agree with you more.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
As I see it, the ability to amend the Constitution was seen by its authors as a way to allow for contingencies which could not be anticipated. They set no restrictions on the content of amendments. Didn't the XVIII amendment take away a right?

Of the more than 200 amendments proposed thus far, only 17 have made it all the way.

The process is sufficiently difficult that if legislation finally results in an amendment, it may truly be considered to be the will of the people.
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The process is sufficiently difficult that if legislation finally results in an amendment, it may truly be considered to be the will of the people. <Fantasea

The will of the people should have nothing to do with a constitutional amendment.

Should we change the constitution because society changes and a majority have differing attitudes?

No...the constitution is the constitution...period.

Judicial bodies should never change law based on public opinion, but only on the interpretation of existing law.

When the Supreme Court makes a mistake, such as the 18th amendment, they repeal it, ( the 21st amendment) because no amendment should be part of the constitution that infringes upon the rights of the people.

This is precisely why there should never be a "gay-marriage" amendment to our US constitution. This takes away the rights of the people, therefore the USSC should neither condone it, nor condemn it, but leave it to the will of the people of the individual states.

Hoot
 
Last edited:

bryanf

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
80
Reaction score
1
Location
The great battleground state of Ohio
Hoot said:
The will of the people should have nothing to do with a constitutional amendment.
Who, may I ask, then, determines what the constitution should say?

Have you read the preamble to the Constitution? It makes it clear, at the very beginning that it is "we the people" who give government it's authority, and it would follow that it would be us who should change it if we feel it needs to be changed. This is why the process requires so much representation.

Hoot said:
Should we change the constitution because society changes and a majority have differing attitudes?
This is why the Constitution was created in such a manner to be amendable, would you not agree?

Hoot said:
When the Supreme Court makes a mistake, such as the 18th amendment, they repeal it, ( the 21st amendment) because no amendment should be part of the constitution that infringes upon the rights of the people.
The Supreme Court has nothing to do with amendments to the constitution, either in establishing them, or in repealing them. It is, in fact, entirely left to the discretion of the legislature, nationally, and in 2/3 of the states, to amend the constitution as they see fit, based upon the people that they represent, since our government receives its power from the consent of the governed.
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
>The Supreme Court has nothing to do with amendments to the constitution, either in establishing them, or in repealing them. It is, in fact, entirely left to the discretion of the legislature, nationally, and in 2/3 of the states, to amend the constitution as they see fit, based upon the people that they represent, since our government receives its power from the consent of the governed.>Bryan F.

You're quite right, but under the power of "judicial review," the USSC has the right to deem any federal law as unconstitutional...even laws passed by Congress and 2/3's of the states.

Believe me, if the USSC determines the "gay-marriage" amendment to be unconstitutional, it will never become part of the Constitution, or at the least, repealed.

The trouble is, we have a real blurring of the lines between the 3 branches of government these days.

For instance, it's supposed to be the job of Congress to determine the outcome of elections when neither side has a majority, yet the USSC usurped this right in the 2000 election.

Hoot
 
Last edited:

bryanf

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
80
Reaction score
1
Location
The great battleground state of Ohio
Hoot said:
You're quite right, but under the power of "judicial review," the USSC has the right to deem any federal law as unconstitutional...even laws passed by Congress and 2/3's of the states.
The problem here is that a constitutional amendment is not treated as a federal law. It becomes part of the Constitution, and cannot, by definition, be unconstitutional.

Hoot said:
Believe me, if the USSC determines the "gay-marriage" amendment to be unconstitutional, it will never become part of the Constitution, or at the least, repealed.
Again, the Supreme Court cannot say that a constitutional amendment is uncostitutional, and it has no power to repeal an amendment. That power is reserved for the Congress, and legislatures of the states.

Hoot said:
For instance, it's supposed to be the job of Congress to determine the outcome of elections when neither side has a majority, yet the USSC usurped this right in the 2000 election.
The Congress is supposed to determine the winner when there is no candidate with a majority of electoral votes, true, but there was a winner in 2000, the results were challenged in court. The issue put to rest in the Supreme Court (we hope it was put to rest, anyway) was that little part of the Constitution that says that the states determine how their electoral votes will be determined. The Supreme Court ruled that the issue was up to the state, and under the application of Florida's state law, George W. Bush won the election, by 529 votes. There was no usurpation by the Supreme Court.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Hoot said:
The process is sufficiently difficult that if legislation finally results in an amendment, it may truly be considered to be the will of the people. <Fantasea

The will of the people should have nothing to do with a constitutional amendment.

Should we change the constitution because society changes and a majority have differing attitudes?

No...the constitution is the constitution...period.

Judicial bodies should never change law based on public opinion, but only on the interpretation of existing law.

When the Supreme Court makes a mistake, such as the 18th amendment, they repeal it, ( the 21st amendment) because no amendment should be part of the constitution that infringes upon the rights of the people.

This is precisely why there should never be a "gay-marriage" amendment to our US constitution. This takes away the rights of the people, therefore the USSC should neither condone it, nor condemn it, but leave it to the will of the people of the individual states.

Hoot
My comment simply acknowledges that after being approved by a supermajority in the House of Representatives and the Senate, the proposed amendment must be ratified by three forths of the state legislations. If this not a sign of the will of the people, what in the world is it?

With regard to the 18th and 21st amendments, the Supreme Court had no part in either. Each went through the political processes outlined in the preceding paragraphs.

In the matter of same-sex marriage, the people in eleven states who thus far had an opportunity to do so have spoken quite loudly, and with a single voice.
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
In the matter of same-sex marriage, the people in eleven states who thus far had an opportunity to do so have spoken quite loudly, and with a single voice.
Yes, that irrational homophobia is rampant in America.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
argexpat said:
Yes, that irrational homophobia is rampant in America.
Why is it OK for folks to lean to the left, if they choose, but not to the right, if they choose?

I understand that until 1973, homosexuality was listed by the American Psychiatric Association as a mental disorder. At the 1973 meeting, by a show of hands by members in attendance, it was removed.

This had to be the swiftest eradication a disease in history. Perhaps they could be encouraged to turn their attention to cancer.

I have no complaint with homosexuals, or heterosexuals, for that matter. I simply subscribe to the notion that there should be no sexual contact outside of marriage and, as stated in in the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by then President Clinton, that marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman.

If you tried, you could probably come up with a lengthy list of social and economic problems that could be solved or avoided by 'abstinance'.

Care to take a crack at it?
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
Why is it OK for folks to lean to the left, if they choose, but not to the right, if they choose?
I don't know what you're talking about here.

Fantasea said:
I understand that until 1973, homosexuality was listed by the American Psychiatric Association as a mental disorder. At the 1973 meeting, by a show of hands by members in attendance, it was removed. This had to be the swiftest eradication a disease in history. Perhaps they could be encouraged to turn their attention to cancer.
Your "sarcasm" lends me to think that you believe these psychiatrists were too swift in their decision to de-disease-ify homosexuality. C'mon Fantasea, don't beat around the bush, do you believe homosexuality is a disease?

Fantasea said:
...marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman.
Without using religious or moral rationals, tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry anyone I damn well please?

Fantasea said:
...you could probably come up with a lengthy list of social and economic problems that could be solved or avoided by 'abstinance'.
Yes, like the birth of GWBush.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
argexpat said:
I don't know what you're talking about here.



Your "sarcasm" lends me to think that you believe these psychiatrists were too swift in their decision to de-disease-ify homosexuality. C'mon Fantasea, don't beat around the bush, do you believe homosexuality is a disease?



Without using religious or moral rationals, tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry anyone I damn well please?



Yes, like the birth of GWBush.
Your comments lead me to suspect that you did not understand what I wrote. May I respectfully suggest that you reread the post to which you're responding until my statements and the facts contained therein become clear?
 
Top Bottom