• 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!

Has America strayed from the Constitution and its principals?

Has America strayed from the Constitution and its principals?

  • I am a conservative and I believe we have not strayed from the Constitution

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    24

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,235
Reaction score
14,250
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Do you think we are straying away from the constitution and its principals? Are we creating more unconstitutional laws and interpreting the Constitution in an increasingly incorrect manner? Do you think we are molding the Constitution to make it say what we want? Or are we respecting it as the law of the government as it is literally written?
 

winston53660

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
29,262
Reaction score
10,125
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think the Constitution was put into place to establish equality under the law. And I do think think the intentions of the originators wanted was not to stop at that document. I do think State Constitutional amendments barring state recognition of gay marriage are antithetical / unConstitutional towards equal representation under the law.
 
Last edited:

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,443
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The government has too much power, both in the name of social justice and in the name of national security, for it to be Constitutional.

That said, even Thomas Jefferson thought we should recycle the Constitution every few decades.
 

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,405
Reaction score
5,004
Location
Southeast Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
No, we haven't strayed from the constitution (or rather we have on some occasions, but not in the general sense that I think digsbe is referring to). The constitution has plenty of room for interpretation, and we make use of it.
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,235
Reaction score
14,250
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It seems there is an interesting trend with the poll. All liberal voters have said we have not strayed from the Constitution, yet all others (independents/conservatives/other) have said that we have strayed from the Constitution.
 

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,443
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Yeah, and 7 people have voted in the poll, which means it's even more meaningless than most of the other meaningless polls around here.

Just saying.
 

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,720
Reaction score
53,491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It seems there is an interesting trend with the poll. All liberal voters have said we have not strayed from the Constitution, yet all others (independents/conservatives/other) have said that we have strayed from the Constitution.

I think you have to define "straying from the Constitution", digsbe.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Bartender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
49,584
Reaction score
29,276
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I think we have strayed from some people's interpretation of the constitution, but theres nothing wrong with that, unless its the interpretation you like best.
 

goldcatt

Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
58
Reaction score
16
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Straying from whose vision of the Constitution, in which camp?
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,167
Reaction score
21,573
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
i think it has, i mean, look how the population has spread since the constitution was written, and there are more americans overseas too, america is getting further and further from the constitution.
 

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,405
Reaction score
5,004
Location
Southeast Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
It seems there is an interesting trend with the poll. All liberal voters have said we have not strayed from the Constitution, yet all others (independents/conservatives/other) have said that we have strayed from the Constitution.

I don't think that's really surprising. Most conservatives tend to believe the constitution is carved in stone and there's only one correct interpretation. Most liberals tend to believe that it's more open to interpretation.
 

goldcatt

Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
58
Reaction score
16
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I don't think that's really surprising. Most conservatives tend to believe the constitution is carved in stone and there's only one correct interpretation. Most liberals tend to believe that it's more open to interpretation.

Most conservatives have been taught to be some flavor of originalist, although many of them couldn't tell you what that means or what method is used for any of the originalist interpretations if their lives depended on it.

For liberals, add "non-" in front of "originalist" and copy and paste the rest.

Then you have your pragmatist folks in the middle, technically non-originalist but not what most would consider "liberal".

All of these camps and many subcategories are considered legitimate, accepted methods of constitutional interpretation.

Whose vision of the constitution and its principles are we supposed to have strayed from, when, and how?
 

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36,230
Reaction score
8,358
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Most conservatives have been taught to be some flavor of originalist, although many of them couldn't tell you what that means or what method is used for any of the originalist interpretations if their lives depended on it.

For liberals, add "non-" in front of "originalist" and copy and paste the rest.

Then you have your pragmatist folks in the middle, technically non-originalist but not what most would consider "liberal".

All of these camps and many subcategories are considered legitimate, accepted methods of constitutional interpretation.

Whose vision of the constitution and its principles are we supposed to have strayed from, when, and how?

A direct literal translation would be the best route in my opinion.

Everything else we read is interpreted that way unless stated otherwise. It is just a sneaky way to skirt around the meaning and spirit in which the Constitution was written.
 

teamosil

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
6,623
Reaction score
2,226
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I believe we're steadily moving towards constitutionality. The 14th amendment is only like half way implemented for example. We're still way short both in terms of the equal protection and due process clauses, but we've been slowly moving towards compliance ever since it was signed in.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I think the Constitution was put into place to establish equality under the law. And I do think think the intentions of the originators wanted was not to stop at that document. I do think State Constitutional amendments barring state recognition of gay marriage are antithetical / unConstitutional towards equal representation under the law.

The Constitution was written to form a more perfect union.

Says so, right there in the Preamble.

To effect this more perfect union, the Constitution put limits on the powers the federal government can do, and explicitly listed the powers the Congress actually has (Article 1, Section 8), and to further limit how the government can intrude on the people, the Bill of Rights, the first Ten Amendments, was ratified.

"Equality before the law" wasn't Constitutionally embodied until the Fourteenth Amendment, seventy years after the Constitution was first ratified.

But equality before the law is certainly an original founding concept one can see throughout the Constiution, the Declaration of Independence, and common American perception before and after the Revolution.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Have our government exceeded it's Constitutional bounds?

Well, no where in Article 1, Section 8 is authority granted to Congress to dictate seat-belt policy to the states, to run a national retirement plan (Social Security), to nationalize the nation's health care industry, to create the Federal Reserve, to regulate rape or gun ownership under the Interstate Commerce Clause, to transfer money from working people to people who don't work (welfare/unemployment "insurance", ag subsidies, etc.)

The First Amendment says that the Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech or the press. The McCain-Feingold Save the Incumbents Campaign Finance "Reform" Law, signed by Bush and allowed by the US Supreme Court, abridges freedom of speech for both the press and the people.

That the it was recently necessary for the United States Supreme Court to issue a ruling that the Second Amendment is in fact a personal individual right only highlights the fact that government on all levels has been violating the Second Amendment for decades.

Even the foolish people on the Left think there's something wrong with the PATRIOT Act, though most of them wouldn't be able to tell what.

The trials, ie, multiple, of the arresting officers of Rodney King are a clear violation of double jeopardy, and hence clearly evidence of a government outside it's Constitution.

How much evidence do people need to see this?
 

teamosil

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
6,623
Reaction score
2,226
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Well, no where in Article 1, Section 8 is authority granted to Congress to dictate seat-belt policy to the states

There is no federal law requiring seatbelts.

to run a national retirement plan (Social Security)

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises ... and provide for the.. general welfare"

to nationalize the nation's health care industry

Nor have they made such a law.

to create the Federal Reserve

The public part of the fed comes under the power to control the money supply and the private part is regulated under interstate commerce.

to regulate rape

The federal government can only enforce the law against rapists if the crime crosses state lines, in which case it is clearly within the authority of the federal government.

or gun ownership under the Interstate Commerce Clause

Indeed they can. The gun market is inherently interstate.

to transfer money from working people to people who don't work (welfare/unemployment "insurance", ag subsidies, etc.)

General welfare clause quoted above.

Even the foolish people on the Left think there's something wrong with the PATRIOT Act, though most of them wouldn't be able to tell what.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
 
Top Bottom