• 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!

(insert party name) is destroying the constitution!

somepeoplesay

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
198
Reaction score
74
Location
Austin, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Is anyone else sick and tired of the constant whining about how the democrats are "destroying" the constitution? The fact is, BOTH parties alter the constitution to fit their agenda, and it happens with every president. George W. Bush undermined the constitution by introducing the Patriot Act and Bill Clinton introduced the Defense of Marriage Act before him, and so on.

I think the real question is, is the constitution really as sacred as we ascribe it to be? If the constitution were never amended, what would life be like today? I think if the original constitution were presented today, and we had no prior knowledge of it, it would be voted against. Yet, it's always used by the minority party to trash the other, when in reality if their party was in charge it would still be bent and twisted to support an agenda.

Maybe W. was right when he said "it's just a piece of paper".
 

Christopher

New member
Joined
Jun 2, 2010
Messages
11
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
George W. Bush undermined the constitution by introducing the Patriot Act and Bill Clinton introduced the Defense of Marriage Act before him, and so on.

Presidents cannot introduce legislation. There is a huge difference between amending the Constitution and ignoring it. Please show me where George Bush or Bill Clinton amended the Constitution.

I think the real question is, is the constitution really as sacred as we ascribe it to be?

Who's we?

If the constitution were never amended, what would life be like today? I think if the original constitution were presented today, and we had no prior knowledge of it, it would be voted against.

Classic bull****. Since we wouldn't have accepted what we accepted 300 years ago, we shouldn't accept what we accept now. Makes perfect sense.

Yet, it's always used by the minority party to trash the other, when in reality if their party was in charge it would still be bent and twisted to support an agenda.

Your an idiot if you think the Constitution is used solely or even primarily to "trash the other party". The point of the Constitution is to restrict government as a whole, not one specific party. Are you suggesting we only apply it to Republicans or only to Democrats? No, your suggesting that both parties have tenancies to violate the Constitution. Therefore, since both parties tend to violate our rights, we should simply get rid of all of our rights. Makes perfect sense.
 

somepeoplesay

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
198
Reaction score
74
Location
Austin, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
whoa whoa whoa, settle down here. see, this is what i'm talking about, no one wants to really examine this issue because the constitution is so sacred and untouchable. of course i don't want to ban the constitution (I don't know how you inferred that), all i'm saying is that the recent attacks on Obama for "destroying" the constitution are absolute nonsense in the grand scope of history. most presidents DO amend the constitution, or at least try to, in order to advance their agenda, thats all i'm saying.
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,511
Reaction score
50,112
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I oppose anyone who fracks with the Constitution. I don't care what party they belong to or what their reason is. Either the Constitution is the highest law in the land, or government is without theoretical limit.

Government without limit is known as tyranny.
 

Christopher

New member
Joined
Jun 2, 2010
Messages
11
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
whoa whoa whoa, settle down here. see, this is what i'm talking about, no one wants to really examine this issue because the constitution is so sacred and untouchable. of course i don't want to ban the constitution (I don't know how you inferred that), all i'm saying is that the recent attacks on Obama for "destroying" the constitution are absolute nonsense in the grand scope of history. most presidents DO amend the constitution, or at least try to, in order to advance their agenda, thats all i'm saying.

No, your posts are full of fail. If you think that most presidents regularly amend the Constitution, you need to pick up a US history book. Or, you know, actually read the Constitution. When did I say that the Constitution was untouchable? There is a very simple and clear way to modify the Constitution: Amendments. Amendments are great because they allow for easily understood powers or rights to come into existence without undermining the document as a whole. Arbitrarily negating one part of the Constitution makes the document useless, as it is then understood that the Constitution can simply be ignored if suitable (i.e. completely made up) justification can be given (See Japanese Internment camps).

Attacks against Obama for allegedly violating the Constitution are just as valid as attacks against anyone else who allegedly violated the Constitution. There is nothing nonsensical about it. Your entire argument is a red herring. It's like arguing that what occurs in Rwanda is not genocide because it isn't on the same scale as the Holocaust or other genocidal events when one "looks at the grand scale of history".

Arguing about the legitimacy of certain rights and powers that are, should be, or should not be included by the Constitution is an entirely legitimate topic. But your assertions are simply false and unrelated to that topic. The majority of the people who feel their rights are being violated have no political affiliation. I can back this up with statistics. Your entire first paragraph is null. And given the context of what Bush was trying to do when he was quoted as making that remark almost makes me think you are a troll.
 

German guy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
5,187
Reaction score
4,255
Location
Berlin, Germany
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Forgive me if I'm missing anything, due to not being familiar to the details, since I'm not American ... but isn't maybe the problem the Supreme Court, rather than the parties that mess with the Constitution?

I'd think that in theory, it should be easy: When a President is accused of violating the Constitution, it's up to the Supreme Court to decide whether he really is. When the Supreme Court finds this President's action is constitutional, fine, then he does not violate the Constitution and opponents need to shut up. Or it finds his actions are indeed unconstitutional, then this action will be stopped and the President's power is reduced back to a constitutional level.

At least that should be the case if the Supreme Court was above party bickery. But as it is now, the Presidents appoint judges and usually do so along party lines. The Supreme Court is thus perceived not as a non-partisan source of authority, and opponents of the President hardly stop their criticism, even when the Supreme Court has ruled they are fine with it.

So why don't both sides focus on changing the rules about appointing SC judges, instead of slapping at the other side's President?
 

somepeoplesay

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
198
Reaction score
74
Location
Austin, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
No, your posts are full of fail. If you think that most presidents regularly amend the Constitution, you need to pick up a US history book. Or, you know, actually read the Constitution. When did I say that the Constitution was untouchable? There is a very simple and clear way to modify the Constitution: Amendments. Amendments are great because they allow for easily understood powers or rights to come into existence without undermining the document as a whole. Arbitrarily negating one part of the Constitution makes the document useless, as it is then understood that the Constitution can simply be ignored if suitable (i.e. completely made up) justification can be given (See Japanese Internment camps).

Attacks against Obama for allegedly violating the Constitution are just as valid as attacks against anyone else who allegedly violated the Constitution. There is nothing nonsensical about it. Your entire argument is a red herring. It's like arguing that what occurs in Rwanda is not genocide because it isn't on the same scale as the Holocaust or other genocidal events when one "looks at the grand scale of history".

Arguing about the legitimacy of certain rights and powers that are, should be, or should not be included by the Constitution is an entirely legitimate topic. But your assertions are simply false and unrelated to that topic. The majority of the people who feel their rights are being violated have no political affiliation. I can back this up with statistics. Your entire first paragraph is null. And given the context of what Bush was trying to do when he was quoted as making that remark almost makes me think you are a troll.

Haha OK, yea, i'm a troll because I sarcastically referenced "it's just a piece of paper". Not every president changed the constitution, otherwise we'd have more then 27 amendments, that doesn't mean that former presidents didn't try. You are also getting pretty ridiculous here with holocaust analogies (paging godwin!) , and very quick to defend W, hmmm. Nazi analogies? Defending President Bush? Glenn Beck I didn't know you posted here?!?!

Seriously though, all i'm saying is that both the republicans and democrats are guilty of seeing the constitution as a living, breathing document that can and should be interpreted in a partisan fashion. For the Democrats, they tend to view at as an affirmative document, wherein amendments should be introduced that extend rights to certain people. The Republicans tend to view it in the opposite way, seeing it as a vehicle to restrict unwanted behavior (homosexual marriage, abortion), among other things.

NOW, before you have a hissy fit, you may notice we dont have an amendment for gay marriage, or abortion, or whatever Obama is being accused of these days because it's all a farce, it IS a red herring, and that's my whole point. People at tea parties keep saying the same thing "Obama is destroying the constitution!", just like the anti-Iraq protestors did before them to Bush.

So, I guess what i'm really saying is, quit yer bitching.
 
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
61
Reaction score
10
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Yet, it's always used by the minority party to trash the other, when in reality if their party was in charge it would still be bent and twisted to support an agenda.

When you say party here are you talking Republican / Democrats, if so thats the reader / viewers first hurdle to jump over. You're talking about the Public Relations Front partys, and so ergo anything said between those people on-set isn't really worth paying attention to anyways. Because they'll scream and scream that they do or don't want to do something, then when they get their punch card and their nest becomes a trifle more feathered the old script is shredded and the cue card from the above tier is read from.

It's very important for mainstream political chicken couping to be recognised for what it is. A chicken coup, in which we cluck and chick, and they throw their own hens and eggs in strategically.


coop2.jpg


See how the grass still grows and the world continues on around them.
 
Last edited:

Christopher

New member
Joined
Jun 2, 2010
Messages
11
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Haha OK, yea, i'm a troll because I sarcastically referenced "it's just a piece of paper". Not every president changed the constitution, otherwise we'd have more then 27 amendments, that doesn't mean that former presidents didn't try. You are also getting pretty ridiculous here with holocaust analogies (paging godwin!) , and very quick to defend W, hmmm. Nazi analogies? Defending President Bush? Glenn Beck I didn't know you posted here?!?!

Saying an analogy is ridiculous does not make it ridiculous. I compared Rwandan Genocide to the Holocaust. If you think that analogy is ridiculous, please pick up a world history book in addition to that US history book. Your ignorant attitude toward Genocide is borderline insulting. Please point out where I defended George Bush. I'm pretty sure that I just insinuated that the Patriot act was one of the most openly unconstitutional bills to be passed by out legislature.

Seriously though, all i'm saying is that both the republicans and democrats are guilty of seeing the constitution as a living, breathing document that can and should be interpreted in a partisan fashion. For the Democrats, they tend to view at as an affirmative document, wherein amendments should be introduced that extend rights to certain people. The Republicans tend to view it in the opposite way, seeing it as a vehicle to restrict unwanted behavior (homosexual marriage, abortion), among other things.

Passing amendments is not the same thing as viewing something as a living, breathing document. I explained this above, and you clearly ignored it.

NOW, before you have a hissy fit, you may notice we dont have an amendment for gay marriage, or abortion, or whatever Obama is being accused of these days because it's all a farce, it IS a red herring, and that's my whole point. People at tea parties keep saying the same thing "Obama is destroying the constitution!", just like the anti-Iraq protestors did before them to Bush.

So you are denying the possibility that they may both be right. Or that the majority of people who think that XYZ is unconstitutional have no party affiliation.

So, I guess what i'm really saying is, quit yer bitching.[/QUOTE]

Pick up a US history book and a world history book so you can actually understand my arguments.
 
Top Bottom