• 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!

Should we get rid of the constitution

Do you agree or disagree with dumping the constitution

  • Total voters
    49

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,697
Reaction score
5,704
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I am curious as to who in here agrees with this guy.

"AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html
 
I bet the dude is a progressive: my way or the highway because I have received Enlightenment and know better than you how the rest of you should be governed.
 
Diogenes said:
I bet the dude is a progressive: my way or the highway because I have received Enlightenment and know better than you how the rest of you should be governed.
Click to expand...
Isn't that the Liberal man's burden!:mrgreen:
 
We should embrace the Constitution!

It gives us the checks in order to balance the power of government. We need the Constitution for the rights given to us.

Anyone who supports getting rid of it is about as Anti-American as it gets. The Constitution needs to be picked up off the ground it was thrown on, dusted off, and followed once again.
 
I am literally legally obligated to answer "no" to this poll.
 
I don't think we need to ditch the constitution but neither do I think we should be held in bondage by it and unable to change it with the times.

I consider the constitution to be a living document. A great blueprint that requires adjustment now and then.
 
The author is just one more statist pleading his case.

In the authors words from his conclusion, "If even this change is impossible, perhaps the dream of a country ruled by “We the people” is impossibly utopian."...."ruled"....this word always comes up. Well...if we ever "extricate ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance." (again, the authors words) that "rule" is exactly what we will get.

It never ceases to amaze me....and frighten the hell out of me...that someone could teach Constitutional law for 40 years and still not truly understand the principles upon which it was based.
 
It depends on one's view of the Constitution of course....if you're an originalist it should be because as a dead piece of paper it speaks only to the ideals of 200 years ago.

I tend to have a more expansive view of the Constitution and think it still means something to us.
 
Luckily, the Founders envisioned that American society would change and created a pathway to alter the Constitution through the amendment process. So any "evil provisions" contained within can be removed. But doing so is time consuming and requires an enormous degree of national consensus. The fact that no such consensus exists and no one has offered a meaningful amendment in decades is evidence that the people complaining about the Constitution are a tiny minority.
 

I can't even believe someone would suggest such a thing. That is what our whole nation was built upon and where all of our ideals about freedom and liberty and fighting against tyrannical governmental entities originated from. I think some people that would suggest such things must be INCREDIBLY ignorant about life.
 

The limitations placed on government by the Constitution are there for a reason.

The ambitions of man are limitless and so the ambitions of a government of men will likewise be limitless. For that simple reason we need the wisdom to understand that we can only achieve our own individual ambitions when we limit the capacity of a common delegated authority to become "mob rule".
 
The Constitution has within it provisions for modification to adjust with the times. I think it could use a couple of amendments:

1. Give the POTUS the line item veto however allow line item expenditures to be overturn by the same number of votes the initial bill passed by, still keeping the budget as congress' baby.
2. Eliminate the Electoral College.
3. Ban corporate and union campaign donations.
4. Limit super-pack contributions to the same amount and rules regulating the campaign.
5. Ban lobbyists from donating to campaigns.
6. Repeal the 17th Amendment.
7. Standardize all ballots nationally.
8. Grant every citizen with one of those new "real ID" driver's licenses a passport, since the same information is required at application.
9. Any American citizen spied on by the government upon the conclusion of the investigation must be notified at the initiative of the government, given the data collected on him and given the option of having that data destroyed and never accessible by the public under the FOIA under an expanded right to privacy.


Just a few...
 

I like a lot of those!
 

10) Extend the 22nd Amendment to include Congress...you either serve ONE six year term or TWO four year terms. That is it.
11) Pass a Federal Balanced Budget Amendment
 

While I agree with you, but that is very unlikely to happen. It has been accepted (by 5/4 our nine robed umpires) for many decades that the limitted federal powers are "inadequate" and that anything "good" and "important" is indeed a federal power (somehow). Using such broad and undefined powers as general welfare, taxation and commerce (nearly?) anything can be construed as Constitutional, especially since our congress critters and the president really, really wanted to do it.

Education is not a federal power, yet ED is now the fastest growing, cabinet level, federal department - currently supplying about 10% (and growing) of the nation's total eduational spending. The concept of income redistribution, federal checks given to specific (non gov't employee) citizens, funded by taxing other citizens is nowhere to be found in the Constitution (or in the 16th amendment) yet that (income redistribution) spending is now about 1/3 of total federal spending. The latest PPACA decision, as worded by CJ Roberts, says that congress critters may now simply mandate that a citizen spend their money on a private good/service or pay a tax for not doing as so ordered; based (supposedly) on the 16th amendment federal power to tax income from all sources.
 

We need to be free to achieve our own individual ambitions. Society needs to be free to evolve into what it desires to be. I have all the respect in the world for our forefathers and signers of the DoI. But I do not necessarly want to be enslaved to what they think is right for me. They are long gone. They lived their life. We should be free to do the same.

The constitution should only be repaired if it becomes broken.
 

*sigh* The federal government already ignores the Constitution a lot of times. :roll: I think that's a big part of our problems.
 

9. If no legal proceeding resulted from the investigation. Talking about FBI paranoia witchhunts. I propose nobody should have an FBI file where their privacy has been invaded by their own country and then becomes a permanent record of the United States of America anyone who files an FOIA request can get or can be published by the media without their permission if no criminal behavior was discovered. As I think I understand it now, private FBI files remain sealed until the person's death then its public record. Still an invasion of privacy if you ask me.
 

Since our form of government is still considered an experiment, I think many of us believe we're headed down the wrong path . . . and our Constitution, instead of working for us, works just the opposite.

"The last official act of every government is to loot the treasury." Are we there yet?
 

That is a effect of government working around the Constitution rather than within the bounds created by it.
 

Veto overrides require more votes, for good reason. The POTUS should NEVER be given that much power. If a budget passed by 51%, and the president is of the majority party, then any "compromise" items, added by the minority party, will be removed making the budget a mere formality.

2. Eliminate the Electoral College.
Click to expand...

That makes small (by population) states totally irrelevent in presidential elections. A better solution is to assign electors proportionately as two states now do.

3. Ban corporate and union campaign donations..
Click to expand...

That bans political speech, encouraging PACs totally outside any financial disclosure provisions to have even more power than they now do. It also goes against the taxation without representation principle.

4. Limit super-pack contributions to the same amount and rules regulating the campaign..
Click to expand...

Same objections as to #3, although adding disclosure of contributions would be a plus.

5. Ban lobbyists from donating to campaigns..
Click to expand...

Same as #4.

6. Repeal the 17th Amendment..
Click to expand...

Good idea!

7. Standardize all ballots nationally..
Click to expand...

Impossible, since local offices and ballot initiatives are included. I would mandate no more "early voting" though.

8. Grant every citizen with one of those new "real ID" driver's licenses a passport, since the same information is required at application..
Click to expand...

Good idea, but only with POSITIVE proof of the required supporting documentation.


Unenforcable but good idea.
 
Liberal controlled governments succeed when they alone get to pick the winners and losers in society, without any constraints based on fairness or decency. That is why they hate the Constitution so much.
 
We shouldn't dump the Constitution but I've always thought that we ought to keep it up to date through a system better than amending it. Basically, amendments today are almost impossible to achieve so no one bothers. That leaves the Constitution full of language and ideas that simply are not applicable today, it forces the Supreme Court into the position of deciding how a document written 237 years ago applies to the modern world when, in reality, it probably doesn't. However, the Supreme Court doesn't have the ability to simply say "this no longer applies", they have to keep hitting it with a hammer until it is made to apply, even if the founding fathers would have had no clue.

We're getting to the point where some parts of the Constitution are just absurdly abused.
 

Care to expound on that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…