• 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!

The Constitution was written 234 years ago. There is no reason it cannot be modified to meet the demands of today.

dncc said:
And the Waltrip Rams could beat the New England Patriots too right? Waltrip has a better chance of shutting out the Pats than we have of crafting a constitution that addresses the challenges the nation faces.
Click to expand...
I don't watch basket ball.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I haven't even tried to defend it. You win the debate since that's so important to you. I think your issue is that I handed it to you and you didn't earn it.

That's why you're pretending that I'm arguing against you.
Click to expand...

Claiming the Crusades were “defensive” is A) a lie and B) a clear cut attempt to defend them.

No, my issue is your complete ignorance.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Claiming the Crusades were “defensive” is A) a lie and B) a clear cut attempt to defend them.

No, my issue is your complete ignorance.
Click to expand...
Then I hope you get help for your issue. It's not something I care to help you with nor am I qualified so. Deal with it however you need to.
 
Razoo said:
The Constitution was written 234 years ago. There is no reason it cannot be modified to meet the demands
of today.

Today we have anti americans working to take over the USA.

234 years ago this matter was not on the table.
Click to expand...
Honey, it's called the Amendment process.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Then I hope you get help for your issue. It's not something I care to help you with nor am I qualified so. Deal with it however you need to.
Click to expand...

My “issue”?

You mean your laughably ignorant claim?
 
Craig234 said:
Congress is the method that has always been used, but 2/3 of states can call a constitutional convention and propose any amendments they want. Then 3/4 of states need to ratify them.
Click to expand...
3/4ths need to ratify amendments done even by congress, the states only need 2/3 for an amenment but 3/4 for ratification, congressionally passed amendments still need 3/4 for ratification or they are not amendments.


Amendments proposed by Congress or convention become valid only when ratified by the legislatures of, or conventions in, three-fourths of the states (i.e., 38 of 50 states).

https://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/amending-the-u-s-constitution.aspx
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Personally, I think that the Constitution should be completely and totally rewritten. Don't get me wrong, there are some solid ideas in the Constitution as is, but I think that society has changed and evolved so much so that it would be better to write a document that is much more modern in nature.
Click to expand...

Not sure I'd go that far. But I would say that every 75 years or so, have a scheduled constitutional convention to add protections to both process and persons. A lot of people forget but we're inside of 3 years still of someone--Trump--wanting to do away with birth right citizenship.

1540992833014.png


And, if you ask me, that is the real danger of the Courts allowing the crazy abortion laws from Texas to stand. All you have to do is craft a clever state law that circumvents and exploits a loophole and you're home free in the Roberts court.
 
beerftw said:
3/4ths need to ratify amendments done even by congress, the states only need 2/3 for an amenment but 3/4 for ratification, congressionally passed amendments still need 3/4 for ratification or they are not amendments.
Click to expand...
You're repeating what I said.
 
Craig234 said:
He's stating the obvious because Republicans don't understand it - there is an excessive opposition to considering any changes to the constitution, ironically at odds with the founding fathers themselves who said it SHOULD be changed.
Click to expand...
Those same founders laid out a mechanism for changing it. So follow it.
 
Roadvirus said:
This reminds me of an article by NY Slimes' Adam Liptak, who in his op-ed "We the People Loses Appeal With People Around the World" claimed the U.S. Constitution was "terse and old" because it doesn't give people the right to government entitlements.
Click to expand...
In Britain the most forward thinking country in Europe at that time the three pillars
of conservatism were 1) the monarchy 2) the established church 3) the aristocracy.

In creating & structuring the new nation Washington & the founders:
In a stroke of enlightened progressive genius they managed
to eliminate the first two pillars but it did seem that the aristocracy
remained although minus the snobby titles.

In Jefferson's letters to Adams he dwells on a natural aristocracy among men.
Thomas Jefferson, on Aristocracy - letter to John Adams
Jefferson as did Adams & their peers saw themselves as the aristocratic
elite to whom the new country was best entrusted. And who can really say
they were not correct.

In Jefferson's letters to Lafeyette he doubles down writing that not only are there
superior men there are superior peoples ' 'The yeomanry of the US are not the canaille of Paris’

LOOK AT US NOW, LOOK
Who just came into office & for starters look who he apparently
has hand picked for his cabinet & even worse look at the new VP.
These 'ham & eggers' are pretenders barely mediocre & surely not the elite
to whom this divided country will be best entrusted.

Does anyone really want any change to be handled by this lot!
 
Craig234 said:
I think many of us rightly are very wary of changing the constitution much less radical change - but what are the main things in a new constitution you'd like?
Click to expand...

Not sure if it's the "main thing"...but for starters,

codified rules for Congress. Such as...If the House passes a bill and sends it to the Senate, the senate has 2 weeks (or whatever) to consider the bill, debate it, mark up amendments, changes, etc... and hold a floor vote on the bill. And vice versa. No more shielding the membership of the majority party in either chamber from unpopular votes by not considering a bill. So the voters know how their elected officals voted.

Also get rid of the Presidential pardon and let 3 justices of the Supreme Court hear pardon requests. Nearly every administration in my lifetime has abused it.

Add in a Line item veto.
 
A few years ago, some fellow by the name of Tommy Jefferson wrote to an old pal, Jimmy Madison, with some thoughts on how the past always seems to control not only the present but also the future and just why he - Tommy - thought that wasn't right.

The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government.
[. . .]
On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.—It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.
Click to expand...
 
Craig234 said:
Right-wingers seem to view the choice as unlimited guns and gun murders none of which are important to prevent, and America conquered and enslaved under some mythical attack force of Russian commies, Chinese commies, and Mexicans who ally with Democrats to eat their babies.
Click to expand...

There ya go.

The freaking animals running rampant in progressive run cities love people like you.

Keep fighting the good fight.
 
Reviewing and updating the Constitution more frequently would make it evermore useful.
 
Somerville said:
The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water.
Click to expand...

Easy. They do not.
However, for people who believe that the current generation has a responsibility to safeguard the gains of previous generations and preserve them for coming generations, then it is another matter. Then they must set rules for themselves and choose to be bound by them.

But at any given time, if the strongest (usually the majority) want to change the laws, or even to kill or enslave everyone else, there is nothing preventing them from doing so.
All they have to do is stop following the rules.
 
natman said:
Those same founders laid out a mechanism for changing it. So follow it.
Click to expand...

Craig234 said:
Woosh.
Click to expand...
Is this your idea of intelligent debate? I don't have any objection to constitutional amendments per se. For example, IMO, it's a national embarrassment that the ERA has still not passed.

What I do object to is people trying to change the Constitution without an amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom