- Joined
- Aug 26, 2012
- Messages
- 8,247
- Reaction score
- 2,713
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
But the Constitution IS a governing document. It is the written rules for the compact the states established between themselves. Are you suggesting that it is no longer relevant and that the states should abandon their union?Neither is the Constitution, unless you want to force us to obey, for all time, the hasty decisions of a small unrepresentative elite from the Eighteenth Century, when the world and the understanding of it were far different from what they are today.
collectivist for the good of all people. "Ask not what your country can do for you ask what you can do for your country". the theme of the Constititution.
But the Constitution IS a governing document. It is the written rules for the compact the states established between themselves. Are you suggesting that it is no longer relevant and that the states should abandon their union?
You are treating the Constitution exactly how Fundamentalists treat the Bible. No matter what the political bullies try to force us to accept as a substitute for an active and effective check by the people on their own government, the Constitutionalists' eternally binding obstructive document was merely a start-up plan to be superseded by legislation based on real-life consequences of this original but temporary legislation. It's as if whoever first built computers had been tied and bound by a start-up plan saying that they would only be used for secretarial work and had to submit any new applications to a Supreme Court tribunal or a long drawn out amendment process. Those who credit everything we the people have done by ourselves to this obsolete and unnecessary sacred text are leading us to a national collapse, because this 18th Century blueprint for oligarchy has always been a drag on our political maturity. Supreme things belong in heaven, not under the control of those who want to make themselves gods on earth.
The constitution didn't ask what anyone could do for their country. It laid down the concepts for protection of the individual, and his liberties, from the government. It was about liberty, not governance (except in how it was to be limited), nor collectivism.
Well you are entitle do your opinion. but many constitutional scholars and lawyers disagree.
Actually, the constitutions of the states would also be considered null and void, as the current people of those states did not form their own social compact either.
Your second statement appears to contradict your first.I do think it's important that our government upholds the Constitution. I also think that government should see to it that every American is provided an attainable path to success, regardless of sex, race, disability, orientation, or class.
That's an interesting take. So because I didn't sign the constitution of my state it is null with respect to me?
Interesting thoughts. I wonder what would happen if the people in my state of Pennsylvania decided to rewrite their social contract and if one area (say Pittsburgh) chose not to sign on the dotted line but chose to form their own separate contract. The idea of local self-rule appeals to my de-centralist sensibilities. Or what if one single household decided not to sign on. Sounds like anarchy, frankly, but it certainly would allow maximum choice for people to sign up with the contract that was in their best interest.However, the most radical thinkers who believe in a system of social compact believe that such a compact must be rewritten every so often. After all, how can one generation of people write a social compact and expect their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren to abide by it. That's like saying that I sign a contract to work for a company, but that my son and grandson must also abide by too.
Interesting thoughts. I wonder what would happen if the people in my state of Pennsylvania decided to rewrite their social contract and if one area (say Pittsburgh) chose not to sign on the dotted line but chose to form their own separate contract. The idea of local self-rule appeals to my de-centralist sensibilities. Or what if one single household decided not to sign on. Sounds like anarchy, frankly, but it certainly would allow maximum choice for people to sign up with the contract that was in their best interest.
Interesting thoughts for a monday morning.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?