• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Why should I care what the constitution says about anything?

Misterveritis said:
I just love your recipe for tyranny.
Click to expand...
The Constitution itself is tyranny in practice, but not tyranny in theory because it claims to prevent tyranny. It replaces freedom with fear. "Passing Constitutional muster" is the phrase the Constitution-nazis use, as if the will of the people and the representatives they elect were some lowly private parading before an all-powerful military dictator. The preamble is the only valid part of it, the rest is temporary start-up legislation. Thinking otherwise only put us, the people, in our place. The elitist contempt for the majority stinks up this moldy 18th Century manifesto.
 
I don't know about anyone else , but I do have contempt for the majority.... even when i'm part of it.

the Minority deserves consideration and protections from the majority, else you are faced with tyranny.
 
YoungConserv said:
Because it is the law of the land and without it we become a nation of men and more susceptible to tranny.
Click to expand...

Spoken in a trance (Freudian slip typo?) induced by lifetime indoctrination glorifying this blueprint for tyranny. By constantly promoting references to self-appointed higher authorities, the Internet is programmed so those in the Constitutionalist cult cannot be de-programmed out of their addictive submission to power.
 

says the guy who worships tyranny of the majority....
 
BayToBay said:
Much like the Magna Carta did. It is not a good idea
Click to expand...
Exactly, if taken out of your power-worshipping context. In Robin Hood's time, some petty tyrants, glorified by historians who share the Nobility With No Ability's contempt for the unprivileged peasants, stood up against the royalist tyranny against the aristocracy. Same thing with that self-appointed "We the People" clique who wrote the Constitution to enable petty private tyrants and their pre-owned politicians usurp the rule of the majority, which their Snob Rule refers to as "mob rule."
 
Henry David said:
Just curious, Prometheus, what would you offer in place of the constitution?
Click to expand...
The body of laws that our elected representatives vote on. Plus a lot more referenda, which go against the anti-democratic and self-important spirit of the would be Tories' Constitution.
 
Thrilla said:
I don't know about anyone else , but I do have contempt for the majority.... even when i'm part of it.

the Minority deserves consideration and protections from the majority, else you are faced with tyranny.
Click to expand...
Instead of the present tyranny of special-interest minorities? It may make you feel superior by siding with the elitists, but it makes me feel unsafe. Empowering a clique to over-ride a majority vote has to be the greater tyranny.
 
Thrilla said:
says the guy who worships tyranny of the majority....
Click to expand...
The majority can tyrannize over themselves? The more people that are pushed around, the less the tyranny? It is a simple matter of numbers. And it is all a setup so you will be willing to be ruled by a few in your economic life. Follow the money.
 
PrometheusBound said:
The majority can tyrannize over themselves? The more people that are pushed around, the less the tyranny? It is a simple matter of numbers. And it is all a setup so you will be willing to be ruled by a few in your economic life. Follow the money.
Click to expand...

the majority exerts tyranny over the minority by not protecting them within a specific framework of rights , powers, and limits.... you know, those very things that are in the Constitution.
 
PrometheusBound said:
Instead of the present tyranny of special-interest minorities? It may make you feel superior by siding with the elitists, but it makes me feel unsafe. Empowering a clique to over-ride a majority vote has to be the greater tyranny.
Click to expand...

I don't care how you feel.. I only care how you act within our society.

majority rule works out ok, but only if there are limits to what the majority in power can do... those limits are enumerated in the document you allegedly hate.

what you presumably espouse is unlimited majority rule... the "mob" can do what it wants, without limit, as long as it has majority support.
IE,the "mob" can disrespect and violate rights at will, as long as those violations have majority support.

count me out of such a horrid way to govern
 

Of course it does.
 
PrometheusBound said:
The body of laws that our elected representatives vote on. Plus a lot more referenda, which go against the anti-democratic and self-important spirit of the would be Tories' Constitution.
Click to expand...

Bummer!
 

Preposterously untrue. If 300 million people want the thing amendment, even to the point of being scrapped altogether, then by its own design it'll happen.
 

I agree with you in concept. Not because I consider your constitution faulty (I am in my first year of a law degree, not a constitutional lawyer - so I do not have sufficient knowledge to arrive at that conclusion), but because the laws by which any land is governed must be tested in the courts at regular (and frequent) intervals. Those found irrelevant to current society repealed, and those found necessary to the current era introduced. A constitution which enshrines certain detailed prescriptions in Biblical perpetuity, cannot remain totally relevant to the needs of a modern, developed nation. If one must have a written constitution, perhaps a minimal one - such as the Australian Constitution - is best. Any detailed prescriptions, or proscriptions, are at best, limiting.
 
PrometheusBound said:
The body of laws that our elected representatives vote on. Plus a lot more referenda, which go against the anti-democratic and self-important spirit of the would be Tories' Constitution.
Click to expand...
In that system what is the limiting principle of government?
 
The USC is the Supreme Law of the land.

The legislative process produces far more garbage than good.

To advocate for living by the legislative process is foolish indeed, and specious.
 
The people who act like a mob are a tiny minority, who would be disempowered by majority rule, so your objection actually disproves what you want to prove. If you see some jerk race past you in traffic and say, "I'm going to let that guy vote in direct democracy?", you forget that he would be voted down. Only in the Constitution's anti-democratic system can he manipulate things and gain power over you. This whole system is designed to set up an economic elite by disempowering the majority. They too have contempt for everybody else, so they describe the rest of us as a mob. Time we voted them off the island.
 

You sound like you probably race past people in traffic.
 
Simple explanation how Weed is worse than booze....I can drink a beer or two and still legally drive...I can imbibe alcohol everyday and not be psychologically altered or present a hazard to anyone else.
You cannot smoke weed without getting high...that is Weeds ONLY PURPOSE...weed is worse than alcohol
 

Lol Alcohol is not inert ever you just build an tolerance to the effects, which proves that the person drinking it does so in excess.
havent you ever heard of alcoholism?
Alcoholism - MayoClinic.com

Alcoholism is a chronic and often progressive disease that includes problems controlling your drinking, being preoccupied with alcohol, continuing to use alcohol even when it causes problems, having to drink more to get the same effect (physical dependence), or having withdrawal symptoms when you rapidly decrease or stop drinking. If you have alcoholism, you can't consistently predict how much you'll drink, how long you'll drink, or what consequences will occur from your drinking.

It's possible to have a problem with alcohol, even when it has not progressed to the point of alcoholism. Problem drinking means you drink too much at times, causing repeated problems in your life, although you're not completely dependent on alcohol.

And consider this: Alcohol vs. marijuana in the brain | Psychology Today. In contrast to the effects of alcohol, a series of publications during the past few years suggest that stimulating the brain's marijuana neurotransmitter system appears to have the exact opposite effects upon neurogenesis in the hippocampus of both young and old laboratory animals and humans, i.e. neurogenesis is increased by stimulation of our brain's marijuana receptors.
 
Having a Constitution is an anachronistic concept. It is not law, it is absolute authority. It imitates the 18th Century idea of the King being able to veto any of Parliament's laws or dissolve the legislative authority altogether. So it is Tyrannosaurus Rex, the tyrant King Lizard, a fitting reptile-image for a country run by lawyers.

Only the people should be able to veto a law through a referendum and dissolve the non-representing representatives through elections. But a Constitution puts the people in their place by making them non-participating spectators powerlessly watching a fight between two tyrannies they have little control over.
 
It's the law of land. It grants us certain rights and tell us what the Federal Government can and can not do.
 
YoungConserv said:
In that system what is the limiting principle of government?
Click to expand...
Limitations on self-government defeat its purpose. You are trying to intimidate the majority by associating democracy with the plutocratic oligarchy we have now. Limiting that is not enough; it must be totally replaced if we are going to survive the 21st Century. Eighteenth Century constitutional restrictions are just a trick to make the people feel some faction of the oligarchy is standing up for them when it is really standing in their way.
 

Re read my post you obviously didnt understand it
 
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…