I do not believe in the Constitution

[Taverner]

Yes, it may have been the "starter kit" the same way that you can go down to BevMo today and get a 'beer brewing starter kit' and call yourself a homebrewer. After some period of time, as a brewer, you are going to stray from the starter kit and start doing your own thing. That's what starter kits are for.

So as the end all be all of American Government - it is flawed from the start. For one, it was rev 1.0 - and add to that it was after scrapping a really bad alpha release (Articles of Confederation) that just didn't work.

So going with the whole 'Constitutional Purity' push, its pretty inane at best. There is no reason to give any kind of ultimate authority to the Constitution.

When the constitution was written, Women couldn't vote, Slavery was legal based on race, and you could legally duel.

So why do we want to use this as the end all for Democracy?

[stray cat]

1. So who gets to decide the new constitution -tea baggers or corporations?

[baldguy]

3. If only the loudest & the richest get to choose, then we don't have a democracy.

I think that's the point.

[Taverner]

9. YES!

[bliss_eternal]

34. ding ding ding ding...!

:thumbsup:

[deaniac21]

2. Yeah, there isn't anything in there worth keeping. It just a bunch of old

ideas from the 18th century.

[Catshrink]

4. A quaint document.

Or was that the Geneva Convention?

[Taverner]

10. Both - unfortunaetly

However the Bill of Rights ain't too bad

[Catshrink]

21. I was thinking of the * administration's attitude

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AsahinaKimi]

6. George W. Bush called it

"Just a piece of paper".

[bliss_eternal]

35. probably because...

...he chose to treat it as a "rough draft", so he could attempt to add discriminatory amendments, that celebrated his hatred of women and glbt's.

[End Of The Road]

7. Don't know much American history, do you?

Or do you just not know much, period?

[Taverner]

11. I ask you the same thing

Ever hear of the "Articles of Confederation"?

It was the predecessor to our constitution

Since then, there have been two camps: (1) Stick to this great piece of 16th Century Instruction or (2) Work from this great piece of 16th Century Instruction


I choose what's behind door #2, Wayne...

[Yupster]

46. The Constitution does list two ways

to change itself.

So you can support it and want to change it too.

[derby378]

8. I'm going to assume you're having a bad day

I've had a rough weekend. I'm coming to terms with the realization that my dear wife was a full-blown hoarder, and that yours truly came pretty close to being one himself. The only therapy for someone like me is to start throwing away a lot of stuff that I'm never going to use or need rather than just letting our place remain a cluttered shrine to the life we shared over the past ten years. It's rough, but I'd like to think I'm making progress.

Still, you need to rethink the importance of the Constitution to our way of life and our democratic process - or what's left of it.

[Taverner]

12. Read the other threads, and you might get an idea of what I'm trying to say

[Cleobulus]

13. Uhm, you are aware of the Amendment process, call them the upgrades to the Constitution...

The Constitution of today is NOT the same Constitution of 1787, and it was amended about 4 years later with the Bill of Rights, and has had 17 other Amendments added to it since then. The Constitution can be rewritten, but that may not be necessary. Right now I'd call it Constitution 2.5(Upgraded to 2.0 with the Reconstruction Amendments, and to 2.5 with the 17th and 19th Amendments). There is still some work that could be done to it, but its still a relevant document for today's government.

[Taverner]

17. The Amendment Process IMHO is the only value of the Constitution at this point

It's the amendments that make us ethical

Ending of slavery...giving the vote to the people in numerous amendments....

[Cleobulus]

20. Some parts of the Original(without amendments) Constitution are no longer valid...

and were superceded by future amendments, I'm not an Originalist by any stretch of the imagination, and I frankly don't give a shit what was originally intended when the Constitution was written, or even the original intent for the Amendments. We update it as needed, on one level I feel its too difficult to change it(ERA didn't pass, to give an example), but then again, considering some of the crazy shit people attempted over the years to put in it, I'm also grateful it is that difficult to pass an Amendment. Call me conflicted. :)

[MineralMan]

14. If all you're looking at is the original Constitution, you're

missing a lot. The Constitution is the total document, including all Amendments. Yes, the original Constitution was version 1.0. Then it got the Bill of Rights. Version 2.0. Every Amendment after the first ten was another version. We can amend the Constitution as often as we like. It's difficult to do, but it's been done many times already.

The Constitution does not prohibit women from voting. It hasn't since the 1920s. Slavery stopped being allowed in the Constitution in the 1860s. The Constitution has changed many times, and the Constitution is the entire document, including each and every Amendment. We've even repealed an Amendment by passing another one. It is a document that is the sum total of all of its changes. We can change it at any time, if we have the will to do so and enough votes to do so. It is not the be all and end all, because it can be changed as needed.

Perhaps it's time for you to read it again, eh?

[pintobean]

26. Dead nuts on.

One of your best posts.

[MineralMan]

44. That's very kind of you to say. Thanks.

[Dreamer Tatum]

15. I'm sure you'll change your tune when/if your rights are stripped. nt

[Taverner]

16. So...you are fine with black folks being 3/5ths of a person (constitutional)

And Senators being elected by the State Legislature (Constitutional until amended)

I just think placing all this bogus authority on the Constitution is a mistake

[Dreamer Tatum]

18. The only one taking it utterly literally here is you.

Your post is silly.

[Taverner]

23. I am just saying this is where a literalist reading of the Constitution will get you

[Yupster]

47. The 3/5ths rule was ended

by the 14th Amendment.

That's the best part of the Constitution. It recognizes that it would need to be changed from time to time and set up two legal ways to change it.

The change I'd like to see now is the end of the senate. Since the 17th Amendment, there's no point to it anymore.

[kenny blankenship]

19. Women couldn't vote, Slavery was legal based on race, and you could legally duel.

Also, it was traditional to restrict voting not just to white men over 21, but also to require that white man over 21 to be a member of the property owning class. In some cases, you had to not only own property but that property had to be unencumbered by debts, liens, mortgages, etc. In other words, to hold office or vote it was still a customary requirement that you be a very rich man. So whenever you hear the words "representative democracy" applied to our system of govt., it is always good to remember just how UN-representative the original design and designers of this democracy were. And the great and wise US Constitution of 1787 asserted no individual right to vote based on simple residency in a state nor on native birth within the territory of the US or whatever, but left that all of that to the states (and to the established propertied elites in each of them) to discriminate as they pleased. The fact that this "democracy" is still appallingly UN-representative is not an accident nor is it a recent invention or corruption from a state of "original purity."

[bliss_eternal]

37. great points...!

:applause:

[Poll_Blind]

22. It doesn't sound like you understand The Constitution or its purpose, at all.

The Constitution is a self-remedying, self-modifying document. The reason why you have such a poor view of The Constitution is because our representatives and sometimes the president only have a passing interest in actually enforcing it.

The Constitution has not failed us. We have failed it.

We pretend this is not the case and walk away from it at our greatest possible peril. Even as it has been diminished by our poor stewardship, its faintest glow still keeps you and I from being gobbled up and shat out by the unimaginable creatures waiting just outside the radius of the protection it gives.

I would not toss aside such a powerful talisman against tyranny if I were you.

PB

[Taverner]

24. It is a great start - but being a literalist to the point of trying to find out the original intent

Well - to hell with that

[Poll_Blind]

25. Yeah, but that's something like how Scalia interprets The Constitution.

That's just one teeny little sliver of the possible ways to interpret the document. Actually, Scalia uses that whole strict constructionist bullshit as a shield for his unsavory personal beliefs. He's conveniently looking around the fact that Article 6, right off the bat, causes The Constitution (which describes itself as the "Supreme Law of the Land") to be modified by treaties we enter into and become part of it.

You should actually read The Constitution very carefully at least once in your life, if you haven't. Like a great book, you can read reviews good and bad, but you have to really experience it for yourself. It is one of the most important documents ever written.

PB

[Taverner]

29. I've read it. But the Scalias are whom I am referring to here

The folks who rule in favor of The constitution over logic

That's who

[Poll_Blind]

38. I think I'm missing something- what are we talking about here? Like, what issue is this related to?

:shrug:

Most of the time I approach posts as individual entities on DU, and sometimes that leaves me in the lurch when there's another element involved.

PB

[immoderate]

36. Could you imagine Jefferson and Madison dealing with originalists?

I hope they had a sense of humor.

--imm

[PurityOfEssence]

27. Don't rock the boat; we'd NEVER get as good a deal on religion today

Think about it...

[Hippo_Tron]

28. Believing the constitution is right and respecting the constitution are two separate things

It's perfectly fine to propose changing the constitution through the legal channels. It's a different thing entirely to dismiss the constitution or ignore it because you don't agree with it or it's inconvenient. If you think it's okay for people to dismiss it or ignore it then you must not think rule of law is one of those obsolete ideas. Personally I think rule of law is just as important in the 21st century as it was in the 18th century.

[Taverner]

30. I am just saying as an end-all, it's a horrible measure

Society evolves - and our government should evolve with us

[NobodyHere]

31. Isn't that the whole point of the amendment process?

nt

[proteus_lives]

43. The Constitution has evolved with us.

Read MM's post.

[court jester]

54. Article Five: Amendments-An amendment may be ratified in three ways

Article Five: Amendments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate..."

The convention method has been used only once, to approve the 21st Amendment (repealing prohibition, 1933).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution


It's all right there, so it seems that those that think it's Not a living document haven't read it, or don't comprehend what they have read.

[bliss_eternal]

32. yay, an op i can totally support!

...i actually dared to write a paper in college stating that the constitution was flawed as it failed to include so many w/in the population today (i.e. minors/children, women, people of color, glbt's, the disabled, etc.) my usual professor encouraged me, providing me with a glowing review of my first draft.

unfortunately, he had an emergency mid-quarter and was replaced by some dude from the east coast (who i think came in on the mayflower himself. seriously he was *that* old)...anyway, mayflower, puritanical dude was having non of me or my paper, and gave it an f. friggin' fascist.

:cry::(

[Nye Bevan]

33. You're more than welcome to propose and campaign for whatever amendments you would like!

That's the beauty of the Constitution! It can, and has been, amended when deemed appropriate or necessary.

What's the first new amendment you would like to see?

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Taverner]

53. Tsk tsk tsk another idiot doesn't read and gets all huffy

Would be nice if you actually read my post rather than giving a knee jerk reaction. What are you, sixteen?

[uppityperson]

55. This post says is on Medicare & is upset because "Obamacare" cut his state funding, or something

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=250&topic_id=4123&mesg_id=4135
"my Medicare has already been cut because the fucking state of Oregon thinks I am not worthy of HIV treatments!!!"

[Safetykitten]

40. Jesus, I was using it for a placemat. I had no idea people read it.

[bluetrain]

41. And I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.

[pinboy3niner]

42. There is VERY good reason to give "ultimate authority to the Constitution"

No one--not even the Constitution itself--posits it as the "end all for Democracy." That makes no sense at all when the Constitution itself provides a process for change--and it has been amended many times.

As MineralMan describes so well above, the Constitution is a living, evolving document. Despite its flaws, it is an ingenious construction that defines how our society will govern itself, setting up a structure of counter-balancing branches of government, with defined roles for federal and state government, and also defines the rights of the governed.

The value of our Constitution in providing political stability should not overlooked. While some places in the world have undergone a succession of bloody civil wars, we've had only one in our history. The domestic peace we've known is a tribute to the document's effectiveness. And the fact that the Constitution is revered across the political spectrum is significant.

On several occasions in my life, I've sworn to "support and defend the Constitution" and "that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same." Though I no longer hold official military or civilian positions, I still feel obligated by that oath. Beyond any obligation of sworn oath, I personally value the Constitution for what it is, and for what it has given us. It has served--and continues to serve--us well.

Count me as a firm believer in the Constitution.

[Nikia]

49. I agree with your point about political stability

With the political climate of today, things would be much worse if we didn't have at least that.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

45. The Constitution is an excellent document... here's why.

it's more like an actual "programming structure or languange".

Basically, aside from the original Bill of rights, it sets up the rules of the game. And frankly, I'm fine with all of the Bill of Rights. Like any programming language, it establishes a structure (bicameral representative democracy) and allows the end users to give it meaning (add amendments & self govern). A program or programming language is nothing without the actual lines of code that compromise the program.... well, the amendments are what actually give the Constitution it's value and there is process for adding and removing those as well. There's really no problems with the Constitution that can't be fixed later by amending or repealing the directives of the Constitution. Evidence? Well, like you said, women couldn't vote and white people owned black people. That was not necessarily a providence of the Constitution but rather a consequence of accepted societal order of the time. People came around to thier senses and used the Constitution to outlaw such deplorable social behaviors. The Constitutional process worked!

What is wrong with the Constitution? So it was rev 1.0 - it would be a logical fallacy to infer any lack of ineffectiveness without evidence supporting its ineffectiveness due to being the original governing document. Why is being rev 1.0 or "the starter kit" such a bad thing. You really have not provided any good examples. State your case more clearly.

[Taitertots]

48. It is a living document

I'm not a legal historian. I was under the impression that those faults were not explicitly written into the constitution, but were determined allowable by their interpretation of the constitution.

[joeybee12]

50. "In order to form a more perfect union...."

In other words, it was a living document, meant to change...good start and to say we shoould go back to the intention, is to say we should go back to something meant to change...

[immune]

51. "Flawed from the start"

Antifederalist No. 1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION: A DANGEROUS PLAN OF BENEFIT ONLY TO THE "ARISTOCRATICK COMBINATION"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From The Boston Gazette and Country Journal, November 26, 1787.

(excerpt)

They brand with infamy every man who is not as determined and zealous in its favor as themselves. They cry aloud the whole must be swallowed or none at all, thinking thereby to preclude any amendment; they are afraid of having it abated of its present RIGID aspect. They have strived to overawe or seduce printers to stifle and obstruct a free discussion, and have endeavored to hasten it to a decision before the people can duty reflect upon its properties. In order to deceive them, they incessantly declare that none can discover any defect in the system but bankrupts who wish no government, and officers of the present government who fear to lose a part of their power. These zealous partisans may injure their own cause, and endanger the public tranquility by impeding a proper inquiry; the people may suspect the WHOLE to be a dangerous plan, from such COVERED and DESIGNING schemes to enforce it upon them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/afp01.html

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[immune]

56. No.

Those were excellent points!!