American Constitution Losing Appeal

Page 4 of 6 [ 96 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

CoMF
Deinonychus

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

08 Feb 2012, 11:03 pm

Ah, but is the Constitution itself falling into disfavor, or the core principles that were meant to be enshrined within it?

Personally, I fall somewhere between the "set in stone" and "living document" camps. I do not believe for one minute that it's immutable and to do otherwise is sacrilege. After all, the Founding Fathers provided future generations with the means to amend it as necessary. However, I also believe that we are not free to simply dismiss portions of it which we opine are "antiquated" or "out of step with the times." The Bill of Rights is not a "buffet" where we get to pick and choose only the parts we find "palatable." It's a "package deal" meant to be enjoyed in its entirety.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Feb 2012, 2:05 am

CoMF wrote:

Correct. That is why we have a process for amending or even abolishing the Constitution. It is man-made and not at all Holy Writ.

ruveyn

CoMF
Deinonychus

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

09 Feb 2012, 2:20 am

ruveyn wrote:

Correct. That is why we have a process for amending or even abolishing the Constitution. It is man-made and not at all Holy Writ.

I'm glad someone agrees with me on that.

That being said, if we need to draft an entirely new Constitution from the ground up while remaining true to the core principles espoused by the Founding Fathers, so be it. However, I'm also wary of those who want to omit or exclude certain unalienable rights simply because they feel that they're "outmoded" in the framework of a modern society.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Feb 2012, 2:24 am

CoMF wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Correct. That is why we have a process for amending or even abolishing the Constitution. It is man-made and not at all Holy Writ.

If we ever started from scratch I would not give a plugged nickle for our Right to Free Speech and even less for our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. A New Constitution would be a master-piece of neo-Fascist Liberalism. The State would be ueber alles and it would be firmly stated so in writing. A new Constitution would leave us with half the liberties we enjoy now and which have been eroding for the last hundred years.

We would end up with an explicitly Politically Correct Constitution and be the worse off for it.

ruveyn

CoMF
Deinonychus

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

09 Feb 2012, 2:46 am

ruveyn wrote:

A New Constitution would be a master-piece of neo-Fascist Liberalism... The State would be ueber alles and it would be firmly stated so in writing. A new Constitution would leave us with half the liberties we enjoy now and which have been eroding for the last hundred years.

We would end up with an explicitly Politically Correct Constitution and be the worse off for it.

If "certain people" had their way, most certainly, and that is why those people set my hair on end because if there's anything history has taught us, it's that government will misbehave and trample roughshod over individual liberties the very minute you loosen it from its chains.

Anyway, you don't need to convince me that the "left" are not my friends. They only care about keeping themselves and their friends in power, not much unlike the "right."

Also, Ginsburg should just keep her mouth shut and fade into retirement considering that she was one of the 8 Justices who issued the controversial Snyder v. Phelps decision that essentially set the legal precedent for everyone to engage in hate speech with impunity. Incidentaly, Justice Alito's polemic indictment of the majority opinion was perhaps the most balanced and Constitutional view of the issue central to the case at hand, namely IIED torts.

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

09 Feb 2012, 11:19 am

CoMF wrote:

Also, Ginsburg should just keep her mouth shut and fade into retirement considering that she was one of the 8 Justices who issued the controversial Snyder v. Phelps decision that essentially set the legal precedent for everyone to engage in hate speech with impunity. Incidentaly, Justice Alito's polemic indictment of the majority opinion was perhaps the most balanced and Constitutional view of the issue central to the case at hand, namely IIED torts.

If everyone can engage in hate speech with impunity, then why should Mrs. Ginsburg keep her mouth shut?

CoMF
Deinonychus

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

09 Feb 2012, 3:37 pm

pandabear wrote:

If everyone can engage in hate speech with impunity, then why should Mrs. Ginsburg keep her mouth shut?

Touché. But seriously, how can someone claim to be "progressive" yet support a decision that denies the victims of hate speech justice in the form of IIED torts? That's my major point of contention with her.

JWC
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

09 Feb 2012, 3:50 pm

rabbittss wrote:

As far as I'm concerned.. anyone who quotes that disgusting b***h is instantly invalidated.

So, it's the old "I can't win the argument, so I'll just resort to insults" line. The distress call of intellectual lightweight. If you had any confidence in your own stance, then you wouldn't hesitate to challenge the opposition head on.

If her ideas are invalid, then why do you refrain from debating them. After all, if she's so obviously wrong, then it should be easy to point out why.

Quote:

It's especially rich considering she ended her life suckling at the government teat.

Why shouldn't she be entitled to receive benefits from a program she was forced to pay into?

abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

09 Feb 2012, 5:24 pm

The issue with Rands argument is that she is operating on the premise that people*have* intrinsic rights.

We have only one intrinsic right, the right to try to survive. Nothing else is granted just by being born human, and to pretend otherwise is foolish.

_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.

CoMF
Deinonychus

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

09 Feb 2012, 5:35 pm

abacacus wrote:

We have only one intrinsic right, the right to try to survive. Nothing else is granted just by being born human, and to pretend otherwise is foolish.

Couldn't this statement be construed as a nod towards Social Darwinism? Just sayin'...

abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

09 Feb 2012, 5:38 pm

CoMF wrote:

abacacus wrote:

We have only one intrinsic right, the right to try to survive. Nothing else is granted just by being born human, and to pretend otherwise is foolish.

Couldn't this statement be construed as a nod towards Social Darwinism? Just sayin'...

It could. But, I am talking about rights granted purely by being born human, anywhere in the universe. A bill of rights can add more rights to that countries citizens, and I believe that to be a good thing.

_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,682
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

09 Feb 2012, 5:51 pm

At least watching CPAC today I wouldn't have gotten that impression at all.

I think were getting closer to actually having a critical analysis of where various constitutions take their respective countries - on a public level - rather than a purely emotional or ideologue-driven and hammer-headed kind of affair.

_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.

CoMF
Deinonychus

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

09 Feb 2012, 5:54 pm

abacacus wrote:

Thanks for clarifying. For what it's worth, I don't subscribe to Objectivism or the belief that my civil liberties are "granted" to me by my government.

JWC
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

09 Feb 2012, 6:01 pm

abacacus wrote:

Isn't that the same thing that Rand says here:

Quote:

There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action...

JWC
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

09 Feb 2012, 6:04 pm

CoMF wrote:

abacacus wrote:

For what it's worth, I don't subscribe to Objectivism or the belief that my civil liberties are "granted" to me by my government.

What do you believe is the source of your rights?

abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

09 Feb 2012, 6:08 pm

JWC wrote:

abacacus wrote:

Isn't that the same thing that Rand says here:

Quote:

There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action...

Vaguely, aside from the fact that no corollaries or consequences exist. We have that one right, and that is the only right granted to us by nature/god/whatever you want to call it.

_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.

Page 4 of 6 [ 96 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Jump to:

American Constitution Losing Appeal Post Reply New Topic

American Constitution Losing Appeal