The idea that the Constitution is a living document that can be ammended to fit the times is a hot button issue. If yall can discuss it without havin a cow and startin a war I'd really like to hear what you think from ALL sides.
MY thoughts on it are on both sides. I think it can and sometimes SHOULD be amended to PROTECT MORE and limit GOVERNMENT more but I don't think it should be used to take away.
But then amending it to protect MORE leaves the door open for all KINDS of ridiculous things that a FEW people think should be protected and are not necesarily in the best interest of our country.
SO all in all I guess I think it should be PRESERVED and upheld at all costs.
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
Patrick Henry
Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes."
Benjamin Franklin
Good topic Pam :)
Could you elaborate on what you meant by "...but I don't think it should be used to take away." And could you give an example of..."ridiculous things that a FEW people think should be protected and are not necesarily in the best interest of our country."
Personally, I think that it should be upheld in its present form.
Quote"...but I don't think it should be used to take away."
As in interpreting the second amendment so as to justify REmoving our right to keep and bear arms. I am a STAUNCH supporter of this right.
As in using it to take more power AWAY from the states.....
As in the fairness doctrine......to me freedom of speech is freedom of speech...I may think about somebody elses point of view but I don't feel obligated to give theirs at the same time as I'm givin mine and vice versa and I will stand for somebodys RIGHT to say and think whatever they do whether I LIKE it or not!...... ::) I may argue with em about it ;) maybe LOL
Quote..."ridiculous things that a FEW people think should be protected and are not necesarily in the best interest of our country."
To be quite honest I don't have a specific example of this at the moment, I will do some thinkin and research and get back to ya on it.
take that back...one ridiculous one DOES come to mind and that was Prohibition. Even as a kid I thought that was stupid thing to waste an amendment on.
Also some people have wanted to amend it to make Christianity the "official" religion of the US. Freedom of religion is freedom of religion. Just to be clear I think banning public prayer and religious symbols that is so close to the hearts of Athiests is TOTally wrong. Freedom of religion is FREEDOM of religion.
but that's all I got right now so I'll have to think about it some more.
Quote from: BillyakaVarmit on August 17, 2009, 03:05:53 PM
Good topic Pam :)
Could you elaborate on what you meant by "...but I don't think it should be used to take away." And could you give an example of..."ridiculous things that a FEW people think should be protected and are not necesarily in the best interest of our country."
Personally, I think that it should be upheld in its present form.
Billy in stead of questioning Pam maybe you could stop criticizing her point of view and give yours and support it with a little evidence. By criticizing you are just arguing and by providing support for your view you are educating. I know you can do it you have done it before. This could have been said to me also, just trying to support more of us educating others than us just getting stuck in an unsupported opinion loop.
David
David, I wasn't criticizing her, I was just wanting a little clarification because I was unclear about what she meant. And just for the record, so far on this thread I agree with her.
Quote from: BillyakaVarmit on August 17, 2009, 08:35:24 PM
David, I wasn't criticizing her, I was just wanting a little clarification because I was unclear about what she meant. And just for the record, so far on this thread I agree with her.
My bad Billy. I apologize to you.
David
QuoteBilly in stead of questioning Pam maybe you could stop criticizing her point of view and give yours and support it with a little evidence.
Hey :) thanks for the support David!
Quote from: BillyakaVarmit on August 17, 2009, 08:35:24 PM
David, I wasn't criticizing her, I was just wanting a little clarification because I was unclear about what she meant. And just for the record, so far on this thread I agree with her.
Holy CRAP did the world come to an end when I wasn't lookin?! LOL kiddin ya
What ARE some of your views Billy? Any pet amendments or ones you don't like?
Was watchin The Alamo...........John Wayne/Davy Crockett :Republic. I like the sound of the word. It means people can live free, talk free, go or come, buy or sell, be drunk or sober, however they choose. Some words give you a feeling. Republic is one of those words that makes me tight in the throat - the same tightness a man gets when his baby takes his first step or his first baby shaves and makes his first sound as a man. Some words can give you a feeling that makes your heart warm. Republic is one of those words.
With or without a Constitution.......with or without political parties.......that's what it's about.
Billy, you posted this in another thread
QuoteTo suggest that the Constitution can be changed to "fit the times" subverts the document entirely. What use is there in having a document that limits the power of the gov't, if we give that gov't the power to change that document?? After the signing of the Constitution, Ben Franklin was asked by a woman on the street, "What have you given us?", Franklin responded, "A Republic, if you can keep it."
The constitution was designed to be a living document, in that it can be changed to fit the times. Had the founders not wanted the constitution to change, they would not have inlcuded an Amendment process. Furthermore, there are some good examples of changes that were made for the better.
Take the whole 3/5th's clause thing. Thr original constitution counted black people as 3/5ths of a person when determining votes. This was changed by the 14th amendment. Then there are others that give voting rights to certain groups that didn't have them under the original constitution. Conservatives are constantly wanting to change the constitution to ban gay marraige and abortion, how would that be possible if the constitution can't be changed? There are issues coming to us in the future that we won't be able to deal with, that the founders couldn't even fathom. We'll need to have a way to deal with them.
I do not agree that the Constitution is a living document to accomodate
the immoral times.
Queer marriage and abortion are states' issues, not Fed. If so-called conservatives
push for Fed laws, real conservatives will not go that far even though real conservatives
oppose queer marriage and abortion.
Regarding womens' suffrage, a selling point for that amendment was that women
were smarter than black men.
QuoteRegarding womens' suffrage, a selling point for that amendment was that women
were smarter than black men.
Which is just one more reason I for one do NOT want to go back to that time and the ridiculous opinions of then. Unequal rights for women never should have been the "way things are" to start with.
QuoteQueer marriage and abortion are states' issues,
These are examples of things that should not be Constitutional issues
QuoteI do not agree that the Constitution is a living document to accomodate
the immoral times.
I'm not being rude here but do you realize how wore out the habit of sayin how immoral the times are is as a reason for anything? People have been bitchin about "how immoral the times are" since about 10 minutes after we started HAVIN times. That's a whole other discussion tho so carry on..............
Quote from: Diane Amberg on August 18, 2009, 01:27:42 PM
Try this one.
"The Declaration of Independence was simply freedom from British domination. The rights to life, liberty and the pursuitof happiness pertained only to white males in the dominate class of American society. It is quite fortunate that our Constitution provides mechanisms permitting the United States to evolve toward a "more perfect union". The judiciary interprets the Constitution and the legislative branch can change it. It is only through these amendment and legislative processes that the slaves were ultimately freed, women were finally granted the right to vote and people with disabilities are finally starting to have a real chance at participating as full American citizens. We can credit Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington and the rest of the Founding Fathers for demonstrating the foresight necessary to establish a nation with underlying principles that allow it to evolve away from dominance by one small class of men and toward full inclusion for all its citizens.
written by Darrell Shandrow
Good one Diane
Quote from: Diane Amberg on August 18, 2009, 02:22:32 PM
Who gets to decide what morality is anyway? By today's standards the founding fathers were terrible!
I guess that depends on whose standards your applying? Frankly, with the amount of flaunted sexuality, drug use and glorifaction, I am pretty sure the Founders would have felt the same way about us. True, they may have had brothels, but I seriously doubt they would have taught their 13 year old sons and daughters how to put on a condom.
Quote from: BillyakaVarmit on August 18, 2009, 09:21:40 PM
Quote from: Diane Amberg on August 18, 2009, 02:22:32 PM
Who gets to decide what morality is anyway? By today's standards the founding fathers were terrible!
I guess that depends on whose standards your applying? Frankly, with the amount of flaunted sexuality, drug use and glorifaction, I am pretty sure the Founders would have felt the same way about us. True, they may have had brothels, but I seriously doubt they would have taught their 13 year old sons and daughters how to put on a condom.
If AIDS had been around they would. Besides back then most of those thirteen year olds were getting married.
more like 15 or 16 yr. old getting married. In those times premartial sex was scorned, as it should be.
depends where you lived and your circumstances.
yeah........... premarital sex NEVER happened till the 60's ::) where you been Antarctica? whatthehellever :P
you mean scorned so that kids who give in to natural urges hide it and end up with diseases, live in shame because they "are doing BAD things" , hide pregnancies till they risk their and their babies health because they don't want mom and dad to think they are "bad people"? Give me a break. It should be talked about and consequences discussed so kids are aware its a natural urge and NOT wrong just too early.
Thats all I got to say about that.
Pam, I never said it didn't happen, I said it was scorned. Children need to be taught self control. They need to be taught that premartial sex is WRONG, no matter how natural the urge.
Hence the talking and communicating...........without the spectre of shame attached.
I guess we just have to agree to disagree. I feel that if children engage in prematrial sex or any other activity that they know is wrong simply because they got the "urge to merge" then they should feel ashamed. They have dishonored themselves and their parents.
And I don't. I taught my kids to accept consequences not be ashamed. Having SEX does not dishonor your family and I reject any such thought.
And I agree, so long as that sex is kept within the confines of marriage.
I disagree with your point of view. No I don't advocate for willy nilly sex.....I also don't advocate for "just shackin up"....guess I advocate for "committed relationship" with or without a piece of paper. ANd we can keep on with the "I'm gonna get the last word" thing we got goin on but I'm done. I've made my point clear. Anything else doesn't really matter.