Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Our Constitution still relevant?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is Our Constitution still relevant?

    Is Our Constitution still relevant today? Are we actually experiencing individual freedom from the Federal Government as our constitution was written? Do the States still have the ability to govern themselves without the interference of the Federal Government? It seems to me in this year of 2015 that the original Liberal idea of Life of Liberty is pretty much over in America. The Federal Government has invaded almost every aspect of our daily lives. Our Free-Market economy hasn't been free in decades. The hidden excise taxes, double and even triple taxation before products hit the shelves is also happening though unconstitutional. I could go on and on but it just leads me back to my original question, Is our Constitution still relevant?

  • #2
    It's more relevant than ever. We just need to actually follow it.
    "Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Mystikeye View Post
      Is Our Constitution still relevant today? Are we actually experiencing individual freedom from the Federal Government as our constitution was written? Do the States still have the ability to govern themselves without the interference of the Federal Government? It seems to me in this year of 2015 that the original Liberal idea of Life of Liberty is pretty much over in America. The Federal Government has invaded almost every aspect of our daily lives. Our Free-Market economy hasn't been free in decades. The hidden excise taxes, double and even triple taxation before products hit the shelves is also happening though unconstitutional. I could go on and on but it just leads me back to my original question, Is our Constitution still relevant?
      Our Constitution is. Our government is not.
      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

      Comment


      • #4
        Sure it is.

        The Founders also meant it to be a living document that evolved with the times rather than it staying static.

        Comment


        • #5
          Still relevant, always under threat.
          Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Provokatsiya View Post
            The Founders also meant it to be a living document that evolved with the times rather than it staying static.
            What do you mean by evolve? It can be amended but if you mean evolve in the sense that it gets reinterpreted according to the perceived needs of the times then I do not believe this.

            The reason I do not believe this is that the founders put an amendment process in the constitution. If there is an amendment process in the constitution then it stands to reason that the constitution changes only according to this process. I believe it does not evolve in the sense that it gets reinterpreted periodically. And then a decade or generation later the reinterpretation gets reinterpreted, etc.

            If the constitution reads the same today as it did the day it was ratified then it should mean the same today as it meant the day it was ratified.
            "Shoot for the epaulets, boys! Shoot for the epaulets!" - Daniel Morgan

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by KRJ View Post
              What do you mean by evolve? It can be amended but if you mean evolve in the sense that it gets reinterpreted according to the perceived needs of the times then I do not believe this.

              The reason I do not believe this is that the founders put an amendment process in the constitution. If there is an amendment process in the constitution then it stands to reason that the constitution changes only according to this process. I believe it does not evolve in the sense that it gets reinterpreted periodically. And then a decade or generation later the reinterpretation gets reinterpreted, etc.

              If the constitution reads the same today as it did the day it was ratified then it should mean the same today as it meant the day it was ratified.
              Good points and indeed it should be interpreted in the context of the culture that it was written in. Would you not say though that interpreting that culture is the problem?
              We hunt the hunters

              Comment


              • #8
                The thing that troubles me most about the constitution is that it was clearly not meant to establish a true democracy. The writers were undoubtedly well aware of the problems created by a true democracy but we seem to have forgotten that issue.
                We hunt the hunters

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                  The thing that troubles me most about the constitution is that it was clearly not meant to establish a true democracy. The writers were undoubtedly well aware of the problems created by a true democracy but we seem to have forgotten that issue.
                  We don't have any where near a 'true democracy'. outside a couple New England towns.
                  “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                  “To talk of many things:
                  Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                  Of cabbages—and kings—
                  And why the sea is boiling hot—
                  And whether pigs have wings.”
                  ― Lewis Carroll

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                    Would you not say though that interpreting that culture is the problem?
                    I believe it sometimes can be. And it is true that much has happened that the founders could never foresee. But they did have the foresight to include an amendment process. Hence my belief that there can be no "evolving document" in the sense of a reinterpretation process.
                    Last edited by KRJ; 05 Oct 15, 22:55.
                    "Shoot for the epaulets, boys! Shoot for the epaulets!" - Daniel Morgan

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Provokatsiya View Post
                      Sure it is.

                      The Founders also meant it to be a living document that evolved with the times rather than it staying static.
                      WRONG!

                      It is the ultimate law of the land. However, it can be amended which has been done so through the history of the country.
                      “Breaking News,”

                      “Something irrelevant in your life just happened and now we are going to blow it all out of proportion for days to keep you distracted from what's really going on.”

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                        The thing that troubles me most about the constitution is that it was clearly not meant to establish a true democracy. The writers were undoubtedly well aware of the problems created by a true democracy but we seem to have forgotten that issue.
                        What problems in true democracy cannot exist in a republic?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by KRJ View Post
                          What do you mean by evolve? It can be amended but if you mean evolve in the sense that it gets reinterpreted according to the perceived needs of the times then I do not believe this.

                          The reason I do not believe this is that the founders put an amendment process in the constitution. If there is an amendment process in the constitution then it stands to reason that the constitution changes only according to this process. I believe it does not evolve in the sense that it gets reinterpreted periodically. And then a decade or generation later the reinterpretation gets reinterpreted, etc.

                          If the constitution reads the same today as it did the day it was ratified then it should mean the same today as it meant the day it was ratified.
                          Basically. What I mean is that the Founders were smart enough to know that the USA was going to evolve in ways completely unpredictable for them after they were dead, thus they expected that the Constitution was going to be changed over time. That's why they included said process.

                          The Constitution doesn't address issues that come along with being the world's predominant power in foreign policy, for example.


                          Originally posted by SRV Ron View Post
                          WRONG!

                          It is the ultimate law of the land. However, it can be amended which has been done so through the history of the country.
                          Takes some pills and relax, skippy. That's what I said. The Founders never meant for it to be static to the degree that many people seem to believe it should be, though-it's a LIVING document.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            If the Constitution is declared irrelevant, then the United States ceases to be.
                            It wil be replaced by something else, and I may or may not choose to be a part of it. Given the sort of garbage that Mordor on the Potomac is producing these says, perhaps not, and the new document will will probably be unreadable in any case.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Provokatsiya View Post
                              The Founders never meant for it to be static to the degree that many people seem to believe it should be, though-it's a LIVING document.
                              Okay. I think we are more in agreement than your first post led me to believe.

                              I can believe in a "living document" or an "evolving document" if those terms mean the document has and will be changed over time according to the amendment process. But I can't accept those terms when they are used to justify a reinterpretation of the existing document based upon felt needs or the flavor of the day. And sometimes those terms have been used that way.
                              "Shoot for the epaulets, boys! Shoot for the epaulets!" - Daniel Morgan

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X