It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why is the Constitution infallible to some?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   
To so many people here the Constitution is everything that is good and just in the world. It is the superior document and it contains the language which can be used to give all humans freedom and liberty. Clearly not though as witnessed by the necessity for countless laws needed to protect people from each other, the environment, and vice versa. There are a million examples of how new laws are needed to keep immoral individuals from exploiting land and people. Freedom and liberty can be taken away from individuals with the Constitution doing nothing to protect them from this. For example, a business that dumps it's waste into a river can destroy the well being of an individual downstream. The business has a right to operate freely and the individual cannot use the Constitution to prevent this. Knowing this, why do we not understand the needs of today versus 250 years ago? Many complain about the strangulation of businesses by the government, but so many regulations have been necessary due to immoral decisions made by business owners. Are we to let these people go unpunished and free to hurt our land and people because our Constitution doesn't strictly disallow it? Im often left scratching my head at those who believe that regardless of what happens in this country, if the Constitution doesn't define it as immoral then it must be ok.

My point is that just because the law is written does not mean it is final. This concept transcends every issue we face today. Land rights, gun ownership, reproductive rights, social equality etc etc. Are we not supposed to grow our definitions of morality while our country grows socially and economically? And why are there so many people that require another's version of morality to define their own? Surely we have the mental capacity to know what is wrong and right without needing a document to tell us to respect the rights and freedoms of those around us. It is sad that many actually do require this.

The basic question is, can this sacred document be wrong in any form and why not?

Try not to get angry on this topic for a change. I'm hoping it doesn't devolve into the usual ATS name calling and disrespect of others opinions (even though disagreeing with me is the wrong choice
).



+5 more 
posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 11:04 AM
link   
There's nothing wrong with that piece of paper as it stands today.

Particularly the BILL of RIGHTS, and the 14th amendments. Yes added later.

No descriptors are used, No special interests implied.

Universal words for the STATE to live by.

The problem is apparently people either don't know how to read it, or comprehend those words.

The piece of paper isn't broken,

The state, and the PEOPLE are.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: BrokedownChevy

The founders put processes in place to change the constitution. Admittedly, changing it is difficult, but that is by design so that its basic principles cannot be over ridden during an emotional period. There is a reason we have three branches of government all serving different functions.

The constitution is not perfect, but it is the best that has ever been designed.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: BrokedownChevy

No document is infallible. That being said, which part of the document do you disagree with?

The constitution is not the document you are looking for if you want to talk about enviromental issues. It says nothing about protecting the people around a large business that is illegally dumping into a river. There is an entire agency that deals which such things. (Very poorly) but this has nothing to do with the actual constitution.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Methinks you don't quite understand the constitution, or the amendments, if you have such a simple view of it.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: BrokedownChevy

The Constitution is infallible because it limits government.

I think that's where people have the biggest issue. Too many want government to have more control, too many in government want government to have more control.

And the only thing holding back government is that tiny piece of parchment.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Wow...this is the definition of irony. You tell me that I don't understand while not understanding the very title of the thread. You've added nothing of substance. I don't expect much from this crowd, but you could at least try.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: BrokedownChevy


To so many people here the Constitution is everything that is good and just in the world.

Like any framing of justice, liberty and 'goodness', a piece of parchment can only go so far. Its better than most, but to really understand what the framers had in mind, you have to read their letters and memoirs they wrote to each other. Each participant did a ton of writing about what they intended.

Sort of like the whole Bible is condensed from a room full of documents, edited down by some backwards dark ages control freaks. The whole spectrum is important to understand, even better finding out how they knew whats right to write in the first place.

You don't find that in books.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: BrokedownChevy

Well insults certainly compel lively discussion, now don't they? On that note, it speaks volumes that out of multiple comments, the only one you could be bothered with was mine. To attack it. And not respond with anything substantive, while crying that it wasn't substantive itself.

Why don't you ask somebody who think it's infallible directly, instead of asking folks who don't to explain what others think for you? Even the strictest constitutionalists I've spoken to don't espouse what you say they do.

Low bar questions beget low bar responses



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 11:19 AM
link   
It's not so much the idea of perfection as it is that the COTUS is the foundation.

It's the base set of law on which all other laws in this country are based. If you want to write a new law, it needs to fit the foundational framework as allowed by the COTUS, and if you are looking at the operations and power of the government, it needs to be within the parameters of the foundation.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: BrokedownChevy
a reply to: Shamrock6

Wow...this is the definition of irony. You tell me that I don't understand while not understanding the very title of the thread. You've added nothing of substance. I don't expect much from this crowd, but you could at least try.
insultng your responders is enough for me to leave your OP.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I see that purpose and have always gotten that part. It should be a limiting document. My questions arise from those who see it as the final law of the land. Keyword being final. I'm wondering why there are those who see it as a way to prevent new laws and ideas from forming simply because there is no language in the Constitution preventing or allowing it.

"If it's not in the Constitution, it's not allowed" or "I can take these actions because it doesn't tell me I cant". I don't understand these perspectives. Why is it final to some?



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: BrokedownChevy

Try reading Amendments 9 and 10 for one answer and I suspect the other is pertaining to action that can be taken by the Feds.
edit on 18-7-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Mrgone

It was deserved. Not reading the OP and carelessly responding is the only insult that took place here. Stop defending ignorance.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: BrokedownChevy

Why does individual freedom have to be defined?



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: BrokedownChevy

Why does individual freedom have to be defined?



Exactly, at the framing, it was inherently understand that all powers and freedoms were reserved to the people except for those explicitly given to government in the COTUS.

By rights, the people, not government should have more powers and freedoms.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

That doesn't answer the question presented by the title. It's like rather than talking about the philosophical merits of evolving morality we're here discussing 'Mericuh which is not at all the purpose.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

You're about as strict a constitutionalist as there is on ATS, so let me ask you this specific question on behalf of the OP:

The constitution, and bill of rights, and subsequent amendments, do not specifically state that it is illegal to murder somebody. Do you, as a constitutionalist, take that to mean that murder is okay since it's not specifically referred to in any of the aforementioned documents?

Please, no discussion on "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness" as an answer.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: BrokedownChevy

The Constitution IS the Superior law. It is the guide by which all other laws are supposed to be created. There is nothing wrong with the Constitution with the exception of the non-ratified portions involving taxation as "legitimized" financial rape

Cheers - Dave



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

If I may,

Murder is the ultimate infringement of individual rights.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join