Is the U.S. Constitution outdated?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by BOBO, Dec 2, 2011.

  1. BOBO
    Offline

    BOBO The Magnificent!

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2011
    Messages:
    551
    Thanks Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Spokane area
    Ratings:
    +57
    Apparently a lot of people think so. Before one opines one way or the other on this subject I would suggest you read the below. During my studies in post K-12 education I engaged in lively conversations/debate in many classes of different academia. None of these studies proved as robust in debate/opinions as the fields of psych, sociology & philosophy. In particular my 101 sociology class, with that class theme based on "Serial Sexual Mass Murderers" or how SSMM's come into existence, raised some "heated" debates.
    My sociology professor got the debates 'smoking hot' with his revelations & suggestions based on historical research. One of his voiced observations which split the class right down the middle is as follows...

    "IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE TO CHANGE THEIR NATURE. THE ONLY SUBSTANTIAL & MEANINGFUL CHANGE AN INDIVIDUAL CAN EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT HIS/HER LIFE IS THAT OF TECHNOLOGY."

    That quote is as close to exact as it can be considering I heard it 23 years ago. The divide in our classes students derived from one side that advocated that individual natures 'evolve' into a state of 'perfection of mankind' through group education, the other side stating that they agreed with our professor.
    Another statement our soc instructor made to the class had an equally dividing effect on the classes students(not exact but CLOSE quote)...

    "Societies throughout history in an attempt to squelch POLARIZATION within their ranks make pacts/covenants among a particular society that was deemed a benefit for all. The purpose of these pacts/covenants were deemed a VITAL NECESSITY for the society in question as the pact/covenant was viewed as the ONLY effective bonding agent that could ensure the survival of a particular 'coherent' society."

    Adding my own input on this topic I will use the illustration of the act of marriage. Marriage in it's purest definition is a pact/covenant between two individuals. If the particular marriage is a 'legal' marriage it is then also considered a pact/covenant to the society that the two individuals REPRESENT. A divorce involving such a marriage is deemed a BREACH OF CONTRACT by the society in general. Such a divorce can be seen as destructive to the society at large as it suggests an erosion of common values towards it's survival(dissidence). Divorce, handled fairly & in a non political way is limited in it's corrosive effect on a society & is not deemed as significant enough to collapse a particular society.
    Now, on a much larger scale with much more significant impact is a breach of contract involving the pact/covenant that guarantees essential INDIVIDUAL Liberties. A break down in the pact/covenant not only undermines essential individual sovereignty & Liberties, but becomes life threatening(civil war). Human nature does not change & I agree with that. I must attest that unlike insects humans are not of a herd mentality. Humans are of a social nature but FIERCELY protective of their own domain. They will socialize on their OWN terms with who, what, where & when they choose to do so.
    The next time you hear a social engineer say that he/she "has a better way" than the pact/covenant that is our Constitution... you may well want to investigate that persons motives & desires in depth. A case in point can be found in the article that is contained in the link below...


    Senate approves $662 billion defense bill - Yahoo! News

    "But a constitution of government once changed from freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."{John Adams/ July 17th, 1775.}
     
  2. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,542
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,157
    Nope. Just not being used.
     
  3. Dragon
    Offline

    Dragon Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2011
    Messages:
    5,481
    Thanks Received:
    578
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +579
    The Constitution is definitely outdated. It happens from time to time. That's why we have 27 amendments.

    At minimum, we need another one to get the money out of politics. I can think of several more I'd like to see, but that one is a sine qua non. Without it, we face revolution.
     
  4. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,542
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,157
    So which route do you want to take to eliminate money from politics:

    1) Silence speech
    2) End Elections

    ?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    The purpose of the Constitution is to guard against fear, ignorance, and hate – both with regard to actions by the state and the people.

    All law-making entities and the people are subject to the rule of law, codified by the Constitution and its case law.

    The legislation cited in the OP is an example of fear and ignorance on the part of senators in particular and the people in general. For the senators, it is likely the fear of failing to be reelected is the greater motivator rather than a fear of terrorists or concern over jeopardizing civil liberties, since they knew the bill would be vetoed in any event.

    They’re consequently able to say to voters back home they supported a measure that was ‘tough of terror,’ but were powerless to stop the president’s action.

    Both their jobs and our civil liberties are ‘protected’ accordingly.

    As troubling as members of Congress playing Russian Roulette with the Constitution for partisan gain may be, it is the motive for their actions that should cause the greater concern: the realization that a significant number of Americans are so fearful of the myth of ‘terrorism’ and so ignorant of the law that citizens gladly surrender their liberty for security. The American people, via their fear, are ultimately responsible for this legislation.

    The sad irony is, of course, that should the American people demand that Congress obey the Constitution and rule of law and place liberty above fear, the vacuous and spineless denizens of the Beltway wouldn’t dream of proposing such legislation.

    Thus the issue isn’t whether or not the Constitution is outdated, but the unwillingness of citizens to demand lawmakers abide its tenets.
     
  6. Dragon
    Offline

    Dragon Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2011
    Messages:
    5,481
    Thanks Received:
    578
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +579
    Neither one is necessary. Just stop accepting the lie that money = speech.
     
  7. dblack
    Online

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    20,123
    Thanks Received:
    2,006
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,771
    Getting the money out of politics requires getting politics out of money.
     
  8. dblack
    Online

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    20,123
    Thanks Received:
    2,006
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,771
    That's not my understanding. The Constitution is only concerned with the power of government, not individuals. It has nothing to say about the actions of a person not acting on behalf of the government (eg it makes no sense to say that something an individual does is 'unconstitutional'.)


    Other than the previous point of disagreement, very well said! :clap2:
     
  9. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,551
    Thanks Received:
    5,900
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,971
    The Constitution has BUILT into it the means to keep it "up to date" it is called the Amendment process. However in the last 60 years the powers that be have chosen to ignore the Constitution and usurp illegally powers it does not grant via Congress and the Courts.

    Go back to using the Amendment process and we have no major problems.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. JoeB131
    Offline

    JoeB131 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    80,458
    Thanks Received:
    6,870
    Trophy Points:
    1,815
    Location:
    Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
    Ratings:
    +15,006
    I think the constitution is mostly solid, but there are things in it that don't work.

    I think the Senate is unnecessary.

    I think the Electoral College should be replaced by a system of direct election of the president. Perhaps with runoff elections if no one clears 50% on the first ballot.
     

Share This Page