The Constitution and the Will of the People

[☭proletarian☭]

If we accept that the Constitution is valid because of the Will of the People who exercised their right to self-determination in founding the nation, then we must ask ourselves a question. Should the people will that the government should take a form other than that described in the Constitution, does the Constitution remain valid? If the people will that the Constitution should serve as a loose guide and not as the binding and authoritative document as it was originally intended, does the Law of the Land thaty was written by our forefathers outweigh the Will of the People today?

After all, is not eh very principle of the Consent of the Governed that the People are the ultimate arbiter of the role of the State and what limits should be placed upon it?

I can already here some objecting that this is not an unfettered democracy, but a republic, and here is my question in response: Is not the republic itself made valid by the consent of the governed and the will of the masses? Is the republic, then, not merely a facade placed upon an underlying democracy in which the People wish to appeal to a law thatonly exists so long as the will of the mob is to obey it?

 

[amrchaos]

The idea is that the people, through the ammendment process, are able to change the form of the constitution and therefore change the form of government in such a manner.

Unfortunately, some individuals feel that they are not able to do so and try to bypass restrictions that are placed in the constitution. Eventually one of the two will occur:the laws and policies that conflict with the constitution will be thrown out OR the constitution will change.

The former occurs more often than the latter. In order for the latter to occur, a fundemental questioning of long standing values and principles must take place. Thus providing the foundatiion for a new perspective of what is just in the majorities point of view. This must take hold before the ammendment process can even begin.

This also gives credance to the concept that "perspective is truth" in terms of politics. Of course, "perspective is truth" is not true at all, yet this explains how many crazy ideas can become part of the body laws and regulations due to changing a large number of perspectives through arguement.

I think this thread belongs to the political board.(Sorry that I missed your more pressing questions concerning people's will and the republic reflection of this will)

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The idea is that the people, through the ammendment process, are able to change the form of the constitution and therefore change the form of government in such a manner.

Again, is not that system only valid, per the philosophy of the 'Consent of the Governed which inspired the document itself', so long as it is the will of the People to enforce it as it is written?

Eventually one of the two will occur:the laws and policies that conflict with the constitution will be thrown out OR the constitution will change.

Or the interpretation and enforcement of the Constitution (the Law) is changed

Or the Constitution(the Law) is done away with altogether.

I think this thread belongs to the political board.

I placed it here for I am trying to get a philosophical discussion going regarding government, law, and the will of the masses, as opposed to a legal discussion regarding the law of the Constitution itself.