If you were forced to choose...

[DiamondDave]

perhaps a better question would be...is the constitution a living and breathing document that can evolve as needed?

It can be amended as needed.. there is indeed a process for it.. and it is hard, as it should be.....

 

[strollingbones]

so now the question is...do we accept the consitution in its amended state?

 

[DiamondDave]

so now the question is...do we accept the consitution in its amended state?

The constitution in its current state... not predicting what could be amended in the future... but strictly as it is written

Maybe I should have clarified..

 

[Dante]

On what conceivable basis do you think that is a simple question?

You're dealing with Davey. Hello?

 

[Douger]

Any modification to a constitution is done via referendum.......in free countries.
BTW the voting takes place on Sundays and their tax dollars provide free public transport to and from. That way everyone gets to vote.

 

[elvis]

To violate the constitution is indeed wrong... to go thru the included amendment process to change things as allowed, is the right approach

Who says its always wrong? Is it on par with the bible?

To violate the constitution and make it ok to do so, puts us where we are... Taking the power away from it to limit the operation of government itself... You throw out 1 part on a whim or add power on a whim, and you might as well have no limitations at all...

Knowing there needs to be change is one thing... Going against the process that makes sure the change goes the proper checks and balances is another.. It goes against the reason to have a constitution in the first place.. it makes the government infinitely powerful and without constraint

FDR and Lincoln couldn't wait for the process to run its course.

 

[DiamondDave]

Who says its always wrong? Is it on par with the bible?

To violate the constitution and make it ok to do so, puts us where we are... Taking the power away from it to limit the operation of government itself... You throw out 1 part on a whim or add power on a whim, and you might as well have no limitations at all...

Knowing there needs to be change is one thing... Going against the process that makes sure the change goes the proper checks and balances is another.. It goes against the reason to have a constitution in the first place.. it makes the government infinitely powerful and without constraint

FDR and Lincoln couldn't wait for the process to run its course.

No.. they did not want to wait for it to take its course

To give the power to the government over the constitution that is in place to limit the powers of the government is ridiculous... The founders knew this and it is why the amendment process was made to be difficult...

 

[elvis]

To violate the constitution and make it ok to do so, puts us where we are... Taking the power away from it to limit the operation of government itself... You throw out 1 part on a whim or add power on a whim, and you might as well have no limitations at all...

Knowing there needs to be change is one thing... Going against the process that makes sure the change goes the proper checks and balances is another.. It goes against the reason to have a constitution in the first place.. it makes the government infinitely powerful and without constraint

FDR and Lincoln couldn't wait for the process to run its course.

No.. they did not want to wait for it to take its course

To give the power to the government over the constitution that is in place to limit the powers of the government is ridiculous... The founders knew this and it is why the amendment process was made to be difficult...

With no country, the constitution has no meaning.

 

[BreezeWood]

If you were forced to choose...

Between following the constitution strictly as written, and eliminating it all together and empowering government to do whatever it felt it had to do... Which would you choose and why??

It is indeed a simple question... and take this like an all powerful megabeing (God, Superman, invading alien force or whatever) was making it that there was indeed no in between choice or option

Between following the constitution strictly as written ....


that would require a strictly "written" constitution - so your question is rhetorical and not pertaining to the US Constitution - as US has a Judiciary for interpretation.

 

[8537]

Strictly as written in its original form?

 

[PratchettFan]

On what conceivable basis do you think that is a simple question?

It couldn't be more simple. Either you believe in our founding principles or you enjoy anarchy.

Really? What exactly are our founding principles?

 

[DiamondDave]

FDR and Lincoln couldn't wait for the process to run its course.

No.. they did not want to wait for it to take its course

To give the power to the government over the constitution that is in place to limit the powers of the government is ridiculous... The founders knew this and it is why the amendment process was made to be difficult...

With no country, the constitution has no meaning.

That is speculation..

Yes, it would have been HARDER for them to achieve what they wanted to achieve (rightly or wrongly)... but it is intended to be hard to change, keeping out whim and change without checks and balances

 

[Ava]

Between following the constitution strictly as written, and eliminating it all together and empowering government to do whatever it felt it had to do... Which would you choose and why??

It is indeed a simple question... and take this like an all powerful megabeing (God, Superman, invading alien force or whatever) was making it that there was indeed no in between choice or option

As written. We have had 27 amendments to the Constitution, under Article V and proposed by Congress. The president has no power or authority in the process. The amendment process is designed to be challenging and once accomplished, is an excellent reflection of what the Founders intended; to keep up with the times, as truly determined by a two thirds majority in the House and the Senate.

 

[Dante]

Any modification to a constitution is done via referendum.......in free countries.
BTW the voting takes place on Sundays and their tax dollars provide free public transport to and from. That way everyone gets to vote.

In-my-not-so-humble-opinion, direct democracy sucks.

The USA has a stability most older states envy. How many governments did Italy have after WWII and the year 1980? How many nations with Parliamentary systems have what you would substitute our system for?

Voting is not the form of government, it is a process. The political process is broken and the form of government we have is being strained, but that is a strategic move on the part of conservatives to force political outcomes: Bad politics and bad government on their part

 

[DiamondDave]

If you were forced to choose...

Between following the constitution strictly as written, and eliminating it all together and empowering government to do whatever it felt it had to do... Which would you choose and why??

It is indeed a simple question... and take this like an all powerful megabeing (God, Superman, invading alien force or whatever) was making it that there was indeed no in between choice or option

Between following the constitution strictly as written ....


that would require a strictly "written" constitution - so your question is rhetorical and not pertaining to the US Constitution - as US has a Judiciary for interpretation.

No... there is no power of judicial review granted to the SC in the constitution.. that is a power that it granted unto itself

We do have a specifically and strictly written constitution.. we however do have a government that has gotten used to not operating within its strict limits

 

[Shelzin]

Easy choice.

 

[Dante]

Between following the constitution strictly as written, and eliminating it all together and empowering government to do whatever it felt it had to do... Which would you choose and why??

It is indeed a simple question... and take this like an all powerful megabeing (God, Superman, invading alien force or whatever) was making it that there was indeed no in between choice or option

As written. We have had 27 amendments to the Constitution, under Article V and proposed by Congress. The president has no power or authority in the process. The amendment process is designed to be challenging and once accomplished, is an excellent reflection of what the Founders intended; to keep up with the times, as truly determined by a two thirds majority in the House and the Senate.

good post except it was not really the founders who gave us a constitution. It was the framers and ratifiers

 

[elvis]

No.. they did not want to wait for it to take its course

To give the power to the government over the constitution that is in place to limit the powers of the government is ridiculous... The founders knew this and it is why the amendment process was made to be difficult...

With no country, the constitution has no meaning.

That is speculation..

Yes, it would have been HARDER for them to achieve what they wanted to achieve (rightly or wrongly)... but it is intended to be hard to change, keeping out whim and change without checks and balances

Is having Japan occupy California and in the process turning San Francisco into an American Nanking worth waiting for the process?

 

[DiamondDave]

With no country, the constitution has no meaning.

That is speculation..

Yes, it would have been HARDER for them to achieve what they wanted to achieve (rightly or wrongly)... but it is intended to be hard to change, keeping out whim and change without checks and balances

Is having Japan occupy California and in the process turning San Francisco into an American Nanking worth waiting for the process?

Again speculation...

 

[8537]

If you were forced to choose...

Between following the constitution strictly as written, and eliminating it all together and empowering government to do whatever it felt it had to do... Which would you choose and why??

It is indeed a simple question... and take this like an all powerful megabeing (God, Superman, invading alien force or whatever) was making it that there was indeed no in between choice or option

Between following the constitution strictly as written ....


that would require a strictly "written" constitution - so your question is rhetorical and not pertaining to the US Constitution - as US has a Judiciary for interpretation.

No... there is no power of judicial review granted to the SC in the constitution.. that is a power that it granted unto itself

I'm not certain of that. Surely the founders were aware of precedent of the Coke decision and others, so one would expect them to clarify if they did not intend that role for the Supreme Court.

Afterall, when they speak of the "Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof", they clearly understand that someone needs to decide which laws are "in pursuance thereof". It would be difficult to support a union where each state got to decide which federal laws it felt were in pursuance.