Governments flout the Constitution in America all the time, and I DON'T believe that SOLELY because anything a government does is unconstitutional it MUST be wrong or disturbing. The Constitution is NOT a moral guide about what we should or should not be disturbed by, it is a document designed to - in the context of the 1700s when it was signed - to keep political power in the hands of the people and prevent the government becoming corrupt (an aim in which, I would argue, it failed).
Just because a matter is unconstitutional, that does not automatically make it disturbing. This is in the same way that just because a citizen acts against the law, that does not automatically make their actions wrong. Using the Constitution to decide the morality of, for example, a piece of legislation, is akin to using the bible as a method of justifying how we should live our lives in the 21st Century.
You may disagree with the way that the regulation came to exist, but that isn't the issue. The issue is the content of the regulation.
I'm not an eligible voter, but if I was I would *probably* vote Democrat in the upcoming Presidential election (although if I was not in a swing state I would probably vote for an independent or third party candidate). I'm not a committed supporter of any party in any country though, only causes with I believe in. So no, I'm not a Democrat (I'm also not a traditionalist; I don't believe in the sovereignty of Constitutions, but that's for another debate).
You're a Democrat (-esque), so you automatically lose, IMHO.
1) It was NOT the Constitution that failed, it was the People.
2) The content of the law IS disturbing. A federal mandate, sterilizing girls at menarche, RFID chips... you don't think this is disturbing??
3) I'm not using the Constitution as a moral compass, but a legislative one. The Constitution is a NEAR PERFECT piece of paper that does not GIVE people rights, but only POINTS OUT the "un-a-lien-able" rights that we have as a human race.
The fact that you sound like you think the Constitution is "outdated" means you have no fricking clue about what it is you're dealing with. You sound just like O'blammer:
1) Unless you can explain why you think the Constitution is still relevant and the people are to blame, we should agree to disagree.
2) Refer back to wigsplitz's comment.
3) I think you are using the Constitution as a guide for what is right and what is wrong in terms of legislation. I think legislation should be judged on its merits not on its ability to comply with the Constitution. Your using the Constitution as a tool to judge legislation without assessing its merits objectively.
Additional point, but supporting a particular side does not make you lose a debate. You sound like someone who doesn't know what they're talking about; all fancy rhetoric and no depth.
3) The Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. If you cannot appreciate it then you do not deserve it. Take a class on it sometime, you might learn something.
Oh, and FYI, I LIKE to speak with PASSION. It gives my words depth and form. Your words seem cold and uncaring. :P
Do you think this is as disturbing as I think it is???
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Governments flout the Constitution in America all the time, and I DON'T believe that SOLELY because anything a government does is unconstitutional it MUST be wrong or disturbing. The Constitution is NOT a moral guide about what we should or should not be disturbed by, it is a document designed to - in the context of the 1700s when it was signed - to keep political power in the hands of the people and prevent the government becoming corrupt (an aim in which, I would argue, it failed).
Just because a matter is unconstitutional, that does not automatically make it disturbing. This is in the same way that just because a citizen acts against the law, that does not automatically make their actions wrong. Using the Constitution to decide the morality of, for example, a piece of legislation, is akin to using the bible as a method of justifying how we should live our lives in the 21st Century.
You may disagree with the way that the regulation came to exist, but that isn't the issue. The issue is the content of the regulation.
I'm not an eligible voter, but if I was I would *probably* vote Democrat in the upcoming Presidential election (although if I was not in a swing state I would probably vote for an independent or third party candidate). I'm not a committed supporter of any party in any country though, only causes with I believe in. So no, I'm not a Democrat (I'm also not a traditionalist; I don't believe in the sovereignty of Constitutions, but that's for another debate).
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
I KNEW IT!!!
You're a Democrat (-esque), so you automatically lose, IMHO.
1) It was NOT the Constitution that failed, it was the People.
2) The content of the law IS disturbing. A federal mandate, sterilizing girls at menarche, RFID chips... you don't think this is disturbing??
3) I'm not using the Constitution as a moral compass, but a legislative one. The Constitution is a NEAR PERFECT piece of paper that does not GIVE people rights, but only POINTS OUT the "un-a-lien-able" rights that we have as a human race.
The fact that you sound like you think the Constitution is "outdated" means you have no fricking clue about what it is you're dealing with. You sound just like O'blammer:
An idiot. ^_~
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
1) Unless you can explain why you think the Constitution is still relevant and the people are to blame, we should agree to disagree.
2) Refer back to wigsplitz's comment.
3) I think you are using the Constitution as a guide for what is right and what is wrong in terms of legislation. I think legislation should be judged on its merits not on its ability to comply with the Constitution. Your using the Constitution as a tool to judge legislation without assessing its merits objectively.
Additional point, but supporting a particular side does not make you lose a debate. You sound like someone who doesn't know what they're talking about; all fancy rhetoric and no depth.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
1) Whatever... see #3.
2) =_=;
3) The Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. If you cannot appreciate it then you do not deserve it. Take a class on it sometime, you might learn something.
Oh, and FYI, I LIKE to speak with PASSION. It gives my words depth and form. Your words seem cold and uncaring. :P