The Political Fray - Political Forum
Go Back   Political Fray > The Political Fray > History

History Historical Discussions - For discussion about the great (and not-so-great) happenings of history


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 12th, 2012, 07:30 AM   #21
Secretary of State
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Louisville, Ky
Posts: 3,477

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iolo View Post
An article in today's Guardian points out that the Constitution is a slightly imporoved version of the unwritten UK article in the Eighteenth Century, and too archaic to be any use to anyone.
Thus, the amendment process...and Supreme Court.


It is referred to as a "Living Document" for a reason.
tecoyah is online now  
Old November 12th, 2012, 07:41 AM   #22
Representative
 
Iolo's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: Rhondda, Cymru
Posts: 468

Quote:
Originally Posted by tecoyah View Post
Thus, the amendment process...and Supreme Court.

wheatcroft.
It is referred to as a "Living Document" for a reason.
Yes, true - but read the article, which includes comments on the composition of the Senate and the gerrymandering of the House of Representatives. It's by Geoffrey Wheatcroft.
Iolo is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 06:43 PM   #23
Intern
 
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 22

if it is not etched in stone it is meaningless it has to be etched in stone because to many different groups have differing ideasthrow out part and everyone wants another part thrown out when you give up 1 p[art it is gone all freedom the whole bowl of wax and this is the Problem we are having now and directly to the second amendment it was put there to keep out Tyranny and as long as you have politicians you will have Power Hungry politicians
elvisroy0000 is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 07:14 PM   #24
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,503

The Constitution no longer serves it's purpose (outlining the gov't's mandate). It's been used to legislative thru amendments and SC decisions to the point of meaninglessness.
David is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2013, 03:57 PM   #25
Intern
 
Cicero's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 47

Quote:
Originally Posted by el canadiano View Post
Do you have to follow your country's bill of rights or their constitution fully?

I mean I'm all for constitutions. They put strong laws for the better of the people. The reason I'm asking this is because I was reading the second amendment of the US Bill of Rights - the one which gives people the right to possess firearms. I mean it was fine in practicality, but isn't stuff like that out of date?

In Canada, we had an entirely new constitution in 1982. I mean I'm not trying to say the US constitution is bad, because it isn't. I'm just saying should it change and do you have to follow it word for word?
I like to think that the US Constitution grows and evolves over time. Because it isn't really the text of the document itself that is the Constitution, rather it is also the centuries of accretion of judicial interpretations of what the Constitution means. This effectively keeps it up to date much more efficiently than having to have a new Constitutional Convention ever generation.
Cicero is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2013, 04:01 PM   #26
Intern
 
Cicero's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 47

Quote:
Originally Posted by reader View Post
Arguable. Constitution should be relatively short and simple. It can be easily manipulated by governments in the other case.
I see your point, but personally, I may be a cynic, but I think that it is almost impossible to prevent manipulation. Better to build a system where the tendency to manipulate the law is itself effectively accounted for, rather than trying to avoid manipulation altogether, which may be futile.
Cicero is offline  
Old January 7th, 2013, 12:24 PM   #27
Analyst
 
Squishy Skeever's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 64

We should have to follow it... like 150% but we don't, broseph.
Squishy Skeever is offline  
Old January 7th, 2013, 12:47 PM   #28
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,503

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squishy Skeever View Post
We should have to follow it... like 150% but we don't, broseph.
150%? That's not possible...
David is offline  
Old January 7th, 2013, 01:38 PM   #29
Analyst
 
Squishy Skeever's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 64

Actually, in the form of Standard Deviation, and given the inter-quartile is even, it is quite possible.
Squishy Skeever is offline  
Old January 7th, 2013, 01:40 PM   #30
Secretary of State
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Louisville, Ky
Posts: 3,477

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squishy Skeever View Post
Actually, in the form of Standard Deviation, and given the inter-quartile is even, it is quite possible.

....uh...Yeah...right.
tecoyah is online now  
Old January 7th, 2013, 01:54 PM   #31
Analyst
 
Squishy Skeever's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 64

Quote:
Originally Posted by tecoyah View Post
....uh...Yeah...right.
Teco, I am a Math Scholar after all. on a more serious note (as per our discussion)...
Squishy Skeever is offline  
Old January 7th, 2013, 01:55 PM   #32
Analyst
 
Squishy Skeever's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 64

I believe, YES! We should follow the BILL OF RIGHTS 100%. the rest is hogwash... but the BOR should not be touched.
Squishy Skeever is offline  
Reply

  Political Fray > The Political Fray > History

Tags
constitution , follow , fully



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How closely do you follow your religion? omej Religion 15 October 17th, 2016 02:21 AM
Your Constitution David Philosophy 4 November 15th, 2012 11:44 AM
So ends the Constitution. David Government and Politics 23 October 11th, 2010 07:06 AM
Would you still follow the same religion if you were not born in it? Firz Religion 25 March 29th, 2009 04:47 PM
How Many of You Follow ? darklord Religion 16 March 15th, 2009 04:37 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2009-2013 Political Fray. All rights reserved.