Do you really have to follow the constitution fully?

Oct 25, 2012
3,775
614
Louisville, Ky
#21
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.
 
Mar 5, 2011
746
159
Rhondda, Cymru
#22
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.
 
Dec 12, 2012
22
0
#23
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
 
Jul 26, 2009
5,666
406
Opa Locka
#24
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.
 
Jan 3, 2013
47
0
#25
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 I mean it was fine in practicality, but isn't stuff like that out of date?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.
 
Jan 3, 2013
47
0
#26
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.
 

Similar Discussions