Is The Constitution Obsolete?

[jrkarp]

I would have considered that question absurd until recently, but with a Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

that shows that about 1/3 feel that "the First Amendment ges too far," and that 49% feel papers should get government approval before publishing stories, maybe it's time to ask the question....

Does the government need to control the press formally and centralize power more in this time of war? Are checks and balances obsolete?

Before even reading the rest of this thread I can say that what that poll really tells us is that our high schools need to do a much better job educating our youth.

/karp

 

[jrkarp]

You got this little data point where? I see no evidence that most teachers are "solidly to the left politically." In fact, I think it's something you made up. I mean unless you show me otherwise. I had both liberal and conservative teachers in my school. Further, it tended to be the coaches and military retirees who taught history and civics.

You never did answer the question. Should we revise the constitution or shouldn't we?

Dude, with all due respect, you were in school a long time ago. As someone who graduated from high school in 1997, college in 2001, and law school last month, I can say that the vast majority of teachers and professors that I have experience with (and, for the record, that everybody I know has experience with) are at least moderately to the left of center to the far left of center.

/karp

 

[jrkarp]

I just realized I was responding to posts that were several months old. Sorry.

But as ASAP said, the Constitution is designed to be amended, so it really can't be obsolete. It's actually a brilliant document once you get to understand the inner workings, although most of the framers thought that it was a weak document that would have to be replaced after a few years.

/karp

 

[Brooklyn]

The Constitution is not obsolete, unlesss freedom and liberty are likewise outmoded. The primary founders of this country were, although imperfect, some incredibly intelligent men, especially as compared to today's politicians. The manner of discourse and philosophy which was used in devising the Constitution was ingenious. Read what these men wrote, themselves, in regard to politics around the time. The problem is that the spectre of special interests has become the mainstream. Big business and the "religious right" have become equals to the government in influence and that is the problem. The U.S. is not a Christian nation, whatever you may say. Never was. Yes, many of the founding fathers were Christians, or specifically Deists. However, it was with great foresight that they relegated the matter mainly to personal preference. It was the understanding that even at that time there were different religious groups in this country, many who had left their homeland due to religious persecution. Institutionalizing religion could likewise result in such marginalization and conflict.

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Those were the words of George Washington in 1796. "Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support error and roguery all over the earth." Thus wrote Thomas Jefferson in 1785.

To argue that Christianity is the savior of a free society is tantamount to arguing that the social system of communism guarantees equality for all. What were the Russians saying all those years about capitalism? That it was an evil which destroys the world. In this one respect, they were right. The problem with the Constitution is that it is not defined enough in protecting the people from corporate interests. Multinational conglomerates were not an issue when the Consitution was written. Therefore, there is little written which can be interpreted as protecting us from the dangers of excessive commercialism. The effects are not simply promoting a society of consumerism, in which greed and envy are the motivating factors in daily life. It also affects what companies are allowed to do in relation to what damage their products may do to the people, animals, or the earth. Cigarette companies have little fear of their cash crop being banned anytime soon, despite the typical cigarette containing approximately 500 ingredients, including various toxins and generally harmful substances. Why is this? It is because big business has taken precedence over public health. Now translate the same greed and apathy to the food industry and you have a quagmire of epic and pandemic proportions. Compound this with the lackadaisical approach of a current political system which couldn't care much less about people who aren't campaign contributors. If children today believe that more government involvement is necessary, they are correct. But not to protect us from free speech, to protect us from special interests.

It's convenient to suggest that a more Christian government would protect us from these evils, but in saying so, one is asserting that democracy and this concept of a republic is fundamentally flawed and, for all practical purposes, inert. It is the design of the government on a secular level not to bow to any special interest, save for the people as a whole. That includes Christianity and any other ideal which places preference upon a certain group or questionable principles. This government is in itself a religion of the people. No other religion can supplant that without compromising the principles of democracy and the ideal of equality and equal protection by government under the Constitution.

 

[jrkarp]

I do agree that this government was not founded as a Christian one, although I object to people saying that this country does not have a Judeo-Christian heritage, because it certainly does.

In the case of tobacco, it's not big business that has taken precedence over public health, it is economic necessity. Banning of tobacco would cause massive unemployment and cripple the economies of several states, not to mention the loss of billions in tax revenue. And for what? If people want to smoke, if they understand the dangers, let them, especially since more and more states are making it illegal to smoke in public places like restaurants.

I cringe at the idea of the government acting as a big parent, stepping in to save us all from ourselves. What happened to freedom of choice? If someone wants to eat McDonalds because it's cheap, let them. If they get fat, it's their problem. I am certainly in favor of reasonable government regulation, but I don't need Uncle Sam looking over my shoulder like I'm a fucking 10 year old.

We are all sentient beings with freedom of choice and freedom to make informed decisions. I do know that the wool is pulled over our eyes sometimes, but I'm not a conspiracy theorist like you are. I don't think that everything is a conspiracy from aspartame to Zoloft . I know you do, and that's your right, and I know that we can at least agree that we are fortunate to live in a country where our constitution, which is not obsolete, allows us to express ourselves.

/karp

 

[Brooklyn]

And for what? If people want to smoke, if they understand the dangers, let them, especially since more and more states are making it illegal to smoke in public places like restaurants.

I agree, the right to freedom is most important - except where that right interferes with someone else's rights or well-being. For instance, I believe if you want to drink your life away, that's your choice. If you drink and end up smashing your car into someone, that's not freedom of expression. The same is true of smokers. I grew up in a household with a father who smoked roughly 3 packs a day for 20 years of my life. He did not go outside to smoke. He did not consider his children, or his wife. He just sat around spreading that toxic crap into the air with impunity. He even smoked while we were in the car. This is where his rights infringed upon others. I did not ask to inhale noxious cigarette smoke. Neither do any children who are subjected to such treatment, and there's plenty of them out there. Is there any punishment for such acitivity? No, but is that right?

If someone wants to eat McDonalds because it's cheap, let them. If they get fat, it's their problem.

You say that, but it's short-sighted thinking, because of several factors. First, that fat someone will probably suffer heart problems or other serious medical conditions, and being as they were probably lower to middle class, since very rich people tend to eat more expensive food on a regular basis, this person is more likely to not have health insurance. When the unlucky McPatron enters the McHospital, they will need to be treated at public cost. Let's not forget that one of the costs most often attributed to cigarette smoking is public health care costs in the billions. Such is the case with fast food. McFatasses will be sucking your tax money down the McDrain. Plus they'll feed this **** to their kids. I really suggest that people watch "Super Size Me!" because it demonstrates how fast food companies like McDonalds market to children. Kids recognize Ronald McDonald as a friendly face far more than, say, George Washington. Happy Meals are designed to get kids to want to get their parents to come in and spend every time a new toy is out. The association of fast food with fun "Food Folks and Fun" is inculcated early- and the effects of a society which celebrates the Big Mac are only now beginning to be told.

When people look at processed food companies, they should see the same thinking that goes into cigarette marketing. The Philip Morris people were also the Kraft people. That's not conspiracy, that's fact. RJR Nabisco and the RJ Reynolds tobacco company both market to children first and foremost. Monsanto is the aspartame company, the rGBH maker, the GMO producer, the Agent Orange and DDT manufacturer. Do you really think that a company like that gives a damn whether you the consumer lives or dies?

So yes, if you are a grown adult, it's your choice to eat some McD's or BK. But if you grow up and spend your life surrounded by advertisements and no one's helping you to decipher nutrition from marketing fantasy, you just might not be the informed consumer that you need to be in order to make that decision. The role of government should not be to prevent free choice here, but to preserve public health. There's more danger in an uneducated unhealthy person who eats fast food all the time than an informed, healthy user of dietary supplements. What one should ask himself is why are the government's priorities the reverse of where they should be? Doubt leads one to question. Questions lead one to recognition of a problem. Recognition of a problem is the first step toward a remedy. That's the idea of my "food for thought."

I know that we can at least agree that we are fortunate to live in a country where our constitution, which is not obsolete, allows us to express ourselves.

We can finally agree on something. :lol:

 

[jrkarp]

I agree, the right to freedom is most important - except where that right interferes with someone else's rights or well-being. For instance, I believe if you want to drink your life away, that's your choice. If you drink and end up smashing your car into someone, that's not freedom of expression. The same is true of smokers. I grew up in a household with a father who smoked roughly 3 packs a day for 20 years of my life. He did not go outside to smoke. He did not consider his children, or his wife. He just sat around spreading that toxic crap into the air with impunity. He even smoked while we were in the car. This is where his rights infringed upon others. I did not ask to inhale noxious cigarette smoke. Neither do any children who are subjected to such treatment, and there's plenty of them out there. Is there any punishment for such acitivity? No, but is that right?

My concept of a (true) right is something that a person has naturally, that is, it exists in and of itself without cost or detriment to others. By that definition, our freedoms of religion and expression, our right to own guns, right to vote, are all rights. Some things that are commonly called rights are not "rights" but are nonetheless guaranteed by the government (I know there are some problems with that definition, but it works for the most part). So, I do agree with what you say about interfering with someone's rights or well being. I believe that people have the right to smoke alone in their cars or outside, but I don't think someone has the right to smoke with their children in the room or in indoor public places.

You say that, but it's short-sighted thinking, because of several factors. First, that fat someone will probably suffer heart problems or other serious medical conditions, and being as they were probably lower to middle class, since very rich people tend to eat more expensive food on a regular basis, this person is more likely to not have health insurance. When the unlucky McPatron enters the McHospital, they will need to be treated at public cost. Let's not forget that one of the costs most often attributed to cigarette smoking is public health care costs in the billions. Such is the case with fast food. McFatasses will be sucking your tax money down the McDrain. Plus they'll feed this **** to their kids. I really suggest that people watch "Super Size Me!" because it demonstrates how fast food companies like McDonalds market to children. Kids recognize Ronald McDonald as a friendly face far more than, say, George Washington. Happy Meals are designed to get kids to want to get their parents to come in and spend every time a new toy is out. The association of fast food with fun "Food Folks and Fun" is inculcated early- and the effects of a society which celebrates the Big Mac are only now beginning to be told.

I do realize that it's shortsighted for exactly the reasons you cite. I think that the proper solution is better education by our government, starting at a very early age, so that children learn to eat properly. I think that kids shouldn't be getting fried chicken patties and pizza every day in school like I did, so they develop better habits for when they are adults. I realize that's taking choice from kids, but they are children, not adults. And parents need to be educated better so they make their kids eat healthy. I firmly belive that many of the problems in this country are a result of shitty parenting.

When people look at processed food companies, they should see the same thinking that goes into cigarette marketing. The Philip Morris people were also the Kraft people. That's not conspiracy, that's fact. RJR Nabisco and the RJ Reynolds tobacco company both market to children first and foremost. Monsanto is the aspartame company, the rGBH maker, the GMO producer, the Agent Orange and DDT manufacturer. Do you really think that a company like that gives a damn whether you the consumer lives or dies?

I think that most people are basically good, and that most companies would prefer not to kill people because they are run by presumptively decent people, plus there is always the chance of people finding out, their stock plummeting, class action lawsuits, etc. I acknowledge that some companies gloss over or bury evidence of the harmful nature of their products, and for that they should be firmly punished. The main difference between you and me on this topic is that you presume bad faith on the part of big business, and I do not.

So yes, if you are a grown adult, it's your choice to eat some McD's or BK. But if you grow up and spend your life surrounded by advertisements and no one's helping you to decipher nutrition from marketing fantasy, you just might not be the informed consumer that you need to be in order to make that decision. The role of government should not be to prevent free choice here, but to preserve public health. There's more danger in an uneducated unhealthy person who eats fast food all the time than an informed, healthy user of dietary supplements. What one should ask himself is why are the government's priorities the reverse of where they should be? Doubt leads one to question. Questions lead one to recognition of a problem. Recognition of a problem is the first step toward a remedy. That's the idea of my "food for thought."

Looks like you agree with me on the subject of education. I think education, not regulation, is key. Why are the government's priorities so fucked up? I think that the media is the main cause of it. The media loves to sensationalize, people are sheep and buy into it, and since politicians are elected officials, they have to respond or they lose their jobs. The steroid "scandal" in baseball is a perfect example. We all KNEW some of those guys were on juice. But the media (who I think are complete whores) sprung on it, sensationalized it, Newsweek put an expose about teens and steroids on the cover, 60 Minutes and 20/20 and everybody start playing on people's fears, and the government acted. People blame Bush, McCain, and the rest of the government. The real blame lies with the media.

/karp

 

[INFOHAZARD]

i think some parts of the constitution are out-dated

What, those letters "S" that look like "F's?"

INFOHAZARD

 

[INFOHAZARD]

I just realized I was responding to posts that were several months old. Sorry.

But as ASAP said, the Constitution is designed to be amended, so it really can't be obsolete. It's actually a brilliant document once you get to understand the inner workings, although most of the framers thought that it was a weak document that would have to be replaced after a few years.

/karp

Hear, Hear!

The only beef I have with Freedom & Liberty 1.0 is the electoral system that makes only a 2 party system stable. I noticed that after WWII, when WE wrote the constitutions of Germany and Japan, we went with a parlamentary system that fixed that rather than going with one that mirrored our own system.

This makes coalition governments consisting of a number of parties stable. Much less wrenching/extremist than the two-party, winner-take-all thang.

I suppose we could fix the problem if we conviened a Constitutional Convention, but that would leave the whole document up for grabs. Don't think the Christian Dominionist Theocrats wouldn't commandeer the process.... Those folks are DANGEROUS.

INFOHAZARD

 

[INFOHAZARD]

Before we go any further, I think that all posting to this thread need to answer the following question:

Are you now, or have you ever been a Democrat? WELL?!!