Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Should the Constitution be enforced and defended because it is the law of the land, and the government has the police power to enforce it, and people have an obligation to obey it?
Or should it be enforced because it is an embodiment of general principles that are self-evidently the right thing for civilized people to do?
" We must do this, not because it is economically advantageous-although it is; not because the laws of God and man command it-although they do command it; not because people in other lands wish it so. We must do it for the single and fundamental reason that it is the right thing to do." --- Robert F. Kennedy
Should the Constitution be enforced and defended because it is the law of the land, and the government has the police power to enforce it, and people have an obligation to obey it?
Or should it be enforced because it is an embodiment of general principles that are self-evidently the right thing for civilized people to do?
" We must do this, not because it is economically advantageous-although it is; not because the laws of God and man command it-although they do command it; not because people in other lands wish it so. We must do it for the single and fundamental reason that it is the right thing to do." --- Robert F. Kennedy
Its very hard to do so whose interperation of constitiution should be enforced it is interpreted in many ways by
varies political and ideological intressts in the US and there is no unifrom interperation of the constitution that every body would agtree with.
Its very hard to do so whose interperation of constitiution should be enforced it is interpreted in many ways by
varies political and ideological intressts in the US and there is no unifrom interperation of the constitution that every body would agtree with.
But shouldn't Good people interpret the Constitution in such a way as to assure doing the Right Thing? Should the constitution, in the end, be interpreted by those dedicated to upholding the Law, or by those upholding the Good?
We acknowledge that the Constitution was written by Good Men. If we are still Good Men, their intent must be clear to us all. If it is not clear, is that because we no longer are able to recognize and uphold those virtues?.
The writers of the constitution where uniqly vissionary and cultivated men for their time but they would by modern standards be far from perfect they where humanbeings after all.
They where awere of their own faults and that future generations would have diffrent views of what is good and what is bad.
So they wrote the constitution in ethicly inspired way rather than from an moral point of wiev becouse unlike morality wich is bound by time place and culture ethics transcends all of that
and that was the sucess of the constitution.
They wanted people to follow the constitution not the them self since they where bound to their time and mores.
THe US Constitution is not so much "laws" as it is a design for the government. The Bill of Rights is designed to protect the individual from the government from which laws are derived from in the US.
You rights do not come from the Constitution, they are merely protected by the Constitution. Your rights are inalienable and you are born with them. It from the basis of these individual rights in government that laws are derived, not the Constitution.
The US Constitution is not so much "laws" as it is a design for the government.
But all courts in the land, including the highest, are bound to treat it as "law", and may not deviate. The Supreme Court has no power to say "what you did was against the law, but we rule in your favor because you did the right thing." Every court is required to rule according to the principle of "nation of laws, not of men---not even of good and righteous and virtuous men".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultralight
So they wrote the constitution in ethicly inspired way rather than from an moral point of wiev becouse unlike morality wich is bound by time place and culture ethics transcends all of that.
Does time and place and culture make a lynch mob "moral" for a day?
Ethics is simply the philosophical study of how men arrive at their perception of morality. There is no difference between Ethics and Morals. Morally right once, morally right always.
Let me quote Bobby Kennedy again: "Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it."
Ethics offer flexblity adaptibility and evolves with time and is more flexible in interrperations based on understanding of cause and effect morality is rigid and unflexible most of what we consider inmoral can be and has a ethical origien and thus interpertated in that way the constitution is a secular ethic based statement of government
When a law is challenged by a case before the Supreme Court ( whether US Supreme Court or state Supreme Court ) they are to make a ruling on that case stricly based on if the law follows the constitution.
It is amazing when a governor or president selects a person for the Supreme Court and then states--" he/she is a compassionate person"
"Compassion" is a great trait ( IMHO) for a trial court or civil court judge, but " compassion" should never enter into a Supreme Court's ruling.
If we feel part of the constitution lacks " compassion", a constitutional amendment is what is needed. ( not a Supreme Court justice circumventing the constitution based on their " compassion" )
Ethics offer flexblity adaptibility and evolves with time and is more flexible in interrperations based on understanding of cause and effect morality is rigid and unflexible most of what we consider inmoral can be and has a ethical origien and thus interpertated in that way the constitution is a secular ethic based statement of government
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultralight
.
So they wrote the constitution in ethicly inspired way rather than from an moral point of wiev becouse unlike morality wich is bound by time place and culture ethics transcends all of that
Don't these two statements contradict each other?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
