U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-19-2008, 03:37 PM
 
12,870 posts, read 12,775,361 times
Reputation: 4446

Advertisements

i think we need to change the constitution to make it easier to drum the senators out faster than every 6 years. there should be 2 year terms for senators. that might make them a little more responsible. i read that some of the votes on the bailout were influenced by whether they would be up for reelection or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-19-2008, 06:35 PM
 
19,183 posts, read 27,744,233 times
Reputation: 4000
The Senate was intended to be more insulated from popular passions and therefore more deliberative than the House. The Founders had little faith in popular passions, recognizing that they can easily be manipulated and fanned by scoundrels. The truth underlying such wariness is no less evident today than it was 220 years ago...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2008, 07:39 PM
 
48,519 posts, read 81,048,183 times
Reputation: 17978
Personally if you look at the founders thinking beyond the document ;I think you will find we have rewritten the constitution many times.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 12:35 AM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,236 posts, read 40,279,788 times
Reputation: 10915
Quote:
Originally Posted by masonsdaughter View Post
Please show me where in the constitution that women should be denied equil rights or should stay home and be taken care of. A lot of things were tradition at that time, but they are not mentioned in the constitution.
That wasn't what I was getting at.

There are traditions that we've carried on for years. As recently as the 1950's and '60s, women tended to stay in the home. But we don't see that anymore, right? It's considered "outdated". Well, the Constitution is over 200 years old, and by that same logic, it's "outdated".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 01:09 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,567 posts, read 14,520,600 times
Reputation: 1573
What is the difference between tradition and religion?
'Normal' traditions eventually change (read: go with the times), but once religion was caught in writing people believe that religious traditions should be eternal.
The difference between cultural tradition and religion is that cultures adapt while religion generally doesn't, especially when they claim that their God(s) (thus their tradition) is eternal.
Somehow believers fear change because change always brings a certain degree of uncertainty (read: loss of control) with it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 01:49 AM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,236 posts, read 40,279,788 times
Reputation: 10915
People have constantly reinterpreted, just for one example, the Bible. Any idea how many "versions" of the Bible are floating around out there?

In fact, why do you suppose that there are so many Protestant sects? Someone quibbled over a "minor point" or two, and decided to form their own religion!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 01:57 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,567 posts, read 14,520,600 times
Reputation: 1573
Originally Posted by TKramar
Quote:
People have constantly reinterpreted, just for one example, the Bible. Any idea how many "versions" of the Bible are floating around out there?
Many because there are as many interpretations of the Bible as there are Christians. The thing is that Christians are only obsessed with their version of the truth (read: claim that only their version is/was/will be the eternal truth).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 02:44 AM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,236 posts, read 40,279,788 times
Reputation: 10915
So, do you agree that the Constitution need not be permanent?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 04:09 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,567 posts, read 14,520,600 times
Reputation: 1573
Originally Posted by TKramar
Quote:
So, do you agree that the Constitution need not be permanent?
I agree to the fact that that which does not work should be abandoned or changed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 09:30 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,066,557 times
Reputation: 3717
Default We're not consistent even now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
That wasn't what I was getting at.

There are traditions that we've carried on for years. As recently as the 1950's and '60s, women tended to stay in the home. But we don't see that anymore, right? It's considered "outdated". Well, the Constitution is over 200 years old, and by that same logic, it's "outdated".
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
So, do you agree that the Constitution need not be permanent?
Well, we have pretty much already ignored or modified by conspicuous indifference a number of The Amendments, such as #10 (i.e: leaving items not specifically detailed in The Constitution to be administered by individual States. Perhaps this would include abortion rights, women's rights, personal property and water rights, etc. etc.?)

Practical functionality has unofficially ignored, in many cases of overloaded court dockets, the 6th, mandating a speedy trial.

But the slippery slope argument rears its very real head here. Some things should perhaps be striken or modified (i.e: The 7th Amendment's lower limit of $20! Can't even catch a taxi to the courthouse for $20! Should be, say, $2500. Or just dropped? Or, as now, conveniently ignored.)

But again, where do we draw the line? If a current clause or Amendment is at the very least controversial or possibly applicable (i.e: the tortured interpretations of the 2nd Amendment) it should be left alone. There's always the SCOTUS to help us out!

And we can always ADD an Amendment if it's really needed, as long as it doesn't trample on another Amendment. Perhaps some "clarifying Amendments"? I have a few in mind...

In truth, I and others, with a growing sense of conspiracy, am wary of those who want to open this document to wholesale revisionism in light of what's "current" or "modern". Do we then officially open it every, say, ten years? Are our values more valid or more well thought out now than those of our FF? Isn't that a bit conceited? Or dangerous? Is it not possible to make it work the way it is now, with thoughtful respect for others' views? A sort of ""Fair and Balanced" interpretation?

Last edited by rifleman; 10-20-2008 at 09:35 AM.. Reason: typos
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top