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.
I think it feels like the ritght thing to say. But if you were sitting down at a table with a pen in your hand, with the choice between what we have now and all other possibilities. I don't believe most of you would actually sign.
I understand the question and this is a interesting thread. I agree with the premise that most would not actually sign and I would be in that crowd. How many times is campaign finance reform and term limits mentioned in this forum? Of course this is done from the position of arm chair QBs since the constitution was in place when we were all born. With that said if I was alive before the signing I would hold out for some tweeks.
I was reading some essays by Lysander Spooner called "No Treason". Lysander was a lawyer by trade and dealt with contracts. His essays talk about how the constitution doesn't appear to meet the requirements of a contract. One of them being that, a contract requires all parties involved to sign it or otherwise expressly give their consent.
The question here is this. If the government gave you the choice right now, whether to sign and be bound by our constitution forever, or be free of it forever. Would you sign it? Or would you "opt-out"?
this reminds me of a quote
Do not argue with a fool, an outside observer may not be able to tell the difference.
I understand the question and this is a interesting thread. I agree with the premise that most would not actually sign and I would be in that crowd. How many times is campaign finance reform and term limits mentioned in this forum? Of course this is done from the position of arm chair QBs since the constitution was in place when we were all born. With that said if I was alive before the signing I would hold out for some tweeks.
Campaign finance, term limits, abortion, gun rights, gay marriage, right to privacy, miranda rights, habeus corpus, assassinating citizens abroad, death penalty, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, healthcare, end of life issues, use of the military without declaration of war, birthright citizenship, immigration, states' rights, taxes, federal reserve, drug prohibition, enumerated powers act, line item veto, selective service, eminent domain, Bush v. Gore, etc.
Anyone who truly believes that you would sign the constitution if given the choice. One of two things have to be true. Either you believe that the constitution is perfect, or you believe it is impossible to do better.
I don't believe even die-hard Constitutionalists could say with any honesty that the constitution couldn't or shouldn't be made better. Or at the very least, should be clarified.
To me, all those who say they would agree to sign the constitution, simply don't understand the question.
Campaign finance, term limits, abortion, gun rights, gay marriage, right to privacy, miranda rights, habeus corpus, assassinating citizens abroad, death penalty, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, healthcare, end of life issues, use of the military without declaration of war, birthright citizenship, immigration, states' rights, taxes, federal reserve, drug prohibition, enumerated powers act, line item veto, selective service, eminent domain, Bush v. Gore, etc.
Anyone who truly believes that you would sign the constitution if given the choice. One of two things have to be true. Either you believe that the constitution is perfect, or you believe it is impossible to do better.
I don't believe even die-hard Constitutionalists could say with any honesty that the constitution couldn't or shouldn't be made better. Or at the very least, should be clarified.
To me, all those who say they would agree to sign the constitution, simply don't understand the question.
Or maybe they realized they were on the internet lollygagging over a hypothetical question.
Or maybe they realized they were on the internet lollygagging over a hypothetical question.
[my legal team will contact your legal team]
Ok, so it is a hypothetical question. But is the question meaningless?
Who actually believes that our constitution is "perfect"? Or for that matter, who doesn't believe that our constitution shouldn't be made better or more clear?
Not only does everyone believe our constitution is flawed, but as Lysander spooner wrote "scarcely any two, perhaps no two, have ever agreed, or ever will agree, as to what it means."
Even the people who actually wrote our constitution couldn't agree on what the constitution meant.
If that be the case, then we must also recognize that whatever the meaning and purpose of our constitution, regardless of its original intentions, comes from a single source, the Supreme Court.
As many have noted, even the arbiter for all constitutional questions, the Supreme Court, almost never agrees with each other on what the constitution means. In fact, the majority of all important court decisions have been by the the biggest difference of opinion that can even happen on the court, a 5-4 ruling.
And even worse, not only can the Supreme Court not agree today, but the Supreme Court even disagrees with previous courts. And many who disagree with current court rulings have responded to what they see as "unfair" 5-4 decisions, as being easily remedied by replacing members of the court and retrying the case.
In fact the arbitrary nature of the Supreme Court's interpretation of our constitution even has a name, the "living document" theory.
If it is known that the constitution is flawed, and that the Supreme Court can completely redefine it at their discretion. Then what does that mean?
What validity is a document which has no meaning? Or whose meaning is completely arbitrary? And further, a document which no one has ever given their consent to be ruled by, and to which no one would give their consent to be ruled by if given an actual choice.
You may find it to be a hypothetical question, but that doesn't mean it isn't an important question. And if one could actually attempt to answer the question honestly, especially in both saying it out loud to themselves and others, and imagining the scenario being played out in the real world. Maybe the people of this country can finally evolve passed playing ridiculous partisan politics, and start asking the questions that actually matter.
The problem is, as noted by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence...
"All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
Basically, people have become accustomed to the way things are, and regardless of the evils to which they suffer, they would rather just continue to suffer because they either cannot imagine anything better, or aren't sure they could produce anything better.
Basically, as Thomas Jefferson put it. Most people would prefer "the quiet of servitude to the danger of freedom."
Ok, so it is a hypothetical question. But is the question meaningless?
...
Depends.
Is there a right answer?
[]
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.
]
