The Constitution, Modern Society, and Law

upnorth2505

upnorth2505

New Member
The Constitution is, in my opinion, one of the greatest documents ever written. The Constitution is many things: It is the basis of our structure of government; a document which, with the bill of rights, lays out specific rights and freedoms for individuals and states; and a document that very clearly delineates the rights of individual states.


The Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and common law form the collective body of laws in the United Sates. It is my belief that the signers of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, never thought that these documents would be able to cover every aspect of law. That is why, in my opinion, the constitution can be somewhat vague at times. In addition, it is open to question to what degree the writers of the Constitution ever thought about evolving society, developing technology, and other factors which may have, or may not have, influenced the writing of a document that is monumental to the basis of law in our society.

So, the question becomes, how are issues of law (essentially new issues of law), settled in our Modern Society? What do we do when a modern issue of law has no corresponding relation to the Constitution with its Bill of Rights, or common law? How do we settle the issue, and how is and how should be new law be created? This, I believe, is an extremely complex issue with no definitive answer.

I have no concrete answers, how should this work? :?:
 
jeff f

jeff f

New Member
the constitution basically says what the govt cant do to you by way of the bill of rights. it lays out rules that are timeless. freedom of speech doesnt matter if your on a horse or on the space shuttle. right to bare arms doesnt matter if they were built in a barn or by spaceage polimer. people always use that argument of time and evolution of society but it doesnt pass mustard. the rights were granted by god and man cannot take them away. thats our whole principle.

certainly things do change but the constitution allows for changing the bill of right through ammendments NOT by a couple of political hacks from chicago. this medical bill will be in direct conflict with the constitution if they make you buy it. that is exactly what the founders were against.

fear not my friend. the tree of liberty must be watered with blood from time to time
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
It is always better to err on the side of more liberty than less liberty. Once we allowed prosecution of victimless crime and individual rights to be eroded we went from a government designed to protect rights to one that licensed privileges. That
didn't happen overnight, but we are undoubtedly there now.
 
undertheice

undertheice

Well-Known Member
upnorth2505 said:
The Constitution is many things: It is the basis of our structure of government; a document which, with the bill of rights, lays out specific rights and freedoms for individuals and states; and a document that very clearly delineates the rights of individual states.
Click to expand...
the constitution in no way defines the rights of the individual. these rights are considered limitless and only restricted by the fact that they must be insured to all citizens equally, that the rights of one cannot interfere with the rights of another. the only rights that are firmly delineated by the constitution are the rights of government to interfere in the lives of its citizens. in defining any vagueness in the terms of that document we must always consider the rights of the individual to be superior to the rights of the state.
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
Many critics complain that the Constitution is outdated. I wholeheartedly disagree.

I say the Constitution was years ahead of its time.

Written by and predominantly to protect rich, landed, white gentlemen from the tyranny of a strong central government; look how easily the concepts within originally meant for one select group eventually translated to everybody.

It was not the Constitution which radically changed, with only twenty-seven amendments in 223 years; so much as it was our society which grew into it.

Now if we could only compel the Federal government to confine itself to its own Constitution.
 
laughingduck

laughingduck

Well-Known Member
I am inclined to think the constitution is a divine document. The brilliance of the writers sends chills down my spine. Those folks were truly amazing with deep knowledge.
 
dukeofbaja

dukeofbaja

New Member
I hold no particular reverence for the constitution or its authors. It is a meaningless piece of paper with ink blotched onto it. How can you pen the phrase 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' and still hold other people as property?

Go ahead and give me a history lesson about how they had to do it and this and that and the other, I will likely agree with you. But then we will have a discussion about manifest destiny which involves such topics as the mass murder of the native americans, which did not need to happen. And I'll have to ask you what section of the constitution justified that.

It is not the useless piece of paper that will make this country better for future generations, it is us.
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
dukeofbaja said:
I hold no particular reverence for the constitution or its authors. It is a meaningless piece of paper with ink blotched onto it. How can you pen the phrase 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' and still hold other people as property?

Go ahead and give me a history lesson about how they had to do it and this and that and the other, I will likely agree with you. But then we will have a discussion about manifest destiny which involves such topics as the mass murder of the native americans, which did not need to happen. And I'll have to ask you what section of the constitution justified that.

It is not the useless piece of paper that will make this country better for future generations, it is us.
Click to expand...
The physical document is no different from any other. But I am not really referring to paper with ink on it because that could describe a Harry Potter book, or a shopping list.

I am referring to the philosophical concept of the Constitution. The form if you will. It exists regardless of what it is written on, be it hemp paper or one of those flat sponges which expand once you add water.

The phrase 'Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness' is not found in the Constitution.

But I understand what you are getting at and I covered it already by saying that we as a nation grew into it, finally understanding that the principles set forth in the Constitution either protect all of us, or none of us.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Johnnyorganic said:
The physical document is no different from any other. But I am not really referring to paper with ink on it because that could describe a Harry Potter book, or a shopping list.

I am referring to the philosophical concept of the Constitution. The form if you will. It exists regardless of what it is written on, be it hemp paper or one of those flat sponges which expand once you add water.

The phrase 'Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness' is not found in the Constitution.

But I understand what you are getting at and I covered it already by saying that we as a nation grew into it, finally understanding that the principles set forth in the Constitution either protect all of us, or none of us.
Click to expand...
I think YOU, being a rational person understand that the principles of the constitution SHOULD protect all of us.

As a nation of people, (if there even is any entity or document which can presume to speak for all) I'd say we have not grown into the meaning of the constitution. I think we are growing away from it.

I'd say the intended protections which were supposed to be applied to all of us have been usurped. For example, look at that damn Interstate Commerce Clause and the fallacy that a Supreme Court will render impartial judgements.

Those thoughts are part of the reasoning for me being a Voluntaryist. By all means if you must have a government, the United States Constitution is a very good model, IF it is followed.

But it is not a one size fits all world. That's why I boil it down even further than the Constitution. That's why I try to follow my OWN constitution, which is much simpler. I follow the nonagression principle, which is simply put - do not inititiate aggression. That principle does not rely upon the arbitrary judgement of anybody else for me to figure it out.

I don't outright reject the United States Constitution, because as I stated before, it's a good model for government, but it still presumes to speak for everybody, which is very difficult to do, not to mention morally lacking. It offers no protection for those who do not need or want to be governed, where my simple "Constitution" does.
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
I think YOU, being a rational person understand that the principles of the constitution SHOULD protect all of us.

As a nation of people, (if there even is any entity or document which can presume to speak for all) I'd say we have not grown into the meaning of the constitution. I think we are growing away from it.

I'd say the intended protections which were supposed to be applied to all of us have been usurped. For example, look at that damn Interstate Commerce Clause and the fallacy that a Supreme Court will render impartial judgements.

Those thoughts are part of the reasoning for me being a Voluntaryist. By all means if you must have a government, the United States Constitution is a very good model, IF it is followed.

But it is not a one size fits all world. That's why I boil it down even further than the Constitution. That's why I try to follow my OWN constitution, which is much simpler. I follow the nonagression principle, which is simply put - do not inititiate aggression. That principle does not rely upon the arbitrary judgement of anybody else for me to figure it out.

I don't outright reject the United States Constitution, because as I stated before, it's a good model for government, but it still presumes to speak for everybody, which is very difficult to do, not to mention morally lacking. It offers no protection for those who do not need or want to be governed, where my simple "Constitution" does.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely correct. As we grew into the Constitution, understanding that principles therein applied to all equally, we as a nation began to drift away from the basic principles of limited government - the essence of the Constitution.

No one document which binds a society together will satisfy everybody. You take the good with the bad. For example, the Constitutional right to privacy applies to everyone. Anti-Choicers simply cannot abide by this as it is used to justify legal abortion.

A woman seeking an abortion has the same reasonable expectation of privacy as I do when using cannabis in my living room with the doors locked and the curtains drawn.

Anyone's right to privacy trumps a do-gooder's objections over their private behavior.

And John Donne said "No man is an island." It's true, we all must co-exist under a common understanding of what a society bound by the rule of law is. Failing that, we are subjected to the individual whims of whomever we encounter. And if they are powerful enough, they can subject you to their 'constitution' as you put it.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
I think Bill and Ted may have actually been the greatest freedom philosphers.

Wasn't it they that said, "be excellent to each other and party on dudes" ? :eyesmoke:
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
I think Bill and Ted may have actually been the greatest freedom philosphers.

Wasn't it they that said, "be excellent to each other and party on dudes" ? :eyesmoke:
Click to expand...
Awesome film!

"We're all just just in the wind, Dude."

"Dust. Wind. Dude!"

[youtube]<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WykrO1qFvPQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WykrO1qFvPQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top