My roommate thinks we should be able to branch from the Constitution. He doesn't see how a document written 200+ years ago can pertain to today's society. What do you think?

Well I would say update the Constitution and revamp all the laws, bills, and such that have bin added on cents that time it was created.

Once we go down the road your roommate is espousing there in no more US.. we become like Europe and you see how well they are doing, Greece in the toilet, Ireland right behind and the rest of Europe becoming Eurabia...

What your room mate and many others fail to realise is that our Constitution was designed to be changed. It wasn't meant to be easy to change but their is a way; A Constitutional amendment.

Tell me you feelings about the Constitutional "right" for white folks to own slaves, and for only males to be allowed to vote, so long as they also own land, and for alcohol to be "illegal" to produce or sell? All these were "powers of the Government", at one time or another.

I suppose you are aware that 200 years ago things were "somewhat different" than today? A cannon had an effective range of about 400 yards, a ship with enemies took about 30 days to reach our shores from Europe, longer from the "Eastern" countries, and a fast rider and horse could deliver a letter from Boston to Washington in just about three days. Jefferson and Adams
corresponded, and their letters took more than a week to arrive.

If our minds and actions are tied together like our shoelaces, we may as well give up the race with
other nations that are not encumbered in any manner, but are reaching and achieving opportunities in the 21st Century, not the 18th.

You misunderstood my point sir. The government should only have as much power as our constitution grants it. That has nothing to do with slavery, alcohol, and other points you made. We have the amendments, and as a living document, i do think that as times change we can indeed amend the constitution as we have done over the past 200 years which has in fact outlawed forced labor and made alcohol illegal then legal again. In doing so, however, we are adhering to the laws of the constitution, but accommodating them to the changes of our society. My roommate is saying that we should be able to, effectively, ignore the constitution when deemed necessary. Which I do not agree with.

I understand andcan appreciate your opinion. Were it possible to anticipate the demands that a
complex and changing world places upon us at an ever accelerating pace, your idea of changing the document would be admirable. However, the world of today changes with the speed of light, and what is unthought of yesterday is today's crisis. What would the Constitution advise we do
about "cybercrime" and those who would intercept the network of our State Department or military, possibly seeking the launch codes for our nuclear weapons? At best,it takes a year or two to amend the document,and, with the obstructionists of the Party of NO incontrol of the House of Reps, there would be no chance of amending anything except to make the U.S. a theocracy.

Although adjusting our laws to the pace of the ever changing society may be a challenging feat, it isn't as difficult as it seems. As you mention cybercrime, it is the same crimes done in the physical world as it is in the cyberworld. There is no need to amend the document for there are already laws against it. Fraud is the same then as it is now. It's just in a different form. Stealing is also illegal. Whether it be on the internet or physically by means of breaking and entering or grand theft auto. Stealing is stealing and fraud is fraud. The medium should not matter. Same goes with any other crime. Everything should not need to be reviewed to the federal government either. There is the 10th amendment which gives powers to the states. cybercrimes can be taken care by local and state authorities and there is no need for a constitutional amendment.

Do send your thoughts to the People's Republic of China, and to the nation of Iran, and to Israel also, for all of these have recently been intercepted with cyber search viruses hidden within one or more of our national security data systems. I'm sure
your threatening them with our "laws" will scare hell out of them and cause them to stop all such activities. Maybe Wisconsin or West Virginia will also threaten to prosecute them. You seem to not grasp the realities of the world in which you find yourself.

The Constitution largely exists to setup our system of government - something that really doesn't need to be touched - and to give us a method to add or subtract issues that come up.

The idea behind our government should be that most issues are taken care of from a local perspective. The Constitution empowers the states to deal with most everything. In that respect, we don't need to be concerned about the Constitution at all. All we need to do is let each state handle its business without making a naitonal issue out of everything.

I do believe in strictly reading the Constitution because thats where you'll end up. Local governments empowered by the people in the region to pass laws that pertain to them.

The problem is when people want to start skirting the Constitution and want every issues to be tackled from a federal point of view - then you get massive bloated government and much more national discord. If people in California could stop worrying about what people in Mississippi were doing and vice versa things would be much better.

In short, the document is a cold and legal document - not an emotional document defining only one era.

It has to be amended over time. There is no freedom if you are locked into the constitution as written originally. I would expect that if I took a poll to see who thinks the constitution should never be altered and is a flawless document for all time, I would find that those same people think that of the bible too.

I don't think thats squite correct. I think there are some people who think that. I think the majority believe in the amendment process as far as changing it goes. But the corollary to the "perfect" document people you describe is the "living" document people who think every issue is already covered if you just "read into" it. Thus, issues that should be privy to the states are handled federally by activist courts - subverting the amendment process altogether.

For example, no where in the Constitution are we specifically guaranteed the right to marry anyone. In that vain, the states should be the arbiters of marriage definitions and licenses via what the voters in each state want. However, there is quite a movement afoot to read the right to marry into the Constitution. Everyone seems to ignore the tenth amendment and just let states handle things.

I would not imagine that the constitution has managed to cover every issue. It is too difficult to predict what will happen in the future.

But there are people who do. Its two halves of the same pie. Conservatives behave in the manner you explain, believing the document is infallible and not in need of amendment (which is ridiculous since the founders put a method in it to amend). But the section of liberals think every issue is covered as well too - we just need to "read into" it to handle whatever modern issue we face.

Personally, I think the Constitution is fine and should be read strictly. Its fine because we have the amendment process. The power to change it when we need to. It fits today for that reason. But it also empowers the states to handle issues individually as they see fit - which is the second amount of leverage the Constitution leaves for us 200 years on. If we are confronted with an issue that we can't agree on nationally, we can vote locally in our states.

Its magic.

That all makes sense to me. :)

This very argument is the reason why the constitution can be amended.

It's neolithic. The Constitution should adapt accordingly as time progresses.

constitutional amendments can add powers to the central government.

Which by that you are sticking to the constitution.

indeed

They can also define those powers more accurately. Grey areas in the constitution allows for more powers and constitutional abuse.

Explain.

How often do you hear someone say something or someone did something unconstitutional but nothing is ever done to prove it's actually unconstitutional? Obama and Libya for example.

What he did in Libya was technically not unconstitutional. He has power over the armed forces. He can technically send them anywhere he wants in the world. The thing is, they can only be deployed for like 90 days or something without Congress declaring war. If Congress does not declare war at the end of those 90 days, the president must bring those troops home.

Plus, it is our Judicial branch who decides if something is unconstitutional or not. It's our job to bring it up.

I agree, Libya wasn't unconstitutional I used it as an example.

Our Founding Fathers fully understood progressives and how they seek to ever empower government in order to regulate every aspect of our lives. This is exactly why they put strict limits on the powers given to government. Limits that are currently being violated.

No they didn't. There wouldn't be Freedom of Religion if "our founding fathers understood progressives."

...I don't see how that has anything to do with progressivism. There were already varying degrees of Christianity, Islam, Atheism, Agnosticism, etc; back then.

It's conservatives who believe we are a "Christian Nation," not progressives. Had our fore fathers understood progressives they would've said we were a Christian nation in the constitution.

That's not conservative dogma, it's plain fallacy. Few conservatives, I would hope, seriously believe that.

What there is of it comes from the right, specifically the Tea Party.

I know. And the fake Tea Party, not the real Tea Party.

Nope, the real Tea Party.

"Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina is helping to lead the charge with his Senate Conservatives Fund. DeMint, an absolute favorite of both the Tea Party and Religious Right political movements for his uncompromising extremism on both economic and social issues, is at the far right fringe of the Republican Party and has committed himself to helping elect more like-minded colleagues. Sarah Palin, also popular among both Tea Party and Religious Right activists, has also injected her high-profile name, busy Twitter fingers, and PAC cash into numerous Senate races."

http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-fo...

The religious right and the real tea party are fundamentally opposed.

What?? LMAO!

Religious right: we need government to prevent abortions, keep people from making the choice to be gay, and to keep people off drugs
Tea Party: we need less government

You hit the contradiction on the head.

which is why I say the *real* tea party (not the FOX News Tea Party) is at odds with the religious right.

Heck, the only real Tea Partier I speak with on regular basis is an atheist.

Jim DeMint is the real Tea Party.

prove it.

I did above, read the whole link.

http://www.sodahead.com/unite...