| hi guys- this is really it. since were down to one or two infrequent
posters, im well and truly canceling my email subscription to
xanga. get a livejournal or something that ill read, if that
bothers you. later, people. see you in the real world.
|
| |
| I'm posting this everywhere, because I'm really interested in what
people might have to say about it, so I return! for a little
while. By the way, I still subscribe to this, so I read all of
your entries.
Obligatory disclaimer: I don't have an opinion one way or the other, I
just find the question interesting, so I'm exploring it.
So. The U.S. Constitution was originally an absolutely necessary
document. In order to maintain the freedoms and ensure the federal and
state powers that the framers desired, it was necessary due to the lack
of centuries of precedent, as existed in England. However- can the 250
year old document properly address the issues and needs of a modern
America? Could the U.S. function without it? Theoretically, the
legislative, judicial, and executive powers are well-enough ingrained
in American society for the Constitution to be rendered unnecessary.
Why would this be desireable, though? Well, one could make the case
that certain issues that didn't have a place in the original
Constitution need to be addressed today. The document can certainly be
amended; however, is the process not drastic enough, or too easily held
up by a minority?
Also- the Constitution has become the thing Americans protect,
instead of the ideals that stood behind it. Instead of looking to
preserve and adapt the egalitarian ideals to modern life and necessity,
too many people simply defend the Constitution "Because that's what it
says," and not because of what is moral or logical.
A few possible (Please, don't debate the issues themselves, im just
mentioning them as potential reforms that are pertinent to the issue at
hand) examples:
-Privacy- Privacy is a right that is implied, but not explicitly
stated, in the Constitution. If the concept of privacy is moral, should
it matter that it isn't spelled out, word for word, in the document?
Would "strict constructionists" be so eager to defend the Constitution
if it advocated privacy, and thusly interpreted, a woman's choice? If
(and please don't take this to mean abortion, if you disagree with the
concept) something is moral, but prohibited by the Constitution, should
the document be upheld, or should it be changed? Example: slavery.
-Guns- In today's world, guns contribute to crime. The facts are
clear: In Europe, where guns are almost impossible to obtain, there is
a negligible murder rate. Here in the U.S., we have an astronomical
homicide rate. "Only the criminals would have guns," is factually
disproven. So- should the Second Amendment be retained, although it is
clearly useless (a militia is a laughable concept in today's society),
and, in its effective application, immoral? |
| |
| if he actually said this, id hella switch parties.
 |
| |
| no one ever reads this. so go get a livejournal.
|
| |
