6 ms·

I upvoted and completely agree with you, now let me play devil's advocate a bit. :) The constitution is not a suicide pact. That is, the system cannot interpre

I upvoted and completely agree with you, now let me play devil's advocate a bit. :) The constitution is not a suicide pact. That is, the system cannot interpret the various provisions of the constitution in such a way that would destroy the country. The Declaration of Independence is a statement of philosophy. The constitution is a rather vague and self-contradictory description of structure. Different thing entirely. Having said that, what has happened is that 240 years has given all the players in government a chance to find edge cases where they can have their way at the expense of others. What we're seeing now is a state of perpetual war. This was never envisioned when the country was founded. So we're way off the script.

atondwal 14y ago
>The constitution is not a suicide pact. Isn't it? It seems like it was intended to be a set of fully strict provisions, and if they didn't work, everyone had to agree on changing it.
abraxasz 14y ago
What I find interesting (not judging here) is that people's attitude toward the immutability of the constitution seems to be inconsistent. The same people who invoke the 2 amendment to block any discussion on gun control are willing to "reinterpret" the 1st amendment if it fits their purpose. Note: My point is not at all about gun control, it's just the first example of inconsistency that I had in mind. Not starting any debate here.
- kbolino 14y ago
  There are plenty of people who strongly support both the First and Second Amendments, not to mention the whole rest of the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment.
moron4hire 14y ago
Counter: The Constitution is a suicide pact. The notion that individual rights are more important than Government is a pretty clear thread though out the document, and that one should not conflate the Government of the particular day with The Nation as a whole. I think it's pretty clear with even a cursory reading of such documents as the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution that the standing belief was that Government should be destroyed and rebuilt if it ever stopped serving the people. Such as when it falls into a perpetual state of war. Like they complained about England doing. I think it was well envisioned and it's well on script. However, the Founders believed the separation of powers between branches would create adequate checks and balances to prevent it from happening. I think they failed to envision the case where said branches would collude and ignore the rules to protect each other's power quid pro quo, and most people would not notice and not be bothered.
- avmich 14y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Constitutional_Convention_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Constitutional_Conventi...
  - moron4hire 14y ago
    I'm in the camp of believing it would just get taken over by the same people who are screwing up the political process now. I don't think there is anything to prevent the amendment process from working, other than some weird cultural issues behind people thinking "that's not something you do anymore", like somehow amendments are miracles and since the sacrifice of Jesus there aren't any more miracles in the world (just as an analogy of a thing people believe, not an endorsement of said belief). It's just too easy to test the legal envelope without any repercussions. Don't like the limits on your power that the Constitution has in place? Pass the law you want anyway and see if anyone notices. Fake-it-till-you-make-it. The Constitution means whatever fantasy Congress and the President says it means, redefined words and all. In order for The People to be secure, the people need to have their personal security violated. In order for Freedom to live on, freedom must be curtailed. It's not until the Supreme Court has someone shove it in their face too hard for them to ignore it that anyone even starts to look at the provisions of these bills. And then the same guys who passed the first one just try again, often with nearly identical wording to the last time, until everyone is just too damned tired to keep fighting. Let's create an Amendment to hold congresscritters accountable--say, with jail time--for passing laws that violate the Constitution. The Constitution is law with most of its provisions lacking codified punishments. I think only Treason is defined with an explicit punishment in the Constitution. If the Supreme Court decides a law gets struck down because it is unconstitutional, then all the names on the list of sponsors for the bill go to jail. The Amendment could be that all new Amendments must have a codified punishment and all previous Amendments need to have punishments amended to them. Stop Cowboy Government.
    - conanite 14y ago
      I object to your analogy with test-driven development. "Test-driven" means we decide what it should do, then we write the corresponding code. A "test-driven" nation would decide first what the government ought to do, then proceed by writing the corresponding laws. The system you describe is the exact opposite: let's write some code / law and then see what happens. You have a Cowboy Congress. You might amend your last sentence to read "Start Test Driven Government" instead.
wyager 14y ago
"The constitution is not a suicide pact." How do you know? It seems to me like the people who wrote the constitution (and authored/ratified the Bill of Rights) were willing to risk everything to achieve the freedoms enumerated in the constitution and its subsequent amendments. While I'm probably projecting my own opinions onto them to some extent, it seems to me that the founders of the United States would rather see the nation fall apart than become what they set out to destroy.
- VigUi7vv8G2 14y ago
  The problem is that "suicide" has been getting expanded to the point where it it means any harm, not actual destruction.
RexRollman 14y ago
In my opinon, problem is cowardice. People would rather give up their freedom than take any risk of harm.
- Oxxide 14y ago
  it's true, most people also aren't willing to throw away what they have built for themselves for an ideal. is it cowardly? well, yeah. but can you really blame anyone else for not wanting to mess up what they have? I mean, let's be realistic.
- ballard 14y ago
  Rosa Parks. Mahatma Gandhi. Aaron Swartz.
  - CamperBob2 14y ago
    One of these things is not like the other...
    - Sanddancer 14y ago
      Yeah. Two of them were American, one was Indian.
  - throwaway04583 14y ago
    I suggest popping the tiny opaque filter bubble you have walled yourself into. Get real.
  - raverbashing 14y ago
    They all faced the threat of prosecution and even worse, and almost all of them stood by it. There, I said it.
  - lhnz 14y ago
    All of these people are extraordinarily brave. Most are cowards.
mapt 14y ago
Devil's advocate for your devil's advocate: At the least, our use and interpretation of the Constitution has explicitly discounted individual rights in favor of the collective state since approximately Lincoln. Against 150 years of tradition, what the Founders intended (up to and including the arming of the populace as a deterrent against tyranny) is largely irrelevant.
charlieok 14y ago
The first priority of an institution (any institution) is to preserve the institution.
jacques_chester 14y ago
> What we're seeing now is a state of perpetual war. Poppycock.
dinkumthinkum 14y ago
Who said it was a suicide pact? I think this is a false problem.

atondwal 14y ago

>The constitution is not a suicide pact. Isn't it? It seems like it was intended to be a set of fully strict provisions, and if they didn't work, everyone had to agree on changing it.

abraxasz 14y ago

What I find interesting (not judging here) is that people's attitude toward the immutability of the constitution seems to be inconsistent. The same people who invoke the 2 amendment to block any discussion on gun control are willing to "reinterpret" the 1st amendment if it fits their purpose. Note: My point is not at all about gun control, it's just the first example of inconsistency that I had in mind. Not starting any debate here.

kbolino 14y ago
There are plenty of people who strongly support both the First and Second Amendments, not to mention the whole rest of the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment.

moron4hire 14y ago

Counter: The Constitution is a suicide pact. The notion that individual rights are more important than Government is a pretty clear thread though out the document, and that one should not conflate the Government of the particular day with The Nation as a whole. I think it's pretty clear with even a cursory reading of such documents as the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution that the standing belief was that Government should be destroyed and rebuilt if it ever stopped serving the people. Such as when it falls into a perpetual state of war. Like they complained about England doing. I think it was well envisioned and it's well on script. However, the Founders believed the separation of powers between branches would create adequate checks and balances to prevent it from happening. I think they failed to envision the case where said branches would collude and ignore the rules to protect each other's power quid pro quo, and most people would not notice and not be bothered.

avmich 14y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Constitutional_Convention_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Constitutional_Conventi...
- moron4hire 14y ago
  I'm in the camp of believing it would just get taken over by the same people who are screwing up the political process now. I don't think there is anything to prevent the amendment process from working, other than some weird cultural issues behind people thinking "that's not something you do anymore", like somehow amendments are miracles and since the sacrifice of Jesus there aren't any more miracles in the world (just as an analogy of a thing people believe, not an endorsement of said belief). It's just too easy to test the legal envelope without any repercussions. Don't like the limits on your power that the Constitution has in place? Pass the law you want anyway and see if anyone notices. Fake-it-till-you-make-it. The Constitution means whatever fantasy Congress and the President says it means, redefined words and all. In order for The People to be secure, the people need to have their personal security violated. In order for Freedom to live on, freedom must be curtailed. It's not until the Supreme Court has someone shove it in their face too hard for them to ignore it that anyone even starts to look at the provisions of these bills. And then the same guys who passed the first one just try again, often with nearly identical wording to the last time, until everyone is just too damned tired to keep fighting. Let's create an Amendment to hold congresscritters accountable--say, with jail time--for passing laws that violate the Constitution. The Constitution is law with most of its provisions lacking codified punishments. I think only Treason is defined with an explicit punishment in the Constitution. If the Supreme Court decides a law gets struck down because it is unconstitutional, then all the names on the list of sponsors for the bill go to jail. The Amendment could be that all new Amendments must have a codified punishment and all previous Amendments need to have punishments amended to them. Stop Cowboy Government.
  - conanite 14y ago
    I object to your analogy with test-driven development. "Test-driven" means we decide what it should do, then we write the corresponding code. A "test-driven" nation would decide first what the government ought to do, then proceed by writing the corresponding laws. The system you describe is the exact opposite: let's write some code / law and then see what happens. You have a Cowboy Congress. You might amend your last sentence to read "Start Test Driven Government" instead.

wyager 14y ago

"The constitution is not a suicide pact." How do you know? It seems to me like the people who wrote the constitution (and authored/ratified the Bill of Rights) were willing to risk everything to achieve the freedoms enumerated in the constitution and its subsequent amendments. While I'm probably projecting my own opinions onto them to some extent, it seems to me that the founders of the United States would rather see the nation fall apart than become what they set out to destroy.

VigUi7vv8G2 14y ago
The problem is that "suicide" has been getting expanded to the point where it it means any harm, not actual destruction.

RexRollman 14y ago

In my opinon, problem is cowardice. People would rather give up their freedom than take any risk of harm.

Oxxide 14y ago
it's true, most people also aren't willing to throw away what they have built for themselves for an ideal. is it cowardly? well, yeah. but can you really blame anyone else for not wanting to mess up what they have? I mean, let's be realistic.
ballard 14y ago
Rosa Parks. Mahatma Gandhi. Aaron Swartz.
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  One of these things is not like the other...
  - Sanddancer 14y ago
    Yeah. Two of them were American, one was Indian.
- throwaway04583 14y ago
  I suggest popping the tiny opaque filter bubble you have walled yourself into. Get real.
- raverbashing 14y ago
  They all faced the threat of prosecution and even worse, and almost all of them stood by it. There, I said it.
- lhnz 14y ago
  All of these people are extraordinarily brave. Most are cowards.

mapt 14y ago

Devil's advocate for your devil's advocate: At the least, our use and interpretation of the Constitution has explicitly discounted individual rights in favor of the collective state since approximately Lincoln. Against 150 years of tradition, what the Founders intended (up to and including the arming of the populace as a deterrent against tyranny) is largely irrelevant.

charlieok 14y ago

The first priority of an institution (any institution) is to preserve the institution.

jacques_chester 14y ago

> What we're seeing now is a state of perpetual war. Poppycock.

dinkumthinkum 14y ago

Who said it was a suicide pact? I think this is a false problem.