3 ms·

Let's say for the sake of argument that everything you listed is true, which, it's clearly not. Does it matter to you at all that this is UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

Let's say for the sake of argument that everything you listed is true, which, it's clearly not. Does it matter to you at all that this is UNCONSTITUTIONAL? Does the founding charter of our nation mean absolutely nothing to you?

tikhonj 13y ago
While I disagree with the OP, I don't think blindly adhering to the constitution makes for a good argument. There are very good reasons for everything in the constitution, but each is only as strong as those reasons. In the absence of good reasons for something, the fact that it's part of the constitution does not matter very much! If anything, it means the constitution should be changed--that's why we have a ready amendment mechanism. Now, an argument in terms of civil liberties or the danger of concentrating too much power in too few hands or possible abuses of the technology or invasion of privacy would have been completely reasonable, and such arguments have been well made in other posts. But yours by itself is completely empty. The constitution is great, but it's hardly the perfect authority on everything and shouldn't be revered as such.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Sure, but a government with a habit of ignoring (or paying some minimal lip-service while weaving a web of bullshit about how flagrantly violating it isn't really violating it) the Constitution is a threat in the medium- to long-term (if not the short-). Complaining that behavior is a problem because it is unconstitutional does not necessarily mean we'd oppose an amendment that permits it (after thorough consideration and discussion). Arguing against a proposed amendment on the grounds that the proposed change allows something currently prohibited would be silly, obviously, but that's not what anyone is doing I think.
- taproot 13y ago
  > There are very good reasons for everything in the constitution, but each is only as strong as those reasons. In the absence of good reasons for something, the fact that it's part of the constitution does not matter very much! If anything, it means the constitution should be changed--that's why we have a ready amendment mechanism. We thought the reasons weren't holding up anymore, we could have changed it, but that takes so long so we just did it in secret, thats ok yea? Its "just the constitution". Is this your standpoint? > The constitution is great, but it's hardly the perfect authority on everything and shouldn't be revered as such. It was supposed to be. And when things were found to no longer work it was supposed to be amended with all branches of government having their say. If one thing can be disregarded "because its not perfect" then all things can be disregarded. Or at least, if you think they can't just all be disregarded, because some things would be crossing the line, who is the one that gets to draw the line? Previously we had this piece of paper which drew the line, but then this guy said online it wasn't perfect.

tikhonj 13y ago

While I disagree with the OP, I don't think blindly adhering to the constitution makes for a good argument. There are very good reasons for everything in the constitution, but each is only as strong as those reasons. In the absence of good reasons for something, the fact that it's part of the constitution does not matter very much! If anything, it means the constitution should be changed--that's why we have a ready amendment mechanism. Now, an argument in terms of civil liberties or the danger of concentrating too much power in too few hands or possible abuses of the technology or invasion of privacy would have been completely reasonable, and such arguments have been well made in other posts. But yours by itself is completely empty. The constitution is great, but it's hardly the perfect authority on everything and shouldn't be revered as such.

dllthomas 13y ago
Sure, but a government with a habit of ignoring (or paying some minimal lip-service while weaving a web of bullshit about how flagrantly violating it isn't really violating it) the Constitution is a threat in the medium- to long-term (if not the short-). Complaining that behavior is a problem because it is unconstitutional does not necessarily mean we'd oppose an amendment that permits it (after thorough consideration and discussion). Arguing against a proposed amendment on the grounds that the proposed change allows something currently prohibited would be silly, obviously, but that's not what anyone is doing I think.
taproot 13y ago
> There are very good reasons for everything in the constitution, but each is only as strong as those reasons. In the absence of good reasons for something, the fact that it's part of the constitution does not matter very much! If anything, it means the constitution should be changed--that's why we have a ready amendment mechanism. We thought the reasons weren't holding up anymore, we could have changed it, but that takes so long so we just did it in secret, thats ok yea? Its "just the constitution". Is this your standpoint? > The constitution is great, but it's hardly the perfect authority on everything and shouldn't be revered as such. It was supposed to be. And when things were found to no longer work it was supposed to be amended with all branches of government having their say. If one thing can be disregarded "because its not perfect" then all things can be disregarded. Or at least, if you think they can't just all be disregarded, because some things would be crossing the line, who is the one that gets to draw the line? Previously we had this piece of paper which drew the line, but then this guy said online it wasn't perfect.