But even that comes under fire from a certain perspective. The Constitution was drafted a group of the leading men of the day, specifically, a group of the leading white, landowning, wealthy men of the day. Among those clamoring for change there are at least a few who feel that the document itself is arcane and was designed to protect the rights and privileges of a select group of individuals, sometimes at the expense of the many and that no matter how you amend it, the document itself reflects that original purpose. I'm not saying I agree with it (I don't) but when that most fundamental element of trust with relation to the basic framework of the government doesn't exist, what hope does it have to be successful? My argument would be: very little.

 

There's no doubt things are different now than then. And many wrongs in the constitution were righted in the method the constitution allows.

 

The thing is. Socialism, progressivism, utopianism, etc are not new concepts. They date back to Plato and beyond. And as far as I know, every empire, country, government (whatever you want to call it) has colapsed under the weight of utopianism.

 

It's nothing new. The same elements were alive and well at the writing of the constitution. Guys like Hamilton wanted a big powerful goverment, guy like Madison & Jefferson wanted limited government.

I'm admittedly not more than an average American with average political and historical knowledge. Are there any other countries operating under a 200 year old document? At what point does the Constitution become outdated? And don't take my question as a 'let's get rid of the Constitution' question. My question falls more in the 'can the Constitution be updated without people feeling like their rights have been stripped?'.

 

My thinking is no because each political party will blame the other to receive votes, support, donations, etc. The slightest change to the 2nd Amendment may start a war. :lol: At some point in the future whether it be near or hundreds of years down the road I am thinking a new Constitution will be written.

 

Personally I don't think the constitution will ever be outdated. It was written by great men who knew the one thing that great men know...

 

...that they didn't know everything.

 

So they left a method by which to change it.

There is a mechanism available for changing/updating the Constitution, and I agree that perhaps there needs to be some change to keep up with the times. But I think that it should be done within the framework of the Constitution. So many unconstitutional things have been done in the last 80 years, and the rate is accelerating, that they become acceptable. I think Levin is correct that we are living in a post-Constitutional time, and when we are a society living outside the Constitution, we are lawless. Not a good thing.

 

Regarding poverty, etc., I don't see the Constitution as a document that was meant to deal with problems like that. It was written to define the limited powers of government in relation to our individual liberties. It was never meant as a blueprint for preventing all of society's ills, rather to preserve personal liberty. That's Levin's point - Marx and the rest were attempting to design a Utopia, the U.S. Constitution is not.

 

1. Form a Union

2. Establish Justice (Fairness, equity - Justice isn't only about restitution in court)

3. Secure the peace within our borders - sometimes very difficult, sometimes means limiting rights, or expanding them

4. Provide for a defense of these freedoms

5. Promote the general welfare

6. Secure the blessing of liberty

 

Don't see where it says it was written to limit the power. It was written to do these things.

There's no doubt things are different now than then. And many wrongs in the constitution were righted in the method the constitution allows.

 

The thing is. Socialism, progressivism, utopianism, etc are not new concepts. They date back to Plato and beyond. And as far as I know, every empire, country, government (whatever you want to call it) has colapsed under the weight of utopianism.

 

It's nothing new. The same elements were alive and well at the writing of the constitution. Guys like Hamilton wanted a big powerful goverment, guy like Madison & Jefferson wanted limited government.

 

The Roman government collapsed under the weight of Utopianism? Really?

1. Form a Union Agree

2. Establish Justice (Fairness, equity - Justice isn't only about restitution in court)

Agree, if we're talking about the protection of our rights, and not equal outcomes. Justice isn't "everybody wins."

3. Secure the peace within our borders - sometimes very difficult, sometimes means limiting rights, or expanding them Agree

4. Provide for a defense of these freedoms Same as #2

5. Promote the general welfare This could mean anything and when taken too far leads to gov't entitlements, healthcare, social security, etc.

6. Secure the blessing of liberty Yes, it secures the blessing of liberty by limiting the power of the government. Our rights are, as you said, are blessings - unalienable rights. They are not granted by the Constitution, the Constitution limits the gov't from trampling those rights.

 

Don't see where it says it was written to limit the power. It was written to do these things. Written to define the powers of gov't. Obviously some power must be granted to the gov't, but it's purpose is to not hinder individual's rights.

Edited January 19, 201214 yr by nky_harry
spelling

The Roman government collapsed under the weight of Utopianism? Really?

 

1. The Roman Empire stopped being a republic before it colapsed.

2. I never said it was Utopian.

1. Form a Union Yes it does.

 

2. Establish Justice If you're saying that all people should be treated fairly and equally the same by our govenment then I agree. If you're saying "to each based upon his need, from each based upon their ability" then I disagree completely. The constitution is based on equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

 

3. Secure the peace within our borders Not sure what you saying here, but I think this is the safest country on earth.

 

4. Provide for a defense of these freedoms Provide for the common defense is simply the protection of our borders and our citizenry. In some ways we are very good at this and in other ways we are bad.

 

5. Promote the general welfare If you mean create an environment where businesses can thrive and commerse is strong and jobs are created. Then I'm with you. If you mean a socialist environment where the government redistrbutes wealth, then I'm not.

 

6. Secure the blessing of liberty secure the blessings of liberty also means from our own government. Yes we need laws and we need to hold people accountable to those laws, and we need to hold the government accountable to us.

 

 

Don't see where it says it was written to limit the power. It was written to do these things.

 

The entire document is written in a fashion to limit what the government can do.

 

Even Obama says it's limited. In one of his interviews he said the constitution is a negative document in that it limits what the government can do for the people.

 

The more the government can do for you - The more it can do to you. That is exactly why the constitution is crafted the way it is. The founding fathers didn't trust govenment not to take over at some time.

 

The constitution was written by men who wanted a government that was responsible to it's citizenry, not a citizenry that was responsible to the government.

 

A government that allows us to do for ourselves, not a government that does for us.

 

Everything that's not specifically in there is the responsibility of the states.

 

And they left a way change the document if the need arises.

It's nothing new. The same elements were alive and well at the writing of the constitution. Guys like Hamilton wanted a big powerful goverment, guy like Madison & Jefferson wanted limited government.

 

Exactly. So when the founders (pretty smart guys) understood this historical tug-of-war and in some cases even wrote it into the framework of the government, how can we then be surprised when this keeps coming up? I'm not certain there have historically been enough cases of societies lasting long enough to do this to even get a good sample size of what happens when welfare states get so large they collapse under their own weight, but if the forces progressivism/utopianism/socialism have, without fail, eventually gained enough momentum that they eventually brought down every society that lasted long enough to try them, then what makes this country so special that it won't fall in EXACTLY the same way?

 

"All this has happened before and all this will happen again." -for my fellow Battlestar Galactica fans if there are any about...

Edited January 19, 201214 yr by Getslow

I'm admittedly not more than an average American with average political and historical knowledge. Are there any other countries operating under a 200 year old document? At what point does the Constitution become outdated? And don't take my question as a 'let's get rid of the Constitution' question. My question falls more in the 'can the Constitution be updated without people feeling like their rights have been stripped?'.

 

My thinking is no because each political party will blame the other to receive votes, support, donations, etc. The slightest change to the 2nd Amendment may start a war. :lol: At some point in the future whether it be near or hundreds of years down the road I am thinking a new Constitution will be written.

 

Yes. It's called the amendment process. The Constitution has changed 27 times. It's been changed and those changes reversed when people felt like their rights had been taken away. There is no reason it can't be changed further. It's a living document designed to be molded by the citizenry.

Exactly. So when the founders (pretty smart guys) understood this historical tug-of-war and in some cases even wrote it into the framework of the government, how can we then be surprised when this keeps coming up? And if the forces progressivism/utopianism/socialism have, without fail, eventually gained enough momentum that they eventually brought down every society that lasted long enough to try them, then what makes this country so special that it won't fall in EXACTLY the same way?

 

"All this has happened before and all this will happen again." -for my fellow Battlestar Galactica fans if there are any about...

 

I understand where you're coming from. The only thing we can hope is that we learn from the past. That the citizenry fights to return the country to it's constitutional intent. Then that incredible document will save us from ourselves.

Did Lincoln ever say that the constitution is fundamentally flawed?

Who has?

Did Lincoln think that America needed to be fundimentally changed or did the electorate, and it just happened on his watch?

 

Did the changes under Lincoln happen within the confines of the constitution?

 

Did Lincoln ever say that the constitution is fundamentally flawed?

 

Go back and check how Lincoln suspended the "writ of habeas corpus" during his tenure. How you can say it just happened is beyond me. Lincoln used the war to re-interpret the constitution and redefine citizenship in the nation.

 

I'm no Obama supporter but the truth is Lincoln restructured much of America more so than Obama has thus far and if you say one hated the constitution and not the other is impossible IMO. In fact, Obama's statement about Constitutional flaws dealt with the very issue of slavery.

 

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/obama-constitution/2008/10/27/id/326165

 

 

“And in that sense,” Obama continued, “I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the Framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”

1. The Roman Empire stopped being a republic before it colapsed.

2. I never said it was Utopian.

 

Your words -

 

The thing is. Socialism, progressivism, utopianism, etc are not new concepts. They date back to Plato and beyond. And as far as I know, every empire, country, government (whatever you want to call it) has colapsed under the weight of utopianism.

There is a mechanism available for changing/updating the Constitution, and I agree that perhaps there needs to be some change to keep up with the times. But I think that it should be done within the framework of the Constitution. So many unconstitutional things have been done in the last 80 years, and the rate is accelerating, that they become acceptable. I think Levin is correct that we are living in a post-Constitutional time, and when we are a society living outside the Constitution, we are lawless. Not a good thing.

 

Regarding poverty, etc., I don't see the Constitution as a document that was meant to deal with problems like that. It was written to define the limited powers of government in relation to our individual liberties. It was never meant as a blueprint for preventing all of society's ills, rather to preserve personal liberty. That's Levin's point - Marx and the rest were attempting to design a Utopia, the U.S. Constitution is not.

 

Precisely. I don't see how the constitution can be out-of-date. That doesn't go over with me at all. It protects our individual liberty and that is never outdated.

If no one's read it, read Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville. Remarkable that it still has so much relevance today.