CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I am not sure that you neccisarilly need a new constitution but I would like to say this:
It is commonly assumed by Americans that their constitution is the best in the world. This is for anyone who has studied political science obviously wrong. The Japanese constitution for example, was written for them by the USA and is concidered much more solid by political scientists given modern moral and legal standards.
This is not to put down your constitution, It is one of the most important historical documents ever and paved the way for democracy and equal rights everywhere and you can be proud of that. But all things have an expiry date, and need to be fixed as time goes on.
I think alot of Americans confuse the historic importance of their constitution with how good it is in modern comparison.
So you very well might need to take a look at your constitution sometime soon.
You have a good legal systems in many respects but one of the most common criticism of your legal system is how complex it has become
Amendments are capable of reducing complexity too. However, starting from scratch appeals to the current political mood which is full of special interest groups, many of which would hijack the effort to grant them even more power. For example, capitalists would love to amend the constitution to prevent the formation of things like unions and regulation of trade, Christian interest groups would love to remove secularism and plaster "God" on everything, etc.
Yeah that may all be true: maybe this isnt a good time to be forming a new constitution (given all the bat shit crazy political retoric coming from the US at them moment) . I am no hardliner for a new constituion. I just think it is a common misconception by Americans that their constitution is the best in the world and can not be better - and I think that is obviously not true.
Amendments are good. The Constitution now has Amendments left, right and centre! Whenever anyone refers to the Constitution they're almost always referring to an Amendment.
.
Like anything, it's ok to fix it to better suit the purpose of its existence, but there comes a time when a new model should be considered. You can change a sedan by upgrading some of its features to make it a four-wheel drive vehicle for mountaineering purposes, but a new design may well be a better idea.
.
A Constitution is a blueprint of many things, amongst them, the structure of a country's political system.
As it stands, do you think our political system need an overhaul to make it more democratic?
Does the Justice system have any flaws that can't be fixed with an amendment?
"The Constitution now has Amendments left, right and centre!"
The 27th amendment, also the last, was enacted in 1992. The one before that, 1971. If the basis for your argument is that we need a new constitution because we are getting too many new amendments, then maybe you should reconsider. The government and the people of America must not believe they need a new constitution, considering the last amendment was enacted 18 years ago.
We all know were not in the best times. But our constitution is pretty solid for what it is supposed stand for. But this form government, which many call democracy, is more of representative oligarchy, is that even makes sense. Many of us (including me) don't know most of the constitution. But I believe the founding fathers did structure an almost skeleton for the country that was going to expand inevitably and they knew their were people those who were going to get power hungry. We must search for what we want to know because nothing is ever handed, in terms of knowledge, it is acquired. Correct me if I am wrong.
No because we have the longest standing constition and it has been proven to work our founding fathers created it so that admendments could be added and so far we only needed 27
No. The Constitution can be amended. It's inherent in the system. What would be the point of creating a new version of something that can already be, has already been, and will be changed?
Many fundamental features should be redesigned instead of amended. Things such as the political system for example. People tend to favor gradual changes, but sometimes a radical approach is necessary.
This is a moot point. The constitution is almost entirely ignored. Before we decide on if we need a new one we need to decide to follow or reject the current one. Remember, the constitution says that the only powers the federal govt has is to keep a standing army, run the postal system, and negotiate trade, along with a few other VERY small things. All other laws are the jobs of the states. In other words, Health Care, welfare, social security, all of these laws are unconstitutional unless they are run by the individual states OR unless we pass a constitutional amendment granting these powers to the Federal govt. Obviously, neither of these things are going to happen, so the constitution is a dead document that we obey or ignore on a point by point basis.
1. the already insane mad hatters of the tea party would lift their obese pasty asses out of their recliners and try to start a revolution and all die of heart attacks and strokes in the process. And as silly as all those fat white people are, I don't want to see them die.
I have studied the Constitution and love it for what it is and can be. That being said it may surprise some to know I'm not American. There is ample evidence past present and I'm sure in the future that will demonstrate the longevity of its laws and principles for free market, human rights, protection from government interference and rights protecting private property, including ones own sovereignty in speech, religion, press and so forth. What is missing today is a severe lack of understanding amongst its own citizens concerning the founding principles. The fact that all who are free to think and do so in this forum is a testament to the original intent of the Constitution. This is more than Conservatism versus Centrist versus Liberalism ideology, it's about understanding Constitutionality (read Federalist paper # 10). If there's a discrepancy in the U.S.A. today its the need to understand Natural Law philosophy versus Positive Law philosophy, Natural Legal Law versus Jurisprudence Law (Stare Decisis). Understanding the difference would inform us all on the lack of Constitutionality of "torture" for enemy combatants, legalized abortion, federal taxation on individual citizens, pre-emptive strike rulings for international war, right to life health care or lack of it etc etc etc.
When the document contains the provision for its own amendment you never need a new one, you just update the old one whenever the need arises.
If you're asking if it needs some updating, then yes... probably. I can think of a few things in it that simply no longer make sense given modern realities. The composition of the Senate for one thing... we've moved considerably beyond the days when each individual state's own internal identity was of significance importance relative to the national identity as a whole. So having a person who live in Wyoming get 70 TIMES more representation in the Senate than a person who lives in California just because they live in a lowly populated region of the country is simply unjustifiable. As things stand now 20% of the US population controls 60% of the US Senate. That's ridiculous.
The U.S do not need a new constitution. There is already enough rights being bestowed upon citizens and if they are given a new constitution, it wil result in many appeals filed in the courts, and already the courts are facing case backlog along with a limited budget tto function causing a delay in criminal matters and speedy trial. The present constitution is the foundation of this country upon which stands the rights of all citizens fair by law.
We just need to follow it. If we follow the Constitution there are only 18 powers we gave to the feds, all others are left to the people and the states
Liberals are people who think that something has not been tried (it's 2010, it all has pretty much been tried already). Conservatives are people who know that it didn't work so they opt to stick with what's tried and true ;)
we have never had the technological ability or a lot of non-technological ability we have today. Not everything has been tried. If it has been tried, it might not of been done right and thus didn't work. There were numerous attempts to fly before the wright brothers. that Does not mean that it is impossible to fly.
We are not talking about technological anything. Human nature is human nature and it hasn't changed since recorded history and the probability is that human nature as we know it today goes back even further than that.
What is human nature? go ahead and make a broad general claim... "Human nature" is adaptive.
It may be said that human nature is such that people are willing to do horrible things at the suggestion of someone they believe authoritative. one can point to the nazis as an example and try to make a universal claim on humanity. yet if one were to do the milgram experiment in this day and age significantly less people will do the same as the original test subjects. obedience is proportionally related to cultural suggestions not a inherit property of humanity. Similar results can be found for most proposed human natures.
We're not talking about techs but we're talking about political systems, justice, society, all these things evolve. If the democracy is not perfectly democratic, if our justice system isn't exactly just, and our if society can do with some changes, then I say it's time the Constitution be looked at.
We haven't evolved. There have been societies in the past that gave more power to women and were more gay friendly and we always seem to go back to what works ;)
The above is a simple model neglecting feedbacks and such. In the end, technology determines political systems. Slaves existed for labor once, now we have the assembly line and the wage slav..worker with political rights. the assembly line can mean more then manufacturing, the method has been used in most businesses. one person does one thing, then passes the job on to the next person so they can do their part of the job etc.
Yeah, I keep telling people that we still have slaves but they don't agree with me... it's sad when people are in denial.
.
Anyways, i guess noone wants a change to the system... I mean just think about it, it's fine to change political parties, but changing an entire system is not going to be at the top of everyone's priority list. Fear of change will make sure we don't change anything, until it's forced upon us... perhaps by an external force...
The system has its inherent contradictions. within every thesis is the seed of its anti-thesis; as the thesis grows so to does its anti-thesis in till they must be reconciled, forming a new thesis with its own anti-thesis.
I think the system of technological innovation is eventually going to make money obsolete. Imagine scarcity being reduced down to a few basic resources, harvesting of those resources automated along with distribution systems. Crises of overproduction would be non-existent. For example Scarcity of information is gone now, granted you can pay for the electronics and electrical hook ups to connect to the internet. Information went from being handwritten books to print presses to cut, copy, paste. The only cost for attaining the information isn't for the information itself. to use a metaphor you can print the information for free if you buy the printing press, paper and ink. General information itself is not scarce enough to carry a price tag naturally. Specific,secretive, well kept information artificially stopped from being copied and distributed freely may carry a price tag. Considering information is nothing but the arrangement of material someone owns it seems tyrannical to tell someone he can not organize his own property in a certain way, especially if it was independently developed.
Just because someone does not agree with your views does not mean you or anyone has the right to ship them out of the country. That is contradicting the morals that this country was founded on. To say something like that is just like saying that we need to ship all the Mexicans out of the country, or all of the Indians. It's not racist but the views are extremely alike.
Liberals want the whole enchilada. We need a place free of liberals for conservatives to reside in. Since the liberals have already occupied France, and since they are always saying how great France is, I say they should go there and leave us conservatives alone here in the US. Why should they be allowed to take over the US as well?
Why should conservatives be allowed to take over the US? Because the liberals own the rest of the planet. Besides, this country was founded on conservative values, not liberal ones ;)
