World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[Exhuminator]

No no, I was wrong, you guys totally changed my mind with those hot facts.

[prfsnl_gmr]

I originally said the constitution was malleable due to amendments. You said the constitution has barely changed because most of its amendments were meaningless, or overridden by other amendments. You said only one amendment actually mattered. So that was the last goal post I shot for.

I may have moved the goal posts, but you dropped a home plate, put up a basketball hoop, painted in an end zone, and turned the goalposts sideways. That's OK, though, I still know how to score.

I countered that concept by providing multiple examples of constitutional amendments that greatly changed our society, and deeply altered the net effect of the original constitution. You then countered that reply, by saying some of those amendments weren't "real" amendments, because they came so soon after the original constitution. At that point you moved the goalpost yet again.

Here we go...The Bill of Rights did not, in fact, greatly change our society or deeply alter the Constitution's meaning. The Constitution clearly delineates between power reserved for the federal government and powers reserved for the states, and initially, the Bill of Rights only limited federal power. Accordingly, many of the founders thought the Bill of Rights was superfluous because limits on federal power were already contained in the Constitution's first three articles. (For example, Article I, Section 8 lists Congress's powers (e.g., coin money, declare war, regulate commerce, etc.). That section does not grant Congress the ability to regulate religion, speech, etc.; so, the First Amendment was arguably extraneous when it was added to the document.) Nonetheless, James Madison thought it was important to further limit the federal government's power, and the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution shortly after its adoption to make the limits on the federal government's power more explicit.

Importantly, the limits on federal power contained in the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states (i.e., the government entities with broad police powers). Accordingly, if in 1800, a municipality wanted to make the distribution of pamphlets defaming the King's Field video game series a crime punishable by death, it was arguably within its rights to do so. Most state constitutions contained limits on state power similar to those found in the U.S. Constitution; so, laws infringing on the freedom of speech, religion, etc. were rare.

It was not until the Fourteenth Amendment's passage in the wake of the Civil War that the limits on government power contained in the Bill of Rights were applied to the states. (Essentially, the federal government brought the state governments to heel in the Civil War, and it used the opportunity to abolish slavery, obviously, and to establish a "floor" for basic civil and due process rights.)

In sum, the ideals contained in the Bill of Rights are tremendously important, and they are the bedrock upon which our nation was founded. The amendments themselves, however, were not terribly important at the time of their passage, and they only gained the importance that we ascribe to them today due to the Fourteenth Amendment.

Accordingly, I do not think that the amendments greatly changed our society. (Again, they were passed only a few months after the Constitution's adoption, and it is hard to argue that something effected a tremendous change if it was always there.) Likewise, I do not think that the Bill of Rights greatly altered the Constitution's meaning since limits on federal power were already contained in the first three articles.

The Fourteenth Amendment, however, radically changed our government's structure, and changed our nation from the loose union that existed before the Civil War to the modern government in existence today. It's importance to both Constitutional jurisprudence and our nation's development cannot be understated.

This little stupid tiff of ours, is just another example of no one changing the other's mind. Rather we're collectively pissing in the wind. It's best for me to abstain from this thread for now on. You guys have fun though, try not to hurt each other's feelings too much.

These conversations are so much fun though!

I do enjoy discussing these points with the other members of our forums, and there is no need to get upset about any of this. Again, which amendment to the Constitution is the most important is a very subjective inquiry. Likewise, whether the Constitution is appropriately flexible is also extremely subjective. There are no right or wrong answers, and I have no intention of changing your mind.

That's not my goal, however. As in a real debate, my goal is to convince the other people reading this thread that I am correct.

So as Popo said, the first 10 are technically amendments, but they were amendments that were agreed upon with the original Constitution itself. Think of them like a Day One patch for a game; they would have been part of the original product had the makers had their shit together.

This analogy is perfect! Thanks, Elkin!

[Exhuminator]

There are no right or wrong answers, and I have no intention of changing your mind.

Is it, or is it not, possible to change the constitution's rules using amendments?

[prfsnl_gmr]

There are no right or wrong answers, and I have no intention of changing your mind.

Is it, or is it not, possible to change the constitution's rules using amendments?

It is possible (thankfully or not, depending on your point of view).

EDIT: Looking back, I wrote:

The U.S. Constitution is as neither malleable nor amendable.

The horrible grammar and exclusion of the word "very" is what I get for typing on a tablet late at night. It should read:

The U.S. Constitution is neither very malleable nor amendable.

I don't think that anyone is arguing that the Constitution cannot be amended. (That would be silly!) IMO, however, it is not amendable enough. (It is like an iron rod. In the right circumstances, it can be bent. Not many people, would characterize it as "bendable", however.)

[Exhuminator]

It is possible

Is it possible for a governmental body to become subject to self serving corruption?

[Sarge]

I think we're worried about the wrong thing, anyway. Of far more concern than changing the Constitution, whether malleable or immalleable, is the sheer number of our elected representatives, judges, and presidents that are quite willing to not give a whit about the Constitution or its limitations on their power. I believe we operate in a society that pays lip service to the founding documents while doing whatever we want, than actually bothering to go through the onerous process of changing them.

[Exhuminator]

I believe we operate in a society that pays lip service to the founding documents while doing whatever we want, than actually bothering to go through the onerous process of changing them.

Well you just skipped several steps ahead of where I was going. But yes, I totally agree. Hence a "constitutional republic" doesn't instill a lot of confidence to me about the Plato quote I cited being irrelevant in our modern democracy.

[J T]

It is possible

Is it possible for a governmental body to become subject to self serving corruption?

Yes. So is your central point that if the constitution also included some phrase that said "this document is final and cannot be amended" that this would somehow prevent self-serving corruption from finding a way of taking over and changing all the rules of the country anyways?

[prfsnl_gmr]

I believe we operate in a society that pays lip service to the founding documents while doing whatever we want, than actually bothering to go through the onerous process of changing them.

Well you just skipped several steps ahead of where I was going. But yes, I totally agree. Hence a "constitutional republic" doesn't instill a lot of confidence to me about the Plato quote I cited being irrelevant in our modern democracy.

To the contrary! That is the genius of our republic! By dispersing power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and between the federal and state governments, the founders created a system where no one can "do whatever" without upsetting a delicate balance of powers and incurring a response. Moreover, our government was designed to protect minority interests and provide them with a voice. (Under current Senate rules, less than 12% of our population exercises a veto power over any legislation and judicial appointment.) The Fourteenth Amendment perfected this system. (Borrowing Elkin's analogy, our republic had a game-breaking bug until we patched it with the Fourteenth Amendment.) This means that our government operates incredibly slowly compared to say, China, where the government really can "do whatever." It also means that people in rural states wield drastically more political power than people in urban areas. Finally - and best of all - it means that our government is incredibly stable and explains why it has persisted longer than almost any other government in the world and, hysterics regarding Donald Trump's potential election aside, is likely to persist for centuries.

IMO, our constitutional republic ranks upon man's greatest achievements, and while any government can be overturned at the point of a spear, I think it is the best system of government ever created. If you think that I am wrong, however, please let me know of a system that beats it.

Yes. So is your central point that if the constitution also included some phrase that said "this document is final and cannot be amended" that this would somehow prevent self-serving corruption from finding a way of taking over and changing all the rules of the country anyways?

I agree. The document must be amendable, and we must be able to enact new laws and regulations. Otherwise, our system would not differ much from a theocracy, and we would not be able to adapt to societal or technological changes.

[Sarge]

I was going to bring up separation of powers, but what happens when one branch lets the other get away with things, or they all work in collusion to subvert the Constitution? This is what I'm arguing. Adherence to the founding documents is still required, something I would argue that less and less of our leaders really care about.

I do, however, agree that our constitutional republic is the greatest form of government ever conceived. It shows the incredible foresight of the Founders that it has stood up until this point. But as you mention, any government may eventually be overturned, either through negligence, ignorance, or bloody revolution.

Personally, I have always loved this quote by John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." While I realize that many here aren't religious, I would argue that the "moral" part is more important than ever. And if our politicians are a reflection of our current moral state, we are in bad shape indeed. (There's an entire theological argument I could get into here about the nature of man, but not the time for it!)

For all our warts and imperfections through history, though, I would argue that the good that the United States has done far outweighs the bad, and has changed the world for the better. I hope and pray that continues.