1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

The Value of the Constitution in the Modern U.S.

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Everylyric, May 12, 2007.

  1. Everylyric

    Everylyric New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Our founding fathers had visions of freedom and independance that I hold dear. But some in today's U.S. would argue that those visions are outdated. Indeed, the U.S. hase certainly changed in its history, but are the values stated in the Constitution still relevant?

    Some (like Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg) interpret the Constitution to mean whatever they want. They refer to my favorite document as a "faded piece of paper".

    Others (like me) believe the Constitution should not be interperpreted. They hold look at it with reverance and believe that if the founders wrote it, it must lay out their perfect blueprint for this country.

    What are your opinions????
     
  2. USMC the Almighty

    USMC the Almighty New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I like to believe that I'm pretty strict constructionist.
     
  3. heyjude

    heyjude New Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2007
    Messages:
    226
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, on the beach
    The Constitution is great with the addition of the amendments. But I sure wish the Justices would stop finding things in it that aren't there.
     
  4. Dave

    Dave New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think we can go back to John Marshall for how this started. He had a long history of stating that some parts of a case were clearly obvious when they really weren't. In doing so, he could bypass the parts of a case that didn't fit his opinion without actually using valid law. Actually, the constitution doesn't give the Supreme Court equal power in the checks and balances system, but Chief Justice Marshall did a lot to expand the power of the court system. The only problem is that if you use strict constructionism to view the constitution, it isn't based in valid law.
     
  5. Grounded

    Grounded New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think that Marshall did the right thing by expanding the power of the courts.

    I believe that courts are there to protect the people.
     
  6. vyo476

    vyo476 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    And anyway, no one was complaining about the power of the courts until recently when it expanded again and "legislating from the bench" became a catchphrase.

    I mean, look at how the people reacted when FDR tried to interfere with the way the Supreme Court did business, despite the fact that the people were generally behind FDR and the Court was most definitely not.
     
  7. Dave

    Dave New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually, when FDR tried to pack the courts his popularity fell like a rock. He even nicknamed the four conservative justices on the court (McReynolds, Sutherland, Van Devanter, and Butler) the four horsemen of the apocalypse. Until recently, people have generally had this view of the Supreme Court that they are above the politics of Washington, and I think thats part of the problem.
     
  8. Sgt Schultz

    Sgt Schultz New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    188
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The suburbs of St. Louis
    Of course the Constitution is going to be interpreted. It has to be to adjust to the realities of today, and that it can and is flexible is part of what makes it the great document that it is. If you don't believe that then please show me where in the US Constitution that the government is allowed to have an Air Force.

    By the way, can you point me to where Ginsberg made that comment as I would like to read the source. The current occupant of the White House has also been reported to have allegedly said the Constitution is just a piece of paper.
     
Loading...

Share This Page