The debate "'The Bill of Rights' should be interpreted the way the founding fathers wrote it" was started by
February 21, 2016, 9:18 pm.
17 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 9 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Alex posted 10 arguments, ReadyToBegin posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
RyanWakefield posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 5 arguments, historybuff posted 2 arguments, PoliticsAsUsual posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
Alex, ReadyToBegin, MinuteMan101, ProudAmerican888, alexoliver, oscar90000, xaveragexjoesx, CMe2dey_64, WiseGirl and 8 visitors agree.
PsychDave, historybuff, PoliticsAsUsual, Nox, RyanWakefield and 4 visitors disagree.
In that case you should also be asking if it is right for Congress to damage the nation in favor of partisan politics. While there is nothing unconstitutional about it, I do feel that it is counter to the best interests of the nation when they are so concerned with opposing the president that they will blatantly say that they will oppose anything he does, regardless of how it will impact the nation.
he didn't break the Constitution. if you think he did you will have to provide proof.
I actually like the gun control order he did. I think we need more gun control. what I don't like is that he broke the constitution to do so.
Yes, it is Constitutional for Obama to not work with Congress. He has powers independent of them, which you are angry at him for exercising. Just because you disagree with what he has done doesn't mean he is wrong or broke any laws in doing it.
he is acting well within the checks and balances system. or is the president not supposed to have any checks?
and 1 law that they picked apart and then challenged for years is not a good example, especially since that is just 1 law. exactly what has Congress done lately?
that's why congress passed obamacare. because congress hates Obama so much.
tell me, is it constitutional for Obama not to work with congress? and for him to ignore the checks and balences system?
the founding fathers made executive powers as well... and Congress has been refusing to work with him for 7 years....
yes, we made something Obama never heard of. it's called a constitutional ammendment. it's done with states and congress, who Obama refuses to work with. what part of the constitution do you disagree with. note: ammendments count as the constitution, and later ammendments overrule earlier parts of the constitution.
When the founding fathers wrote "All men are created equal" they meant white men who owned land. Now we interpret it differently. What prompts that change is a separate debate.
the only moral problems that occurred have been tacken care of lawfully with constitutional ammendments. so why change?
Absolutely, but that is why we shouldn't interpret the bill of rights, or any other historical documents, the way they were written other than for historical reference. As society grows, hopefully so do our morals and values. The declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were all amazing works in their time that advanced society. They were still flawed, and we have progressed beyond the authors' possibility to predict, but for their time the were wonderful and they stand as examples of people striving to make society better. That said, we should grow our interpretation and move away from the authors' intent as society moves forward.
I do disagree with the founding fathers on a few things, like I'm sure you disagree with even the person you admire the most on a few things.
Amending the Constitution means we are changing it from what the founding fathers wrote. That means you are rejecting what the founding wrote in favor of what society now views as acceptable. So if you agree with that, you should have voted against the topic.
not sure where you got your education from.
"it isn't possible to amend the Constitution"
I would love a constitutional ammendment banning abortion, gay marraige, Obamacare. so idk what you babbling about.
except it isn't possible to amend the Constitution any more because people like you have put the founding fathers on a pedestal and resist all change. when the government refuses to do what is in the best interest of its people then an executive must be used.
"As time passes, values and morals, as well as the required laws, change. The founding fathers were OK with slavery, women were not people and people of various ethnicities were considered lesser. Society has evolved."
first of, what right in the bill of rights did ^^?
and guess what the country did when an issue came up? amended the constitution, not make a executive order, or have the supreme court make laws.
It should if you are a historian. That is what it was meant to be.
However in this day and age it is not possible to. We would have to have an amended document for laws.
Again, for history purposes you should
the founding fathers may have been smart men, but they were just men. they were humans. as such they were flawed. the things they did are flawed. the world has changed in 200 years. trying to go backwards is not progress. it won't help you. laws and rights naturally change over time as new ones are necessary and old ones no longer make sense. pretending you can live by the same rules as people did hundreds of years ago is just silly.
As time passes, values and morals, as well as the required laws, change. The founding fathers were OK with slavery, women were not people and people of various ethnicities were considered lesser. Society has evolved.
why not the UN bill of human rights