'The Bill of Rights' should be interpreted the way the founding fathers wrote it

February 21, 2016, 9:18 pm

Agree17 Disagree9

65%
35%

The debate "'The Bill of Rights' should be interpreted the way the founding fathers wrote it" was started by MinuteMan101 on 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.

PsychDave
replied to...

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.

3 years, 3 months ago

he didn't break the Constitution. if you think he did you will have to provide proof.

3 years, 3 months ago

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.

3 years, 3 months ago
PsychDave
replied to...

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.

3 years, 3 months ago

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?

3 years, 3 months ago

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?

3 years, 3 months ago

the founding fathers made executive powers as well... and Congress has been refusing to work with him for 7 years....

3 years, 3 months ago

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.

3 years, 3 months ago
PsychDave
replied to...

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.

3 years, 3 months ago

the only moral problems that occurred have been tacken care of lawfully with constitutional ammendments. so why change?

3 years, 3 months ago
PsychDave
replied to...

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.

3 years, 3 months ago

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.

3 years, 3 months ago
PsychDave
replied to...

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.

3 years, 3 months ago

not sure where you got your education from.

3 years, 3 months ago

"it isn't possible to amend the Constitution"
-historybuff.

hmm.

3 years, 3 months ago

I would love a constitutional ammendment banning abortion, gay marraige, Obamacare. so idk what you babbling about.

3 years, 3 months ago

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.

3 years, 3 months ago

"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.

3 years, 3 months ago

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

3 years, 3 months ago

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.

3 years, 3 months ago

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.

3 years, 3 months ago

why not the UN bill of human rights

3 years, 3 months ago

why not?

3 years, 3 months ago
Discuss "'The Bill of Rights' should be interpreted the way the founding fathers wrote it" politics society
Add an argument!
Use the arrow keys to navigate between statements. Press "A" to agree and press "D" to disagree.