• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Can Americans think for themselves?

Bananas

Endangered Species
I just had the great displeasure of reading through another of General Forums so called discussions where abiding by the rules of the US Constitution seem to take precedent over any individual values or opinions.

Why do so many discussions here quickly turn into debates about whether or not something is constitutional? ...surely the debate should be whether the issue at hand is virtuous or even a positive concept and not whether something is constitutional.

Lets talk hypothetical here; if an idea arose that guarantees to solve some of the US's greatest problems would it matter if this idea was constitutional to whether or not this idea should be implemented?
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
Yes, we can!
And we decided long ago that we are a nation of law and the foundation of that law is the US Constitution.
I really wonder why this would cause a foreigner so much displeasure? Is it because America does not conform to the european world view?
So please tell us, just what is it about the US Constitution that is so bothersome?
 
Last edited:

Smelnick

Creeping On You
V.I.P.
I don't think you're actually addressing the point Bananas is making. If someone proposed a plan, that would solve a ton of the US's issues, but it was a plan that violated the constitution in some way, would americans actually go for it? Even if it only mildly violated the constitution, would americans just blindly stick to the constitution, or would they look past the constitutional violations and do something that could better the US in the end?
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
I must admit, I thought this was going to be an entirely different conversation.

That being said, I partially agree with you. I think we cling to the constitution like many of us cling to the bible. That is to say, we seem to believe it is infallible and unquestionable. The truth is however, the constitution is by law amendable but what is the reality of that sort of thing happening these days?

I'm curious Bananas, what thread are you talking about?
 

Jeanie

still nobody's bitch
V.I.P.
Well, abiding by the United States Constitution does take precedence because it is the supreme law of the land. That said, though, I do agree with you to some extent, Bananas, because it's not the duty of American citizens to determine the constitutionality of a law; that's why we have a judicial branch of government.
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
@ Smel: So then is this just really a discussion of "does the end justify the means"? For example, if taking away the freedom to peaceably assemble would insure that everyone has a house to live in is it worth it? I really don't understand what is written in the constitution that interferes with solving any problem.
 

Smelnick

Creeping On You
V.I.P.
That's where the word hypothetical comes in =P I don't really know exactly what's written in the constitution. I just didn't think Bananas was criticizing the constitution so much as the seemingly fanatic adherence to it. All I'm wondering, is if hypothetically, there were some possible action by the government or maybe some other group in some form of power that could result in things being WAY better in the US, but that went against a few constitutional laws, would americans go for it? Whether that type of plan or action is actually possible is inconsequential, I just wanna know if americans would go for it, or just stand behind the constitution, the future be damned.
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
@ Smel: See that is the problem with some hypothetical undefined solution to an imagined problem, and that the constitution somehow precludes a viable solution. I don't see that the constitution does anything like that. Therefore, IMO, this is simply an "end justifies the means" discussion.
 

Smelnick

Creeping On You
V.I.P.
@SS, it was a yes or no question! I KNOW it's a situation that will probably never occur. I'm simply asking though, IF such a situation DID occur, would you even entertain going along with such a plan? Or would you stick to the constitution, no matter how great such a plan might be for the future of the states, simply because it violates the constitution.
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
@ Smel: A yes or no answer to a undefined hypothetical is an indefensible position to take. That is why I keep asking the question "what is it that the constitution precludes".
It is not that I mind talking about it, but I try not to put myself in the position to defend the indefensible.
Many times here people have suggested that there is something wrong with the constitution, but no one has pointed to anything found there that they take issue with. I'm still waiting for that discussion.
 
Top