• 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!.

What is "wrong" with the US Constitution?

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
It has been suggested many times that there is something fundamentally wrong with the US Constitution, but specifics are never given. I feel this demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of what the US Constitution was designed to do. So I will try to make it as simple as possible: the US Constitution limits the authority of the federal government to certain defined areas, areas outside those limits are reserved to the states or to the people. Some things were deemed so important that they were codified in the bill of rights, so that there would be no question that the federal government has NO RIGHT to deny those things to the citizens. Examples include the freedom of the press, freedom of speech, the right to peaceable assemble, and so on.

So my question is this: specifically, what is wrong with the US Constitution?
 

Bananas

Endangered Species
specifically, what is wrong with the US Constitution?
  1. It is limited to the Federal Government.
  2. Ideals of an Enlightened era do not necessarily reflect those of a post Enlightened society.
  3. It precedes individual rationalisation.(see other thread)
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
While I respect your opinion, mine is the opposite:
1. That is part of the beauty of it! It pushes decision making to the state, local, and individual level where communities may decide for themselves how they will live and work together.
2. Please explain more what you mean by this point.
3. I feel it permits that individual self-determination.
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
  1. It is limited to the Federal Government.
  2. Ideals of an Enlightened era do not necessarily reflect those of a post Enlightened society.
  3. It precedes individual rationalisation.(see other thread)
1. No it's not, it applies to the States as well.

2. Protecting individuals against encroachment by the government is unenlightened?!?!?!?!?! Really?

3. It does quite the opposite really. It encourages individual achievement.
 

Bananas

Endangered Species
[SARCASM]Sorry guys I thought this thread was about "what is wrong with the Constitution?". I will take the absence of input by both of you to this question yet at the same time contributing to the thread suggestive that the US constitution is infact flawless.[/SARCASM]



1. That is part of the beauty of it! It pushes decision making to the state, local, and individual level where communities may decide for themselves how they will live and work together.
1. No it's not, it applies to the States as well.
Okay it is limited to federal and state government, yet it still excludes so much (eg. collectivism).

2. Please explain more what you mean by this point.
2. Protecting individuals against encroachment by the government is unenlightened?!?!?!?!?! Really?
@SS; times change, philosophies change.
@CO; the Age of Enlightenment


3. I feel it permits that individual self-determination.
3. It does quite the opposite really. It encourages individual achievement.
Both nice answers but neither address what is WRONG with the Constitution or indeed the issue I raised.

Why start or even input into a thread called "what is WRONG with the constitution" if you're only going to say what is right about it?

...the fact you have both done this kind of enforces my point 3). in that neither of you can find anything negative to say about it, which either means it is infallible and perfect, or, that you are both incapable of using reason or rational to place any criticism upon it.
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
[sarcasm]Sorry guys I thought this thread was about "what is wrong with the Constitution?". I will take the absence of input by both of you to this question yet at the same time contributing to the thread suggestive that the US constitution is infact flawless.[/sarcasm]
I have no idea how anyone could possibly come to the conclusion to that suggestion.





Okay it is limited to federal and state government, yet it still excludes so much (eg. collectivism).
\

It doesn't exclude collectivism at all.



@SS; times change, philosophies change.
@CO; the Age of Enlightenment
Um....yeah, I know what enlightment is, my point, which you missed, I don't consider those ideals to be post enlightened.




Both nice answers but neither address what is WRONG with the Constitution or indeed the issue I raised.

Why start or even input into a thread called "what is WRONG with the constitution" if you're only going to say what is right about it?

...the fact you have both done this kind of enforces my point 3). in that neither of you can find anything negative to say about it, which either means it is infallible and perfect, or, that you are both incapable of using reason or rational to place any criticism upon it.

I didn't say anything about what is right about it. What reinforces my point is your failure to defend your point without being sarcastic about it. If you can't intelligently defend your point, don't post in thread a because you never know, someone might hit the quote button.
 
Last edited:

Ilus_Unistus

Registered Member
From the things I know of US constitution it has been used as a model to other countries governmental foundations. The idea it can be changed makes it genius. Though some of it can be subject to interpretation making it not perfect but from what I know of this, it works well.
 

stevenfermi

Registered Member
Whatever problems the US Constitution has, it was created to replace the significantly worse Articles of Confederation, and is the basis of the entire government of the United States. There is nothing more inherently wrong with it than any government document.
 

Bananas

Endangered Species
I have no idea how anyone could possibly come to the conclusion to that suggestion.
Its called an argument of ignorance where the absence of evidence is seen as evidence itself.

CaptainObvious; said:
It doesn't exclude collectivism at all.
I feel it does, the contradictory nature between how it handles government, unions, religions and corporatism is a fine example of this.

CaptainObvious; said:
Um....yeah, I know what enlightment is, my point, which you missed, I don't consider those ideals to be post enlightened.
Thats nice for you but I dont see what "your point" this has to do with my post.

CaptainObvious; said:
I didn't say anything about what is right about it.
Okay so "encouraging individual freedom" is what is wrong with the US constitution?

CaptainObvious; said:
What reinforces my point is your failure to defend your point without being sarcastic about it. If you can't intelligently defend your point, don't post in thread a because you never know, someone might hit the quote button.
Im not sure what Im defending my point from, to defend it first it would need a valid argument against it, Im sorry but none of your 3 counter statements in anyway undermine my original criticisms.

If you want me to intelligently defend my point I suggest you first make an intelligent counter argument.

... I'll offer you some advice to. help you on your way....

...saying things like "Protecting individuals against encroachment by the government is unenlightened?!?!?!?!?! Really?" makes you look rude or stupid. If you were being rude I chose to ignore it, if you were being stupid I provided you with a link to help you educate yourself. .....So do you want an intelligent conversation or are shall we first make mindless statements and follow them with with !>!?!?!?!?!? Really??!?! 1?!?!?

Actually lets not bother, you had an opportunity to respond to my criticisms but instead you chose to be rude.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
Its called an argument of ignorance where the absence of evidence is seen as evidence itself.



I feel it does, the contradictory nature between how it handles government, unions, religions and corporatism is a fine example of this.



Thats nice for you but I dont see what "your point" this has to do with my post.



Okay so "encouraging individual freedom" is what is wrong with the US constitution?



Im not sure what Im defending my point from, to defend it first it would need a valid argument against it, Im sorry but none of your 3 counter statements in anyway undermine my original criticisms.

If you want me to intelligently defend my point I suggest you first make an intelligent counter argument.

... I'll offer you some advice to. help you on your way....

...saying things like "Protecting individuals against encroachment by the government is unenlightened?!?!?!?!?! Really?" makes you look incredibly rude or incredibly stupid. If you were being rude I chose to ignore it, if you were being stupid I provided you with a link to help you educate yourself. .....So do you want an intelligent conversation or are shall we first make mindless statements and follow them with with !>!?!?!?!?!? Really??!?! 1?!?!?

Actually lets not bother, you had an opportunity to respond to my criticisms but instead you chose to be rude.
I chose to be rude? Really? You're the one that began making comments towards both SS and I making ridicuolous assumptions that we find the Constitution infallible.

I'll simplify it for you. The point of this thread is what is wrong with the Constitution, as in why is the Constitution argument invalid and why is is ridiculed, as you have done numerous times, implying it should be done away with and is unlightened somehow.

If you could use the search function you would find I made a thread with suggested Constitutional amendments so it's poor reasoning to assume I find it infallible. It's just as bad to assume I find it infallible because I defend it.

Your three comments point out imperfections with the Constitution and even if valid, whoop de doo. The point, yet again, is why is it wrong, not why is it imperfect. It's impossible to be perfect, why does it fail in your opinion, not how can it be improved. Understand?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top