Social Question

Dutchess_III's avatar

Why do some people act like the Constitution of the United States is somehow sacred and untouchable?

Asked by Dutchess_III (27605 points ) June 20th, 2014

It isn’t. That’s why we have amendments to the Constitution. To amend means ”..to alter, modify, rephrase, or add to or subtract from…” And several of the amendments subtract from the constitution. Women’s rights and slavery comes to mind right off the bat.

So why do some folks parade around like the Constitution is as holy as the Bible?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

59 Answers

ragingloli's avatar

They only do so for the 2nd amendment.
Everything else is fair game. Like the 14th, that granted citizenship to blacks, among other things.
Conservatives would love to repeal it

SecondHandStoke's avatar

Go live in some nation where you have no Constitutionally assured rights for a while.

If you survive, get back to us with your own answer.

Dutchess_III's avatar

If I had asked “Why do we even need a constitution?” your answer would make sense @SecondHandStoke. As it is, it doesn’t make sense and doesn’t even vaguely address the question.

SecondHandStoke's avatar

Welcome to the Social section.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Hey…I think I was part of the reason it was created. :D

SecondHandStoke's avatar

Some may have noticed that I post all my questions in social, even the “serious” ones.

I invite humorous input and have no fear of obnoxious replies.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Holy crap, Raggie. I just read you link. Unfreakingbelievable.

@SecondHandStoke Then you’re welcome.

SecondHandStoke's avatar

Well, thank you if you had direct influence in it’s creation.

I’m confident that I was among those that emphasized the need for it’s establishment through the nature of my replies.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Well, it happened after the great Wis.dm migration, which I was a part of. Wis.dm was a Q&A site a lot like this one, but it was a much looser, no holds barred kind of place. It started dying and somebody showed us this place.

We really chaffed under the laws and rules of the General section (which wasn’t even called the General section….it wasn’t called anything because they didn’t have sections.) We kind of rioted and protested and acted up until they gave us Social. I think everyone, even the Native Flutherites are happy about it. :D

SecondHandStoke's avatar

The Social section saved this site from a certain death of attrition.

Regarding Loli’s link:

No matter how significant or life changing the outcome rules are still rules.

“War of Northern Aggression”: You have my ear.

Jaxk's avatar

The constitution sets up a form of government and a set of principles for governing. Principles don’t change over time We have not ‘Grown’ out of our need for free speech or our desire to worship however we choose. If a change is needed there is a process to do so. It has been used many times. I don’t understand why liberals would think we have an ever changing set of principles to live by.

CWMcCall's avatar

You are correct in that there are amendments to make changes to the Constitution to further enhance the roles, responsibilities and activities in Congress, the Executive branch and the citizenry of the US.

It is also there to hold elected offices accountable when they conduct their affairs with a total disregard for the Constitution.

“I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution.” Barrack Hussein Obama. Obama took the Presidential Oath, swearing to “.. preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” but has:

Violated statute on “Material Support of Terrorism” by returning top terrorists back to terrorist organizations. Article II Section 3; Dereliction of Duty Article II Section 4
Ignored law that requires Congress be notified prior to any detainees being moved from Guantanamo. “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3
Used Executive Privilege in regards to Fast & Furious gun running scandal. When Government misconduct is the concern Executive privilege is negated.
23 Executive Orders on gun control – infringement of the 2nd Amendment
Exposed identity and methods of operation of a Navy SEALs team – Illegal for a President to reveal classified military secrets. Article II Section 3
2 Executive actions mandating private health information on patients be turned over to NICS – Violation of HIPPA law.
Executive Order bypassing Congress on immigration – Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; Article II Section 3

Unilaterally issued new exemptions to immigration restrictions law that bars certain asylum-seekers and refugees who provided “limited material support” to t

errorists. – Article 1 Section 1
Issued directive instructing ICE to NOT enforce immigration laws in certain cases. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3
Release of convicted illegal aliens ordered in direct opposition to law-Article II Section 3
Expanded executive action for amnesty to illegal immigrant relatives of DREAM Act beneficiaries. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3
Executive action directing DHS that almost all immigration offenses were unenforceable absent a separate criminal conviction. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3
Ignoring Law (2006 Secure Fence Act) “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3
Used DOJ to ignore section 8 of the Voting Rights Act. ” he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3
Used DOJ to prevent Arizona and Alabama from enforcing immigration laws. – 10th Amendment
Information memorandum telling states that they can waive the work requirement for welfare recipients, thereby altering the 1996 welfare reform law. – Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress.
NDAA – Section 1021. Due process Rights negated. Violation of 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments.
Executive Order 13603 NDRP – Government can seize anything
Executive Order 13524 – Gives INTERPOL jurisdiction on American soil beyond law enforcement agencies, including the FBI.
Executive Order 13636 Infrastructure Cybersecurity – Bypassing Congress Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress
Attempt to tax political contributions – 1st Amendment
DOMA Law – Obama directed DOJ to ignore the Constitution and separation of powers and not enforce the law. ” he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3
Dodd-Frank – Due process and separation of powers. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau writing and interpreting law. Article. I. Section. 1
Drone strikes on American Citizens – 5th Amendment Due process Rights negated
Bypassed Congress and gave EPA power to advance Cap-n-Trade
Attempt for Graphic tobacco warnings (under appeal) – 1st Amendment
Four Exec. appointments – Senate was NOT in recess (Court has ruled unconstitutional yet the appointees still remain)
Appointing agency czars without the “advice and consent of the Senate.” Violation of Article II, Section 2
Obama took Chairmanship of UN Security Council – Violation of Section 9.
ACA (Obamacare) mandate – SCOTUS rewrote legislation and made it a tax because there is no Constitutional authority for Congress to force Americans to engage in commerce. SCOTUS has no authority to Legislate or lay taxes. Article I Section 1 & 8.
Contraceptive, abortifacients mandate violation of First Ammendment
Healthcare waivers – No president has dispensing powers
Refuses to acknowledge state’s 10th Amendment rights to nullify Obamacare
Going after states (AZ lawsuit) for upholding Federal law (immigration) -10th Amendment.
Chrysler Bailout -TARP – violated creditors rights and bankruptcy law, as well as Takings and Due Process Clauses – 5th Amendment (G.W. Bush also illegally used TARP funds for bailouts)
The Independent Payment Advisory Board (appointees by the president). Any decisions by IPAB will instantly become law starting in 2014 – Separation of Powers, Article 1 Section 1.
Congress did not approve Obama’s war in Libya. Article I, Section 8, First illegal war U.S. has engaged in. Impeachable under Article II, Section 4; War Powers Act – Article II Section 3.
Obama falsely claims UN can usurp Congressional war powers.
Obama has acted outside the constitutional power given him – this in itself is unconstitutional.
Bribery of Senator Ben Nelson and Senator Mary Landrey. (Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Purchase) Article II, Section 4.
With the approval of Obama, the NSA and the FBI are tapping directly into the servers of 9 internet companies to gain access to emails, video/audio, photos, documents, etc. This program is code named PRISM. NSA also collecting data on all phone calls in U.S. – Violation of 4th Amendment.
Directed signing of U.N. Firearms treaty – 2nd Amendment.
The Senate/Obama immigration bill (approved by both) raises revenue – Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives
Obama altered law – (A president has no authority to alter law) Delayed upholding the Employer Mandate Law (ACA) until 2015 – Individual Mandate will be enforced. A President does not have that authority – Article. I. Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States; The president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed” -Article II, Section 3; Equal Protection Clause -14th Amendment.
Obama altered law – ACA Medicare cuts delayed until 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
Obama altered law – Enforcement of eligibility requirements for ACA delayed until 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
Obama wavered ACA Income Verification Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
Obama altered law – Delayed ACA caps on out of pocket expenses until 2015. (when implemented premiums will skyrocket) Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
Obama ignored judicial order to fulfill legal obligation regarding Yucca Mountain waste. Article II, Section 3
Waived Federal provision that prevents U.S. From arming terrorist groups – Article I. Section 1; Impeachable under Article III, Section 3.
Directed State Department HS to ignore law barring entry to U.S. those giving political or charitable aid to known terrorist groups. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
Obama shelves part of the ACA Law for Insurers, extending the life of non-qualifying (according to ACA) plans until Jan. 1, 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers.
Obama waved ACA individual mandate for those that lost their insurance. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers.
Obama alters ACA law and exempts companies employing between 50–100 full-time workers from business mandate until 2016. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
In total, Obama has unilaterally altered ACA 21 times. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers.

A Constitutional law professor (even their students) should know better. The TRUTH is Obama was not a Constitutional law professor, and clearly he has not respected or protected the Constitution. Obama has broken his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Article II, Section 1.
Link

Dutchess_III's avatar

^^Not even going to wast my time @CWMcCall.

@Jaxk No one suggested that we liberals think we have an ever changing set of principals to live by. I certainly don’t. But it seems to me that many conservatives think that the Constitution can’t BE amended, in spite of the fact that it has been, 13 times.

SecondHandStoke's avatar

^ Yeah.

And the Catholic church refused to even look through Galileo’s telescope.

Dutchess_III's avatar

And OH LOOK! BUTTERFLY!

SecondHandStoke's avatar

Yup.

Welcome to the social section.

Jaxk's avatar

@Dutchess_III

I never heard a conservative say the constitution can’t be amended. I think you’re making up the argument you want to have rather than the argument anyone is making.

Dutchess_III's avatar

It’s mainly the way they parade around the 2nd amendment as though it can’t be amended in any way. The forefathers couldn’t begin to envision military grade firearms. They couldn’t envision insane people shooting rooms full of little children. The amendment didn’t provide for ANY of that. It’s too simplistic. It needs to be amended to provide for it now, or at least the laws need to change to provide for that.

SecondHandStoke's avatar

This conservative, by very definition, believes that constitutional amendments should be considered extremely carefully.

The process should be slow and deliberate, in other words, approached conservatively.

My status as a constitutionalist convinces me that the likelihood that the Constitution already has an answer for any political or social question is great.

SecondHandStoke's avatar

NO gun related tragedies occurred during Revolutionary times.

TIL.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I agree with that @SecondHandStoke. It’s something to be taken very seriously, and under very serious conditions. I would say Sandy Hook, and all the other school shootings, constitute a serious condition.

Dutchess_III's avatar

NO gun tragedies occurred during Revolutionary times. WTH kind of comment is that! That’s just too funny!

SecondHandStoke's avatar

^^ I do not believe they will as practical effect is one of the considerations in making Constitutional amendments.

Funny huh? It’s in response to your suggestion that the Second amendment should be revised because it’s authors couldn’t envision issues we have today.

SecondHandStoke's avatar

Another firearm rights thread.

Yay!

Dutchess_III's avatar

Why are conservatives so opposed to stricter gun laws?

Jaxk's avatar

@Dutchess_III

Sorry, I thought this was a constitutional question. I now realize it is a gun control question. If you want to change the second amendment, propose another amendment to change or repeal. I’m not sure you’ll get the support you want but that is the method.

SecondHandStoke's avatar

^^Because, in typical conservative fashion, they can see better where it leads.

Conservatives are by definition less impulsive in their thinking.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

“Why do some people act like the Constitution of the United States is somehow sacred and untouchable?”

It’s the logical balance against those who believe it’s not sacred and touchable. Extremists can be found on all corners.

Truth usually lies somewhere in the center of any heavily debated topic. I, for one, appreciate the balance.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@Jaxk it just turned into that. It’s OK.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies GA.

ragingloli's avatar

@Dutchess_III
Because they are sexually obsessed with guns, plus they fantasise about and are aroused by the thought of armed insur(e)rection and slaughtering those that disagree with them.
And the conservative politicians are bought by the gun manufacturers.

SecondHandStoke's avatar

Why is the Constitution sacred?

Because (ideally) is an idea with greater authority than any individual.

SecondHandStoke's avatar

Look.

Loli made a portmanteau!

Dutchess_III's avatar

And it provides for individual rights at the same time. It’s a wonderful document. I don’t dispute that. But if there are extreme circumstances that might require a change then a change should be made.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@ragingloli I’d say your last point is most relevant. And the conservative politicians are bought by the gun manufacturers.

The vast majority of Americans are for stricter gun control laws. Your last point is the only thing stopping it from happening.

SecondHandStoke's avatar

“And the conservative politicians are bought by the gun manufacturers.”

…And?

“The vast majority of Americans are for stricter gun control laws.”

-Citation needed.

Jaxk's avatar

It takes more than a simple majority to change the constitution. It was designed that way.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Here @SecondHandStoke.

@Jaxk I know. I guess in the matter of gun control I’m not really suggesting an amendment to the amendment itself. My question was prompted by the way some people stand on certain aspects of the Constitution as though…. I can’t really find the words to describe what I’m trying to say…

Dutchess_III's avatar

The stand on the Constitution as if it was written my some Perfect, All Knowing, All Wise God, and not by very intelligent and deep thinking primates who were on a mission of fairness for all.

zenvelo's avatar

The Second Amendment is AN AMENDMENT. We added it after the Constitution was written, we can take it out.

The whole Bill of Rights was not adopted; just the ones that 9 states agreed to.

Dutchess_III's avatar

^^^ Right. We brought it into this world, we can take it out!

SecondHandStoke's avatar

Yep.

We’ll just keep the parts you both comprehend and like.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Liking has nothing to do with it.

SecondHandStoke's avatar

Oh you believe your concern is for the so called greater good.

But I submit that you are just acting on your purely emotional response to firearms.

Sad.

I bet you’ve never even fired one.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Actually, I have, and I’m a really good shot. I enjoyed it too. When we move out to the country we’ll be getting a rifle or two.

And yes, my concern for the greater good, and concern about protecting those who can’t protect themselves.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I shot a bear gun once. Knocked me on my ass! But I hit my target. :D

Dan_Lyons's avatar

Have you ever heard of the Code of Hammurabi? It is a written set of rules established by the King of Babylon which is the 1st written code of rules to help people (The Babylonian Citizens) understand the limits of their freedom as determined by the King. This happened about 1772 BC

All of a sudden people have a document establishing their individual and group freedom(s). This is very important because now we have a written document enumerating freedoms of the slaves.

And these magnificent documents do not happen by often. It is fair to say they chance upon us only very seldomly.

Heck, the next Great Contract between a ruler and his people(s) was the Magna Carta and didn’t come about until 1215AD. Signed by King John and the Noble barons of England at the time.

It isn’t until 1788, over 500 years later, that we get the US Constitution. This is the next step up from the rule of serfdom.

Your question is Why do some people act like the Constitution of the United States is somehow sacred and untouchable?

Because it is.

And yet it’s proven flexible enough to undergo many changes during its brief lifetime.

Seek's avatar

Removed by me, not important.

ragingloli's avatar

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is far more important than the colonial constitution, but funnily enough, cons reject it.

SecondHandStoke's avatar

World government.

Here we come!

Before you know it some cabal in Belgium is deciding what’s best for a tiny school in rural Montana.

ragingloli's avatar

as if it is any different for the tiny cabal in washington deciding whats best for some redneck in alabama.

ragingloli's avatar

dayumed elitists wanting to outlaw the traditional institution of slavery. to the weapons my inbred brothers! civil war!

Seek's avatar

Didn’t America assist in the writing of and ratify the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Just one more treaty we feel we have the right to ignore, no?

SecondHandStoke's avatar

@ragingloli

So you understand my feelings regarding the Federal government’s intrusion into the affairs of the states.

ragingloli's avatar

You completely missed the point.
Your entire beloved constitution is an intrusion into the “affairs of the states”.
The entire united states in itself is an intrusion into the “affairs of the states”.
If you were consistent in your arguments, which you are not, you would actually hate your constitution, and you would hate the entire concept of a “united states of “america””,and instead you would call for its dissolution.

SecondHandStoke's avatar

You missed MY point.

Your nation operates differently than the US should in this regard.

This alone constitutes proof to you that your country is superior. Whatever it takes.

If nothing else the states and their powers represent another method of decentralizing power.

Something American government is supposed to be all about.

SecondHandStoke's avatar

@Dutchess_III

Looked over your Gallup data.

“Vast majority” is a bit of a stretch.

ragingloli's avatar

@SecondHandStoke
That is abject nonsense.
The very fact that a federal government exists, is a contradiction against decentralising power.
The very existence of a constitution applying to all states, is a contradiction against decentralising power.
The states themselves are a contradiction against decentralising power. Why? Because a state centralises the power of many provinces, towns, cities and villages.
If you were actually for decentralising power, you would not call yourself an american. You would not call yourself a texan. You would not even call yourself a houstonian. The only authority you would recognise is yourself.

SecondHandStoke's avatar

@Dutchess_III

Looked over your Gallup data.

“Vast majority” is a bit of a stretch.

@ragingloli

We’ve been over issues like this for a long time.

Neither is going to succeed in converting the other (converting others isn’t my goal here, in any other online forum and IRL).

I was having more fun when we were combining our powers of perversion in the name of lulz.

CWMcCall's avatar

@ragingloli Far from abject nonsense and neither a contradiction against decentralizing power. The Constitution is the very tool that a democratic Federation like the US uses to decentralize the power other countries dominate and rule their citizens. It’s called separation of powers and the democratically elected politicians in Congress, in the Executive branch and those Judges in the Supreme Court keep each other branch in check so there is no one branch of Government nor on person who can “centralize” how our country is run. Our Constitution is the very model many other countries embody including yours to run the way their “democratic” governments operate.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther