Thread: How many of you still believe in the power of the US Constitution?

It's really a trick question, because if you didn't you wouldn't be here, you'd move to China or Russia or somewhere with less freedom.

But just for giggles, where do you stand on the Constitution? Where does it rank in your life?


sound off

All's Well; the Sky isn't Falling ... Still.

It seems to be largely ignored.

[QUOTE=4Horsemen;1061149714]

How many of you still believe in the power of the U.S. Constitution?

Forty percent of the Americans that call themselves Conservatives believe in the power of the Constitution, however, the 20% of Americans calling themselves liberals do not believe in the power of the Constitution. Hope this fact helps.

Originally Posted by 4Horsemen

It's really a trick question, because if you didn't you wouldn't be here, you'd move to China or Russia or somewhere with less freedom.

But just for giggles, where do you stand on the Constitution? Where does it rank in your life?


sound off

I don't know why you think China has less freedom. They may have less political freedom, but, unlike the US, a person can live there and not be committing three felonies a day. A person can get in and out of a Chinese airport without being molested and having his children felt up by pedophiles in government uniform. At the right hour of the day, he can get through the airport without even going through customs. Russia is not dissimilar, though it has a lot of corruption. That can make some things difficult for the lower classes, but it's also far easier to start a business or travel about without worrying about incarceration. Arm yourself against criminals and carry bribes for the police, and you are fine. Here in the US, it's fear the police more than the criminals and have a lawyer on speed dial.

Anyway, I side Lysander Spooner on the Constitution. It's a great document, lots of good stuff, some not so good stuff, and it has absolutely no inherent authority.

Originally Posted by BleedingHeadKen

I don't know why you think China has less freedom. They may have less political freedom, but, unlike the US, a person can live there and not be committing three felonies a day. A person can get in and out of a Chinese airport without being molested and having his children felt up by pedophiles in government uniform. At the right hour of the day, he can get through the airport without even going through customs. Russia is not dissimilar, though it has a lot of corruption. That can make some things difficult for the lower classes, but it's also far easier to start a business or travel about without worrying about incarceration. Arm yourself against criminals and carry bribes for the police, and you are fine. Here in the US, it's fear the police more than the criminals and have a lawyer on speed dial.

Anyway, I side Lysander Spooner on the Constitution. It's a great document, lots of good stuff, some not so good stuff, and it has absolutely no inherent authority.

So You'd welcome a Global Government and World Constitution? effectively destroying any sovereignty you thought this country had?

people are only as intelligent as the money spent on their education was intended to make them.

the powerful want more money, more power...and they educate the masses through the media, which they own.

the powerful cant get more money or power if the constitution's principles are properly followed, so the education they provide through the media is contrary to the constitution.

so, the masses are taught that we don't need the constitution, that we don't need personal and economic freedom, etc., that a collectivist philosophy is the best way, thus the lack of support for the constitution.

america's greatness never had anything to do with collectivism. humanity's greatness never had anything to with collectivism. life on this planet's greatness never had anything to do with collectivism. the reasons why we exist on this earth are directly contrary to collectivism. our instincts and innate natural tendencies that have helped us survive since the dawn of our emergence from africa, actually conflict with collectivism.

the human race needs freedom to survive, and the constitution encourages that it be maintained.

socialism is all about the good of the whole, and having the rich support the poor, and that whole collectivist philosophy, but what is actually quite laughable is that the good of the whole is served through the survival of the fittest, and natural selection. this is planet earth, and being humans in a civilized world doesn't change how this world, and the life on it, has been programmed through evolution to operate.

remember how your ancestors got here? might want to keep it up if you wish to stick around much longer

I didn't pick any of the options, as I personally feel that the letter of the Consitution is more and more used to obliterate the intent of the Constitution. For instance, how is the existence of Super-PACs going to benefit the kind of citizen-based democracy that the Founding Fathers envisaged?

Originally Posted by skeptic-f

I didn't pick any of the options, as I personally feel that the letter of the Consitution is more and more used to obliterate the intent of the Constitution. For instance, how is the existence of Super-PACs going to benefit the kind of citizen-based democracy that the Founding Fathers envisaged?

Liberals do hate freedom of speech. The Occupy Wall Street group is arguably at its silliest when the participants "speak with one voice" by repeating everything their "non-leader" says. The freedom of speech has been under attack from day one and one weakening, in my view, was categorizing speech. Commercial speech is seen as inferior to political speech.

In any case, the Constitution can be changed. The problem for liberals is they can't change it because Americans hate what they want done. So, they subvert the Constitution or in the words of then Speaker of the House Pelosi when asked where the Constitution gives the government the authority to put a requirment on health insurance, "Are you serious?"

Liberals want totally unrestrained power. I certainly don't.

Originally Posted by stekim

It seems to be largely ignored.

I'll co-sign to this. None of those answers fits me. I believe it is an excellent document, but the rights contained therein have been bleeding ever since. What's to believe in?