NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, so what I mean by this post is that we should stop arguing on whether or not issue X should be handled this or that way. Philosophical discussions are great and all, but there's only one way you can legalize/illegalize something; attack its constitutionality.

In other words, the best way to argue for/against something is to make specific references to the Constitution (or whatever legal document your country works upon). Here's a specific example, using "strict constructionism:"

Death Penalty - I will concede the point that the Constitution does stipulate that those convicted of treason my be executed. However, nowhere else in the Constitution does it say that the American government may execute convicted felons. Even if the part on felons *implies* it, I don't imply things from the Constituion.

At least the Federal government can't administer it, anyways (IE if it's stipulated in a state constitution that the state can use it, then they can).

In other words, the best way to argue for/against something is to make specific references to the Constitution (or whatever legal document your country works upon).

This tactic kind of fails somewhat spectacularly for the UK...

This tactic kind of fails somewhat spectacularly for the UK...

Are you trying to imply that the Act of Settlement isn't widely known so cannot be used in this way?

Are you trying to imply that the Act of Settlement isn't widely known so cannot be used in this way?

More that the exact make up of the loose assemblage of acts and covenants and treaties which go towards making the UK's unwritten constitution varies according to what cause constitutionalists are trying to promote.

Okay, so what I mean by this post is that we should stop arguing on whether or not issue X should be handled this or that way. Philosophical discussions are great and all, but there's only one way you can legalize/illegalize something; attack its constitutionality.

In other words, the best way to argue for/against something is to make specific references to the Constitution (or whatever legal document your country works upon). Here's a specific example, using "strict constructionism:"

Death Penalty - I will concede the point that the Constitution does stipulate that those convicted of treason my be executed. However, nowhere else in the Constitution does it say that the American government may execute convicted felons. Even if the part on felons *implies* it, I don't imply things from the Constituion.

At least the Federal government can't administer it, anyways (IE if it's stipulated in a state constitution that the state can use it, then they can).

Is this sarcastic? Because remember, at the end of the day, the Constitution of the United States of America is a Scripture insofar as it is Right, but one which has to be amended whenever precedent cases in various States turn it too far to the Left.

Death Penalty - I will concede the point that the Constitution does stipulate that those convicted of treason my be executed. However, nowhere else in the Constitution does it say that the American government may execute convicted felons. Even if the part on felons *implies* it, I don't imply things from the Constituion.

At least the Federal government can't administer it, anyways (IE if it's stipulated in a state constitution that the state can use it, then they can).

Using this kind of logic, the United States government shouldn't use computers, as nowhere in the constitution is it stated that they can...

This tactic kind of fails somewhat spectacularly for the UK...
Do elaborate

Using this kind of logic, the United States government shouldn't use computers, as nowhere in the constitution is it stated that they can...
:rolleyes:

Using this kind of logic, the United States government shouldn't use computers, as nowhere in the constitution is it stated that they can...


Article 1, section 8, allows for this.

Well im islamic and the koran teaches that we should, and will be rewarded for, killing the infidel.


Im not actually islamic, jsut wanted to prove a point no offense intended

Article 1, section 8, allows for this.

Article 1`Section. 8. (US constitution)

The Congress shall have Power To...........

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;.............

so i guess they have the right to computers, or at least promotiong their develpoment.
However the US's constitutions doesn't allow for them to have an air force (because obviously at the time the documents they were drafting would only have made provisions for a land and naval force)

Of course the US does have a right to create and feild an airforce, even if they dont have the right to bomb iraquis with it..........the idea that you can only use a country's constitution to argue a point is just plain stupid, so says my country's constitution

Well im islamic and the koran teaches that we should, and will be rewarded for, killing the infidel.

Im not actually islamic, jsut wanted to prove a point no offense intended
That last part makes your point moot - and religious documents are supposed to be interpreted metaphorically :rolleyes:

Okay, so what I mean by this post is that we should stop arguing on whether or not issue X should be handled this or that way. Philosophical discussions are great and all, but there's only one way you can legalize/illegalize something; attack its constitutionality.

In other words, the best way to argue for/against something is to make specific references to the Constitution (or whatever legal document your country works upon). Here's a specific example, using "strict constructionism:"

Death Penalty - I will concede the point that the Constitution does stipulate that those convicted of treason my be executed. However, nowhere else in the Constitution does it say that the American government may execute convicted felons. Even if the part on felons *implies* it, I don't imply things from the Constituion.

At least the Federal government can't administer it, anyways (IE if it's stipulated in a state constitution that the state can use it, then they can).

What about the 6th Amendment? It talks about not putting some one in danger of life or limb more than once for the same crime. The double jeopardy rule. Doesn't that mean that the framers intended to have capital punishment?

Well, the US Constitution has the elastic clause that pretty much says that the government can do anything it wants to provided it doesn't directly contradict the Constitution.

Also, After WW1 or 2 (Can't remember which) An amendment was added that established the department of the Airforce, before then it was a wing of the Army

After ww2.. think it was established in 1949. (And that i found out reading an arttivle about the Swedish airforce, hm..)

Article 1, section 8, allows for this.

"Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; "

Surely that deals with giving patents/copyrights and the like to inventors or artists, not with the use of any new inventions by the government?