NationStates Jolt Archive

One thing that really irritates me is when people cite the constitution for everything.

For example, when someone says something like 'actually, it just says the government can't force religion on us, not that church and state should be separated'.

Stop using the constitution as a trump-all magical force of law. It's not. People seem to be failing to realize that although the constituiton is really really really good, it isn't perfect.

Just because it doesn't grant a certain freedom or limit certain government action, does not mean it shouldn't.

I just hate hearing 'well in the constitution...' I don't care!!! I believe in my idea of freedom, not what a (soon becoming obsolete anyway) piece of paper tells me what it is. I bet the founding fathers thought this would be common sense.

Nyet, comrade.

One thing that really irritates me is when people cite the constitution for everything.

For example, when someone says something like 'actually, it just says the government can't force religion on us, not that church and state should be separated'.

Stop using the constitution as a trump-all magical force of law. It's not. People seem to be failing to realize that although the constituiton is really really really good, it isn't perfect.

Just because it doesn't grant a certain freedom or limit certain government action, does not mean it shouldn't.

I just hate hearing 'well in the constitution...' I don't care!!! I believe in my idea of freedom, not what a (soon becoming obsolete anyway) piece of paper tells me what it is. I bet the founding fathers thought this would be common sense.
Common sense isn't.

Common sense isn't.

Yeah, good point. I bet they also though we would have some. :D

Hate to tell you but the constitution isnt going anywhere...its survived for over 200 years now despite it's shortcomings. The problem that you relay about common sense is evident in our government, not the document. No one really knows what the Constitution would mean in today's times or what the founding fathers meant by certain things because everything has advanced at such a rapid pace that no one knows where to go with it. Remember that the Constitution is in fact the "Supreme Law of the Land" so it that sense it will be here for awhile. Things don't get changed without rebellion and rebelling against the government isn't such a good idea in the age that we live in right now. There are those who believe in the written words of the Constitution and there are those who believe that the Constitution is a foundation for how to believe society should be constructed. The ability to be able to think what you want about that document is in fact what makes this country great...

Constitutions ARE a trump-all magical force of law. That's the point of the darn things. Otherwise, why even have one?

And if you really think that 'old piece of paper' is becoming obsolete, I fear the country you wish to live in.

We The people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union


The Constitution is one of ,if not, the greatest law document ever written...and its grammatically incorrect in the first sentence :p

if something's perfect it can't be any better so how could there be a more perfect union?

I believe in my idea of freedom, not what a (soon becoming obsolete anyway) piece of paper tells me what it is. I bet the founding fathers thought this would be common sense.

Soon becoming obsolete?

It was written in the 19th C, before the industrial revolution took hold, and it's only "soon" becoming obsolete?

Rules Lawyering. A tradition much, much older than RPGs.

The constitution is the backbone of American government(or supposed to be), therefore citing the constitution to determine what can or cannot be done is justifiable. Everyone is promoting their own views of freedom, however, there must be some concern for existing institutions in such a pursuit.

We The people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union


The Constitution is one of ,if not, the greatest law document ever written...and its grammatically incorrect in the first sentence :p

if something's perfect it can't be any better so how could there be a more perfect union?

Easily. If you have a 500ml glass with 300ml in it and add 100ml, then it is more full than it was before.

In the same way, if you have a union which is functioning alright and you make it better, you have made it more perfect. Closer towards perfection.

I think it's slowly becoming obsolete because almost every new regulation and law degrades it a little bit. For example, you used to be able to own pretty much any gun you want, now because of all the 'safety regulations' and such, our second amendment rights are slowly being degraded.(on this note see blue quote in sig)

And the idea was not to use the constitution as a good reason for any law, but that people should use their own original reason to supports laws.

One thing that really irritates me is when people cite the constitution for everything.

For example, when someone says something like 'actually, it just says the government can't force religion on us, not that church and state should be separated'.

Stop using the constitution as a trump-all magical force of law. It's not. People seem to be failing to realize that although the constituiton is really really really good, it isn't perfect.

Just because it doesn't grant a certain freedom or limit certain government action, does not mean it shouldn't.

I just hate hearing 'well in the constitution...' I don't care!!! I believe in my idea of freedom, not what a (soon becoming obsolete anyway) piece of paper tells me what it is. I bet the founding fathers thought this would be common sense.

Risi, meet Dubya, Dubya, meet Risi.

Rules Lawyering. A tradition much, much older than RPGs.

Adams: Screw you Hancock! The rules clearly say I can make a speech!
Hancock: Yeah, but I'm the president. Remember rule 0?
Adams: Oh, come on. Rule 0 is such bullshit.
Franklin: I cast magic missile on the darkness!
-June 26th, 1776. Second Continental Congress transcript.

I think it's slowly becoming obsolete because almost every new regulation and law degrades it a little bit. For example, you used to be able to own pretty much any gun you want, now because of all the 'safety regulations' and such, our second amendment rights are slowly being degraded.(on this note see blue quote in sig)
Stop Citing the Constitution (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=521686)

I think it's slowly becoming obsolete because almost every new regulation and law degrades it a little bit. For example, you used to be able to own pretty much any gun you want, now because of all the 'safety regulations' and such, our second amendment rights are slowly being degraded.(on this note see blue quote in sig)
And the idea was not to use the constitution as a good reason for any law, but that people should use their own original reason to supports laws.

Actually the Constitution says nothing about owning guns. The Second Amendment was passed in order to make the Constitution better. Also if you notice that amendment reads that the government cant disallow firearms from the community for the sole reason of maintaining a well regulated militia...we don'n need a militia due to our military. Not saying I disagree with you on the issue but it is the job of the courts to find the area that is correct and this particular issue has NEVER been to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Easily. If you have a 500ml glass with 300ml in it and add 100ml, then it is more full than it was before.

In the same way, if you have a union which is functioning alright and you make it better, you have made it more perfect. Closer towards perfection.

But good old Tommy here is saying that the union already is at 500ml and is trying to fill it up to the 600ml mark of this 500ml glass. Perfect is saying that something can not be improved anymore than it already is..

One thing that really irritates me is when people cite the constitution for everything.

For example, when someone says something like 'actually, it just says the government can't force religion on us, not that church and state should be separated'.

Stop using the constitution as a trump-all magical force of law. It's not.

IANAL, but as far as law is concerned, I believe the constitution is, in fact, the trump-all.

I'm not sure exactly the point you're making. I do get irritated by people playing semantic games on the language of the law to override the intent. But they do that with the bible, koran, etc., too.

People seem to be failing to realize that although the constituiton is really really really good, it isn't perfect.
Yeah, that's why we have amendments.

Just because it doesn't grant a certain freedom or limit certain government action, does not mean it shouldn't.
Ironic, but I need to quote the 9th amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

In other words, the Constitution itself says exactly what you're saying. It's a list of rights the government cannot take away, not an all-inclusive list or rights.

I just hate hearing 'well in the constitution...' I don't care!!! I believe in my idea of freedom, not what a (soon becoming obsolete anyway) piece of paper tells me what it is. I bet the founding fathers thought this would be common sense.
Mr. President, is that you? :P

Actually the Constitution says nothing about owning guns. The Second Amendment was passed in order to make the Constitution better. Also if you notice that amendment reads that the government cant disallow firearms from the community for the sole reason of maintaining a well regulated militia...we don'n need a militia due to our military. Not saying I disagree with you on the issue but it is the job of the courts to find the area that is correct and this particular issue has NEVER been to the U.S. Supreme Court.

AHA!!!!!

Exactly my point.

Just because the constitution doesn't say we should be allowed to own guns, doesn't mean we shouldn't be allowed to.


And lol @ me citing the constitution myself.
I agree with the principles of the constitution, I just don't think it's perfect.

I agree with the principles of the constitution, I just don't think it's perfect.

of course it's not perfect, but it's a pretty damn good piece of paper nonetheless :D

But good old Tommy here is saying that the union already is at 500ml and is trying to fill it up to the 600ml mark of this 500ml glass. Perfect is saying that something can not be improved anymore than it already is..

Perfect, alone, means that, but striving to make something "more perfect" means you're trying by your actions to get it closer to a point where it can not be improved anymore than it already is. i.e. you are trying to make it closer to perfection. It's just the language of the day.

The "more" is very important in how it changes the meaning.

Perfect, alone, means that, but striving to make something "more perfect" means you're trying by your actions to get it closer to a point where it can not be improved anymore than it already is. i.e. you are trying to make it closer to perfection. It's just the language of the day.

The "more" is very important in how it changes the meaning.

aha point taken

We should ditch the Constitution, since hardly anyone in the government even gives a fuck about it anymore.

Isn't the Constitution the supreme law of the United States? I'd say if the Constitution says something that contradicts another law passed, the Constitution definitely wins out. It's far more important than any of the other laws passed by Congress and carries far more weight.

Isn't the Constitution the supreme law of the United States? I'd say if the Constitution says something that contradicts another law passed, the Constitution definitely wins out. It's far more important than any of the other laws passed by Congress and carries far more weight.

In theory, yes. Unfortunately, the gangsters who (mis)rule Washington disagree. :(

One thing that really irritates me is when people cite the constitution for everything.

For example, when someone says something like 'actually, it just says the government can't force religion on us, not that church and state should be separated'.

Stop using the constitution as a trump-all magical force of law. It's not. People seem to be failing to realize that although the constituiton is really really really good, it isn't perfect.

Just because it doesn't grant a certain freedom or limit certain government action, does not mean it shouldn't.

I just hate hearing 'well in the constitution...' I don't care!!! I believe in my idea of freedom, not what a (soon becoming obsolete anyway) piece of paper tells me what it is. I bet the founding fathers thought this would be common sense.

lol

In theory, yes. Unfortunately, the gangsters who (mis)rule Washington disagree. :(

Yeah, just compare the crap they pull with the things written in the Constitution...I imagine it has to do with the fact that amendments have to be passed not only by Congress but ratified by the states, which makes it a lot harder to get away with the kinds of things they do.

The result is some real, actual good legislation (except Prohibition, but no law is perfect...).

The first amendment to the Consitution gives me the right to cite any part of the Constitution any time I want.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Sorry but someone was bound to do it if they haven't already.

I imagine it has to do with the fact that amendments have to be passed not only by Congress but ratified by the states

Well, technically it doesn't need to go through Congress at all...never been done but theoretically a constitutional amendment can be proposed by an assembly of the state legislatures, you don't actually need Congress.

It was written in the 19th C

18th. 1789 to be precise. 1791 for the bill of rights.

Easily. If you have a 500ml glass with 300ml in it and add 100ml, then it is more full than it was before.

In the same way, if you have a union which is functioning alright and you make it better, you have made it more perfect. Closer towards perfection.

Except a 500ml glass with 300ml is not full
its more than half full but is not full.

You either have perfection in something or various degrees of imperfection
something cannot be more perfect, if a) it is already perfect or b) if it is imperfect
(You cannot have more something if you have not had that something in the first place(Alice could not have more tea as she had not had any at all)) ,
if it is less than perfect to begin with you might say you aim to make it less imperfect.
To believe that something can be made more perfect requires an ultra unique viewpoint.

So, language of the day or not it is poor English, but hey it was written by Americans' so who is surprised.

In the final analysis it is poor English but no one has any trouble understanding what is meant.
Like the rest of the constitution really, no one has any trouble understanding what is meant,
just various groups understand bits differently from other groups.

One thing that really irritates me is when people cite the constitution for everything.

For example, when someone says something like 'actually, it just says the government can't force religion on us, not that church and state should be separated'.

Stop using the constitution as a trump-all magical force of law. It's not. People seem to be failing to realize that although the constituiton is really really really good, it isn't perfect.

Just because it doesn't grant a certain freedom or limit certain government action, does not mean it shouldn't.

I just hate hearing 'well in the constitution...' I don't care!!! I believe in my idea of freedom, not what a (soon becoming obsolete anyway) piece of paper tells me what it is. I bet the founding fathers thought this would be common sense.

I agree. I always wondered why the US constitution has to be written in stone. It's like hundreds of years out of date, written at a time when political realities where completely different.

You ought to have a more malleable constituition like Switzerland's.

Except a 500ml glass with 300ml is not full
its more than half full but is not full.

You either have perfection in something or various degrees of imperfection
something cannot be more perfect, if a) it is already perfect or b) if it is imperfect
(You cannot have more something if you have not had that something in the first place(Alice could not have more tea as she had not had any at all)) ,
if it is less than perfect to begin with you might say you aim to make it less imperfect.
To believe that something can be made more perfect requires an ultra unique viewpoint.

it's an interesting argument. there's just one mistake in it:
you state that you can't have degrees of perfection, because "perfect" is an absolute, and right after that you state that it's exact opposite "imperfect" does have various degrees. So basically you say you can't make things more perfect, but you can make them less imperfect, while they're the same thing, and if you make things less imperfect, you're making them more perfect.

I think you ought to choose, either accept both, or accept neither, because what you're doing is saying "you can't state that the glass is half full, only that it's half empty, and you can't fill a glass, you can only make it less empty.

apart from that i agree, they should've just written "a better union" instead of "a more perfect union" but of course perfect sounds so perfect, they wanted to show people how great their country was

One thing that really irritates me is when people cite the constitution for everything.

For example, when someone says something like 'actually, it just says the government can't force religion on us, not that church and state should be separated'.

Stop using the constitution as a trump-all magical force of law. It's not. People seem to be failing to realize that although the constituiton is really really really good, it isn't perfect.

Just because it doesn't grant a certain freedom or limit certain government action, does not mean it shouldn't.

I just hate hearing 'well in the constitution...' I don't care!!! I believe in my idea of freedom, not what a (soon becoming obsolete anyway) piece of paper tells me what it is. I bet the founding fathers thought this would be common sense.

Whatdaya think it's made to do? Wipe your ass after you go to the toilet?

One thing that really irritates me is when people cite the constitution for everything.

For example, when someone says something like 'actually, it just says the government can't force religion on us, not that church and state should be separated'.

Stop using the constitution as a trump-all magical force of law. It's not. People seem to be failing to realize that although the constituiton is really really really good, it isn't perfect.

Just because it doesn't grant a certain freedom or limit certain government action, does not mean it shouldn't.

I just hate hearing 'well in the constitution...' I don't care!!! I believe in my idea of freedom, not what a (soon becoming obsolete anyway) piece of paper tells me what it is. I bet the founding fathers thought this would be common sense.
Try and stop me.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

:D

Try and stop me.


:D

You win.

Stop Citing the Constitution (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=521686)

AHAHAHAHAHAHA

I just hate hearing 'well in the constitution...' I don't care!!! I believe in my idea of freedom, not what a (soon becoming obsolete anyway) piece of paper tells me what it is. I bet the founding fathers thought this would be common sense.

Well, the US Constitution happens to be the basis of all US law. If you're discussing US law, you're going to hear about the US Constitution. And since it is a "living document" (you know, able to be amended?) it's hardly "soon to become obsolete".

We don't necessarily care about your idea of freedom: we care about the agreed-upon source of all laws, if discussing US law. And the founding fathers surely wrote the damned thing for a reason other than showing off their mad skillz in writing. ;)

Well, the US Constitution happens to be the basis of all US law. If you're discussing US law, you're going to hear about the US Constitution. And since it is a "living document" (you know, able to be amended?) it's hardly "soon to become obsolete".

We don't necessarily care about your idea of freedom: we care about the agreed-upon source of all laws, if discussing US law. And the founding fathers surely wrote the damned thing for a reason other than showing off their mad skillz in writing. ;)

Well we've already got two pages(more or less) about how they were wrong about that making the union more perfect bit, so their writing skillz might not be enough to pay the billz.


Word.

Just because the constitution doesn't say we should be allowed to own guns, doesn't mean we shouldn't be allowed to.

And yet, people ARE allowed to own guns, aren't they?

Meh, it's something that people in the USA seem to do automatically. You might be discussing EU agricultural policy, or Scanian pseudo-separatism or African famine and they will most of the time find a way to work their outmoded constitution into the mix. It's just what they do, because they seem to think that not only does anyone outside the USA give a hoot, they seem to not see the document for the poorly written anachronism that it is.

Meh, it's something that people in the USA seem to do automatically. You might be discussing EU agricultural policy, or Scanian pseudo-separatism or African famine and they will most of the time find a way to work their outmoded constitution into the mix. It's just what they do, because they seem to think that not only does anyone outside the USA give a hoot, they seem to not see the document for the poorly written anachronism that it is.

From the man who has brought Swedish law into conversations not involving Swedish law on multiple occasions.

From the man who has brought Swedish law into conversations not involving Swedish law on multiple occasions.

And isn't it annoyingly irrelevant? Exactly my point every time I do it.

18th. 1789 to be precise. 1791 for the bill of rights.

Hell, I was pissed; a little chronological error like that is easily done :D

Well, the US Constitution happens to be the basis of all US law.

Not anymore. The whims of retrograde, self-serving politicians catering to corrupt special interests are the basis of all U.S. law now.