That's In My Constitution...Right?

[Razor]

Hello Cigar Lounge. Here comes a wonderful look at the American Constitution.

Many people think that the United States Government has the constitutional obligation to form a navy, an army, and an air force. These are required to protect that "life" part of the "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" found in our Declaration of Independence, no?

You would be right and wrong at the same time. In Article 1, Section 8 the Constitution provides the legal right for the government to form a navy and an army specifically. The framers were well aware of flying aircraft in 1769, but could not have possibly forseen the invention of fighter planes. So, quite understandably, the invention of the Air Force is left out as a right of the United States government.

Now, why has the Air Force been allowed to exist? For one, common sense. How can we bar the government from creating a branch of the military that is obviously useful in the protection of our land? Besides, the creation of the Air Force is in the same theoretical vein as the creation of the Army, no?

You can also explain it away historically. The Air Force originated as the Army Air Corps, an arm of the Army. It was necessarily split when the Air Force's multiple uses and needs were identified and viewed necessary enough to necessitate a split.


However, what should we view from this? There are many in the government (cough Republicans cough) who claim that if it isn't in the Constitution, then we shouldn't allow it. Ron Paul is famous for claiming that marriage should be abolished as a federal activity because it is no where in the Constitution (which will be a later thread, I'm sure).

Is this a case in which the Constitution should be allowed to morph and include the introduction of new technology? Or should the Constitution be forced to hold to its old, non-inclusive ways?

Stake your claim.

 

[Ferbian]

While I'm in no way affected by the constitution, I believe that any law, or rules of which a nation was build on, in any case, should be available for changes.

The constitution is very old, I get that, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed to be changed, the laws of any other country can be changed at any time, and the ways of which a country is founded on should be allowed to be changed as well, just because it's not stated in a constitution, it doesn't make it so that it shouldn't be legal, shouldn't be allowed, and shouldn't be considered the right choice for a nation to make a move on to.

It's ridiculous to deny the fact that just because it's not in the constitution that the American air force is not a way of protecting the country, and the life of millions, that it therefore should be frowned upon for the fact that the nation chooses to rely on technology that is far beyond the elder scripts of laws and foundational words from people who's technology and knowledge couldn't fathom the potentials that the future could bring to the world.

While I know the constitution is very prized in America, I say, just because it says something, and we do something else for the greater good of a nation, and people complain about it, I'd say, quite boldly, screw the constitution (please don't bash me for that comment, it's a way of saying "to hell with it, I'll rather put the nations future in the hand of new technology rather than what a over 200 years old script is saying)

 

[Spidey Revivey]

I've always stated my opinion about rewriting the Constitution. There is no way that the people back then would have foreseen the troubles of:

-Gay Marraiges
-Foreign Affairs/Oil
-Illegal Immigration
-Abortion
-Stem Cell Research
-Use of Certain Substances like Marijuana

That, and I hate the argument that something is "unconstitutional". Just because something was written on a sheet of paper (or parchment in this case) doesn't make it absolutely 100% correct. We have advanced more than our Founding Fathers could have ever imagined I am sure.

And we go by things nowadays that was shunned by our Founding Fathers anyways, so I don't see the big deal in editing the Constitution to our way of life now.

Even George Washington was fully against the U.S. interfering with foreign affairs. Now you see America in just about everything; hell we have military bases all over the world.

 

[klunderbunker]

I've spent the last three months in Constitutional Law where this was the core argument of the entire class. I think you have to have a middle ground.

If you go verbatim from the Constitution, the country gets very complicated very fast. Obviously nearly 250 years ago, a large amount of things were different or didn't even exist (*cough* as in the need for a militia *cough*). There is no way you can go purely on the wording in the Constitution. However, there are a lot of ground workings in the document that allow us to make things work as extensions of the Constitution. Take the Air Force for example. The writers didn't leave it out because they didn't want it. They left it out because there was no such thing yet. That can expand to the Bill of Rights as well. Take film for example. Film can certainly be considered a form of speech, and therefore there can be a freedom of speech in film. The government would not be allowed to completely restrict speech through film because of the first ammendment.

You have to have a mix rather than one way or another.

 

[Slyfox696]

If I'm not mistaken (and I could be because I haven't studied the Constitution for a LONG time), the original Constitution really was little more than the setting up of our governmental system, and explained the basic way it should be run. I believe it's the Bill of Rights, which in many cases, is not an explanation of how government is set up, but rather how it should be run, that we begin to see problems.

The fact of the matter is that many Amendments to the Constitution are basically LAWS, which were added to the Constitution to avoid an easy overturn at a later date. With that in mind, I think carrying the mindset that if it's not in the Constitution, it shouldn't happen is silly, because, like I said, in the original Constitution, not including the Bill of Rights and other things afterward, very little was outlined in the Constitution, aside from how government was set up.

And with THAT in mind, allow me to answer the question posed. No, the Constitution shouldn't have to morph with the times, the laws of our country do. And there are MANY archaic laws out there, and with technology jumping like it does, it's nearly impossible to keep up. But to say things shouldn't happen, especially in the area of technology, because it isn't in the Constitution is ridiculous.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

I am all for judicial originalism, which means that the Supreme Court can only decide cases based on what the Constitution explicitly says.

Although mainly conservatives defend this point of view, it actually has very positive implications. Supreme Court justices SHOULD NOT be legislating from the bench; their only job is to adjudicate cases based on what the Constitution explicitly states. If someone wants to change law, then they should not go to nine people who aren't elected and have life tenure; rather, they should go to Congress and lobby there. Sure, the battle will be fought on a much steeper hill, but it's the only truly democratic way to get things done.