Is the American constitution valid?

[Marxson]

Is the American constitution valid?
I say no, wether or not the ideas in it are or not is not relevant. The aim of the document is likely to show how American society should be run, however looking at history, there have been too many exceptions to this rule for it to be true. The slaves did not get their rights from the bill of rights, neither did the natives, neither did the anarchists, neither did the communists. This means that it has little to no power to regulate society or government, making it a useless piece of hemp paper.

Just because the UN is ineffective sometimes doesn't mean it's invalid. By that logic, any document with a loophole could be invalidated.

Anyway, you know how many native treaties were invalidated? If those treaties were declared invalid, the Native Americans would probably control most of the U.S. and Canada.

[Ifreann]

The historical records show that the British called "no revolutions" when they established their American colonies.

It worked well for a long time, but then we went and started making flags.

The British have regretted letting you have a textiles industry ever since.

[Marxson]

It worked well for a long time, but then we went and started making flags.

The British have regretted letting you have a textiles industry ever since.

Well they did. Instead of clinging to the wrongs of the past, we should look to the promise of the future. In all seriousness, the crimes of segregation have been paid. The price of exclusion has yet to be paid in America. We are better off having the constitution than without it.

[Viritica]

You, sir, make me lose faith in humanity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America.[1]

[Kelinfort]

Yes, it's completely valid.

[Divair2]

It worked well for a long time, but then we went and started making flags.

The British have regretted letting you have a textiles industry ever since.

We want reparations.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

We demand reparations in tacos!

[Marxson]

We demand reparations in tacos!

They may take our lives, but they will never take our tacos!!!!

[The New Sea Territory]

lolnope

[Jumalariik]

Is the American constitution valid?
I say no, wether or not the ideas in it are or not is not relevant. The aim of the document is likely to show how American society should be run, however looking at history, there have been too many exceptions to this rule for it to be true. The slaves did not get their rights from the bill of rights, neither did the natives, neither did the anarchists, neither did the communists. This means that it has little to no power to regulate society or government, making it a useless piece of hemp paper.

Just because the UN is ineffective sometimes doesn't mean it's invalid. By that logic, any document with a loophole could be invalidated.

Anyway, you know how many native treaties were invalidated? If those treaties were declared invalid, the Native Americans would probably control most of the U.S. and Canada.

The native treaties are invalid for the same reason: they were disobeyed by those who signed them. It does not change the fact that they are a good thing (I never said that the constitution had bad ideas), but it does prove that they are just a piece of paper.

[Natapoc]

No .

It was drafted in clear violation of British law.

Anyone who respects the rule of law must reject it.

[America Libertaria]

Just because the UN is ineffective sometimes doesn't mean it's invalid. By that logic, any document with a loophole could be invalidated.

Anyway, you know how many native treaties were invalidated? If those treaties were declared invalid, the Native Americans would probably control most of the U.S. and Canada.

The native treaties are invalid for the same reason: they were disobeyed by those who signed them. It does not change the fact that they are a good thing (I never said that the constitution had bad ideas), but it does prove that they are just a piece of paper.

Breaking the law does not invalidate the law. What your saying is that because someone murdered something the law against murder is no longer valid? Do you understand how crazy you sound?

[Cenetra]

Not all, in fact very little of it, but it still does guarantee basic freedoms like speech and the right to assemble, these rights have been taken away, as has freedom of religion multiple times. Amendments only work to continue the earlier principle. (you can't make an amendment that would make the whole constitution no longer law) No amendments would reverse the Palmer raids or McCarthyism.

By your logic, traffic laws are invalid because some people run red lights. Or, even sillier, traffic laws are invalid because fire trucks are allowed to run red lights. For that matter, every law ever written that has been improperly reinforced (i.e. every law ever written) is invalid.

I'd also like to point out that most of the human rights violations you've stated were either banned by subsequent amendments or struck down by the court system.

As for your last argument: convicting a murderer doesn't reverse the murder either. Does that mean laws against murder are invalid?


And finally... seriously? You consider the freaking Bible a 'valid' legal document, yet reject the constitution for the reasons mentioned?
You want to talk about documents with "little or no power to regulate society or government?" Biblical law isn't consistently enforced even in places and times here authorities considered it legitimate. In fact, it would be impossible to consistently enforce biblical law, because it isn't even internally consistent! Also, feel free to discuss how the Bible gave slaves or native Americans rights. Before the civil war, there were quite a lot of abolitionists basing their arguments on the Bible and Christian Values (IIRC the Bible endorses slavery somehere - see my previous statement on internal consistency). Guess what ended slavery. The 13th Amendement of the U.S. Constitution.

[Jumalariik]

Not all, in fact very little of it, but it still does guarantee basic freedoms like speech and the right to assemble, these rights have been taken away, as has freedom of religion multiple times. Amendments only work to continue the earlier principle. (you can't make an amendment that would make the whole constitution no longer law) No amendments would reverse the Palmer raids or McCarthyism.

By your logic, traffic laws are invalid because some people run red lights. Or, even sillier, traffic laws are invalid because fire trucks are allowed to run red lights. For that matter, every law ever written that has been improperly reinforced (i.e. every law ever written) is invalid.

I'd also like to point out that most of the human rights violations you've stated were either banned by subsequent amendments or struck down by the court system.

As for your last argument: convicting a murderer doesn't reverse the murder either. Does that mean laws against murder are invalid?


And finally... seriously? You consider the freaking Bible a 'valid' legal document, yet reject the constitution for the reasons mentioned?
You want to talk about documents with "little or no power to regulate society or government?" Biblical law isn't consistently enforced even in places and times here authorities considered it legitimate. In fact, it would be impossible to consistently enforce biblical law, because it isn't even internally consistent! Also, feel free to discuss how the Bible gave slaves or native Americans rights. Before the civil war, there were quite a lot of abolitionists basing their arguments on the Bible and Christian Values (IIRC the Bible endorses slavery somehere - see my previous statement on internal consistency). Guess what ended slavery. The 13th Amendement of the U.S. Constitution.

I think that most people did not understand my argument: the constitution is invalid because those who are meant to uphold/defend it violate it, meaning that the lawmakers do not obey their own law.

[Llamalandia]

The SJW is strong in this one.

-Capitalism is not to blame for 1 billion people on poverty. Poor government decisions are.
-When you're in poverty you're not gonna have good living conditions pal.
-Just because we have the resources to help, which we really don't, we're not obliged to help.

That last sentence is the exact mentality of capitalism, and why it must be destroyed.

Umm no that would be an infringement of more basic and rights and liberties. The problem with compelling people to help is that it removes the moral choice. Look some poeple are going to be greedy jerks, you can't force them to help others, all you can do is do your best to compensate for their lack of generosity.

[Llamalandia]

By your logic, traffic laws are invalid because some people run red lights. Or, even sillier, traffic laws are invalid because fire trucks are allowed to run red lights. For that matter, every law ever written that has been improperly reinforced (i.e. every law ever written) is invalid.

I'd also like to point out that most of the human rights violations you've stated were either banned by subsequent amendments or struck down by the court system.

As for your last argument: convicting a murderer doesn't reverse the murder either. Does that mean laws against murder are invalid?


And finally... seriously? You consider the freaking Bible a 'valid' legal document, yet reject the constitution for the reasons mentioned?
You want to talk about documents with "little or no power to regulate society or government?" Biblical law isn't consistently enforced even in places and times here authorities considered it legitimate. In fact, it would be impossible to consistently enforce biblical law, because it isn't even internally consistent! Also, feel free to discuss how the Bible gave slaves or native Americans rights. Before the civil war, there were quite a lot of abolitionists basing their arguments on the Bible and Christian Values (IIRC the Bible endorses slavery somehere - see my previous statement on internal consistency). Guess what ended slavery. The 13th Amendement of the U.S. Constitution.

I think that most people did not understand my argument: the constitution is invalid because those who are meant to uphold/defend it violate it, meaning that the lawmakers do not obey their own law.

Well that's certainly true but it doesn't make the law invalid, it makes the legislators/enforcers of said law illegitimate. In fact there are generally ways to censure and even impeach these kinds of corrupt officials. Besides, not everyone ignores the constitution, Rand Paul comes to mind

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Is the American constitution valid?
I say no, wether or not the ideas in it are or not is not relevant. The aim of the document is likely to show how American society should be run, however looking at history, there have been too many exceptions to this rule for it to be true. The slaves did not get their rights from the bill of rights, neither did the natives, neither did the anarchists, neither did the communists. This means that it has little to no power to regulate society or government, making it a useless piece of hemp paper.

The Constitution of the U.S. is a document that only enfranchised the people living in the 13 colonies who were property owners (so slaves did not count). As we began expanding upon the right of property, and later, with the advent of human and civil rights, the U.S. Constitution has come to enfranchise other people.

Hence, the American Constitution is a valid document to govern the country and government.

I will agree, making American Communists akin to terrorists in the Cold War was our lowest point with McCarthyism, but then again it was the mentality of the time: the Soviets are Godless Communists, so guilt by association was established with the American branches of Communism even though they had nothing to do with the Soviets, at all.

[Cenetra]

By your logic, traffic laws are invalid because some people run red lights. Or, even sillier, traffic laws are invalid because fire trucks are allowed to run red lights. For that matter, every law ever written that has been improperly reinforced (i.e. every law ever written) is invalid.

I'd also like to point out that most of the human rights violations you've stated were either banned by subsequent amendments or struck down by the court system.

As for your last argument: convicting a murderer doesn't reverse the murder either. Does that mean laws against murder are invalid?


And finally... seriously? You consider the freaking Bible a 'valid' legal document, yet reject the constitution for the reasons mentioned?
You want to talk about documents with "little or no power to regulate society or government?" Biblical law isn't consistently enforced even in places and times here authorities considered it legitimate. In fact, it would be impossible to consistently enforce biblical law, because it isn't even internally consistent! Also, feel free to discuss how the Bible gave slaves or native Americans rights. Before the civil war, there were quite a lot of abolitionists basing their arguments on the Bible and Christian Values (IIRC the Bible endorses slavery somehere - see my previous statement on internal consistency). Guess what ended slavery. The 13th Amendement of the U.S. Constitution.

I think that most people did not understand my argument: the constitution is invalid because those who are meant to uphold/defend it violate it, meaning that the lawmakers do not obey their own law.

Okay then. According to your logic, police brutality makes laws against assault, kidnapping, or murder invalid. This is utter rubbish. Consistent abuses of power by lawmakers or law enforcers make them unfit to make or enforce laws, and makes their authority illegitimate.

And one again: how the hell is the Bible superior to the constitution in that regard? Are you trying to claim that the Catholic church never violates the principles of Christian morality? If so, good luck. You'll need it.

[Zychonia]

The American constitution is valid and I shall explain why.

Amendment I - 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. This amendment means that freedom of speech and religion is held dear, also the freedom to gather peacefully is very important too.

Amendment III - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This amendment means that the state does not have the power to search your property, without an arrest warrant.

[Norstal]

No .

It was drafted in clear violation of British law.

Anyone who respects the rule of law must reject it.

British law is in violation of African Union laws.

We must all return to Mother Africa.

[Damak Var]

Is the American constitution valid?
I say no, wether or not the ideas in it are or not is not relevant. The aim of the document is likely to show how American society should be run, however looking at history, there have been too many exceptions to this rule for it to be true. The slaves did not get their rights from the bill of rights, neither did the natives, neither did the anarchists, neither did the communists. This means that it has little to no power to regulate society or government, making it a useless piece of hemp paper.

Oh man, you need to study how the legal system works. There's hundreds of cases out there on something as simple as the Establishment Clause. No, the Constitution is very much at work.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Have you even ever read the constitution?

Not all, in fact very little of it, but it still does guarantee basic freedoms like speech and the right to assemble, these rights have been taken away, as has freedom of religion multiple times. Amendments only work to continue the earlier principle. (you can't make an amendment that would make the whole constitution no longer law) No amendments would reverse the Palmer raids or McCarthyism.

OMG, how tragic, world's smallest violin playing.

sidenote: We don't give a fuck.

Also your "argument" is idiotic.

[Russian Socialist Soviet States]

It is currently valid. The liberals want to make parts of it invalid.

[Pilotto]

It is currently valid. The liberals want to make parts of it invalid.

In Soviet Russia, constitution invalidate you!

[Jumalariik]

It is currently valid. The liberals want to make parts of it invalid.

Is your nation a joke, or are you joking?