Is the American constitution valid?

[Bezombia]

He declared himself Supreme Ruler of the Universe and oppressed trillions of people with his Orwellian policies.

Wait are we still talking about nixon or have moved on to Lord xenu of the galactic confederacy

We are talking about The Nix, Grand Controller of the Solar Federation, Emperor of the Galactic Imperium, Supreme Ruler of All Things, and High Priest of Syrinx.

[The Black Forrest]

He became a lesbian actress on a famous sitcom....

Ellen DeGeneres?

Cynthia Nixon.

[Pilotto]

Ellen DeGeneres?

Cynthia Nixon.

Right. I'm trying to picture ol' Tricky Dick on Sex and the City right now.

[Distruzio]

Nope. Invalid. Toilet paper is more valuable.

[Distruzio]

I don't know whether to or to
The damn thing was made to protect from government abuse. Many people say its invalid, but they're only considering the second ammendment.

When has the constitution prevented genocide in the country, human rights violations or slavery? These are three things that the US has done under the constitution, if it still does these things, it has no viable power.

The Constitution was not composed to prevent those things. It was composed to define the government of the United States.

[Seleucas]

When has the constitution prevented genocide in the country, human rights violations or slavery? These are three things that the US has done under the constitution, if it still does these things, it has no viable power.

The Constitution was not composed to prevent those things. It was composed to define the government of the United States.

Which, in turn, would seem to indicate that the Declaration of Independence was more propaganda piece than philosophical text.

[Santa Lucania]

Sees to be working just fine. It's not the document at flat it's the fuck faces we elect to interpret it that gives it this idea of not being valid. The constitution is ment to be interpreted in various ways making it easy to adapt to the current culture plus you can amend it which we have several times and with each one working out the kinks. So no it's perfectly valid and shall remain as such.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

The Constitution was not composed to prevent those things. It was composed to define the government of the United States.

Which, in turn, would seem to indicate that the Declaration of Independence was more propaganda piece than philosophical text.

It was a declaration of independence, actually.

[Seleucas]

Which, in turn, would seem to indicate that the Declaration of Independence was more propaganda piece than philosophical text.

It was a declaration of independence, actually.

Well, you can probably guess which one I mean.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

It was a declaration of independence, actually.

Well, you can probably guess which one I mean.

Neither, there's nothing philosophical about saying you don't want to be British. Unless you make it, of course.

You haven't done that, have you?

[Cailfornia]

The constitution represents the rights we all have, given to us by our creator. (Even if our creator is our mother). Administrations have chosen to ignore these rights, and it always ends up in a bigger conflict throughout history, those who do not have the rights that the constitution endows them will always fight for them. The constitution holds legal weight and even though more and more we leave it open to interpretation, it is still valid. The ideas that it is supose to protect, like freedom of speech. Are under attack, because we are scared. However, when the American people trade in these right for the promise of safety we will get neither, nor deserve it. We must be willing to give all we have for that piece of hemp. Because it is all we have. With out that, we will be no better than totalitarian Nazi Germany. The thing that makes it valid is our belief of a country that it is valid. This concept holds true, and applies to other things. Such money. Because money represents wealth, we accept it as wealth. But, if we all decided it didn't, all money would be worthless. Do not waver in your conviction of the greatest document on earth, because only then will it be worthless.

[Ezelis]

What? Erm... Yes? It's got a few problems and kinks, being a centuries-old document, but it's still good enough.

[Conkerials]

The Magna Carta had been broken many times, doesn't mean it's invalid.

That would make it invalid because that would mean that it is not absolute law for the government, which is what makes laws.

Woah, woah. You're telling me that if someone murders someone, and gets away with it, it makes anti-murder laws invalid?

[Libertarian California]

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.

wat

[Seleucas]

Well, you can probably guess which one I mean.

Neither, there's nothing philosophical about saying you don't want to be British. Unless you make it, of course.

You haven't done that, have you?

I think it would be difficult to deny that the US DoI attempted to be philosophical, what with 'We hold these truths to be self-evident' and the rambling that makes up the rest of that paragraph. But yes, the rest of it is not philosophical, just outright propaganda.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Neither, there's nothing philosophical about saying you don't want to be British. Unless you make it, of course.

You haven't done that, have you?

I think it would be difficult to deny that the US DoI attempted to be philosophical, what with 'We hold these truths to be self-evident' and the rambling that makes up the rest of that paragraph. But yes, the rest of it is not philosophical, just outright propaganda.

No, the rest of it is simply saying why the colonies were declaring independence.

[The Sotoan Union]

Neither, there's nothing philosophical about saying you don't want to be British. Unless you make it, of course.

You haven't done that, have you?

I think it would be difficult to deny that the US DoI attempted to be philosophical, what with 'We hold these truths to be self-evident' and the rambling that makes up the rest of that paragraph. But yes, the rest of it is not philosophical, just outright propaganda.

Sorry if our founding fathers used big words. Would you prefer that we translate it into simple English? http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Shit every political thing is written like that. The World Assembly is written like that.

[Skappola]

I think it would be difficult to deny that the US DoI attempted to be philosophical, what with 'We hold these truths to be self-evident' and the rambling that makes up the rest of that paragraph. But yes, the rest of it is not philosophical, just outright propaganda.

Sorry if our founding fathers used big words. Would you prefer that we translate it into simple English? http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Shit every political thing is written like that. The World Assembly is written like that.

Using long words can often give the document more legitimacy, as people can see it was written by intellectuals (Or at least educated officials) rather than the village idiot. Translated, you can see the only remotely philosophical part of Declaration was the acknowledgment of natural rights, and they weren't even trying to be philosophical there.

[Seleucas]

I think it would be difficult to deny that the US DoI attempted to be philosophical, what with 'We hold these truths to be self-evident' and the rambling that makes up the rest of that paragraph. But yes, the rest of it is not philosophical, just outright propaganda.

Sorry if our founding fathers used big words. Would you prefer that we translate it into simple English? http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Shit every political thing is written like that. The World Assembly is written like that.

... you missed the point. I wasn't complaining about their verbosity, but rather their nonsensical arguments. (For instance, 'we hold these truths to be self-evident' is a non-argument from the start, and it really does not get any better from there.)

Sorry if our founding fathers used big words. Would you prefer that we translate it into simple English? http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Shit every political thing is written like that. The World Assembly is written like that.

Using long words can often give the document more legitimacy, as people can see it was written by intellectuals (Or at least educated officials) rather than the village idiot. Translated, you can see the only remotely philosophical part of Declaration was the acknowledgment of natural rights, and they weren't even trying to be philosophical there.

Their argument on right was in complete contravention to the existing legal and political theory of the day (virtual representation, etc.), and, by necessity of arguing against them, would of course be of a philosophical bent in their attempted justification.

I think it would be difficult to deny that the US DoI attempted to be philosophical, what with 'We hold these truths to be self-evident' and the rambling that makes up the rest of that paragraph. But yes, the rest of it is not philosophical, just outright propaganda.

No, the rest of it is simply saying why the colonies were declaring independence.

In much the same way as Fox News is talking about the news of the day.

[Geilinor]

The Constitution was not composed to prevent those things. It was composed to define the government of the United States.

Which, in turn, would seem to indicate that the Declaration of Independence was more propaganda piece than philosophical text.

It was a formal declaration and an explanation.

[Seleucas]

Which, in turn, would seem to indicate that the Declaration of Independence was more propaganda piece than philosophical text.

It was a formal declaration and an explanation.

That doesn't preclude being propaganda or philosophical. (For instance, I would consider the Communist Manifesto to be both.)

[The Sotoan Union]

Sorry if our founding fathers used big words. Would you prefer that we translate it into simple English? http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Shit every political thing is written like that. The World Assembly is written like that.

... you missed the point. I wasn't complaining about their verbosity, but rather their nonsensical arguments. (For instance, 'we hold these truths to be self-evident' is a non-argument from the start, and it really does not get any better from there.)

Using long words can often give the document more legitimacy, as people can see it was written by intellectuals (Or at least educated officials) rather than the village idiot. Translated, you can see the only remotely philosophical part of Declaration was the acknowledgment of natural rights, and they weren't even trying to be philosophical there.

Their argument on right was in complete contravention to the existing legal and political theory of the day (virtual representation, etc.), and, by necessity of arguing against them, would of course be of a philosophical bent in their attempted justification.

No, the rest of it is simply saying why the colonies were declaring independence.

In much the same way as Fox News is talking about the news of the day.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident", really is a fancy way of saying that we believe we should have the following. Again big words. You can try to analyze it into something else, but that is simply what it is.

Their arguments on human rights were an example of common philosophy and political beliefs of the day. The Age of Enlightenment was going on you know. There is a reason why the American Revolution happened when it did.

I also fail to see how the founding fathers are comparable to Fox News.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I also fail to see how the founding fathers are comparable to Fox News.

They both like big words. The difference is only one of them ever knew how to use big words.

[The Free Regime]

If it restricted a human right, it would invalidate it's claiming to support human rights.

It isn't a perfect document, I'l admit that, but that's the beauty of it. It's a work in progress. It can be edited should the need arise (Thus why Slavery is now illegal)

Nicely said friend.

[Tekania]

It also doesn't make any provision for my right to eat lasagna, which is an equally good reason for its invalidity.

If it restricted a human right, it would invalidate it's claiming to support human rights.

I'm unaware of the constitution claiming to support human rights. It's a document outlining federal governmental structure with additional amendments containing enumerated rights and modifications to the original structure. As far as I know the only claim the US Constitution makes is to form a more perfect union [and the like, an improvement in capability] (than what was under the Articles of Confederation). And as far as I can tell by context that claim has remained valid.