Is the American constitution valid?

[Llamalandia]

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.

Well in so far as the Bill of Rights are a part of the constitution (and in fact bargaining point in negotiations to ratify the constitution itself) and happen to overlap with various human rights it certainly is. I mean freedom of speech and religion are certainly human rights an thus the Constitution does in fact protect at least some human rights.

[Shnercropolis]

Reminds me of this. http://wondermark.com/1k20/

[Llamalandia]

Reminds me of this. http://wondermark.com/1k20/

meh, I'm ok with dogs being modified infants, I mean honestly which is cuter a baby or a puppy?

[Tekania]

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.

Well in so far as the Bill of Rights are a part of the constitution (and in fact bargaining point in negotiations to ratify the constitution itself) and happen to overlap with various human rights it certainly is. I mean freedom of speech and religion are certainly human rights an thus the Constitution does in fact protect at least some human rights.

Oh, not arguing that it doesn't have protections in it to human rights... my point was that that isn't its claim to what it supports. It' claims was to form union of states which were stronger and better in form than what had been (under the AoC).

[Llamalandia]

Well in so far as the Bill of Rights are a part of the constitution (and in fact bargaining point in negotiations to ratify the constitution itself) and happen to overlap with various human rights it certainly is. I mean freedom of speech and religion are certainly human rights an thus the Constitution does in fact protect at least some human rights.

Oh, not arguing that it doesn't have protections in it to human rights... my point was that that isn't its claim to what it supports. It' claims was to form union of states which were stronger and better in form than what had been (under the AoC).

Oh my bad, now I see what your saying thanks for clearing that up for me. Yeah, I agree though I would also certainly argue that the founders setting up the constitution the way they did was at least in part with the idea of securing rights and liberties even if they don't explicitly state this as their reason in the constitution.

[Shnercropolis]

Reminds me of this. http://wondermark.com/1k20/

meh, I'm ok with dogs being modified infants, I mean honestly which is cuter a baby or a puppy?

A puppy. /subject

[Seleucas]

... 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.)



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.



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.

It means 'it should be obvious' (hence, self-evident, needing no further explanation.) But that is an appeal to common sense, which is not a logical argument.

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.

A branch of common philosophy and political beliefs of the day, but it was not the only philosophical theory. In any case, they did not succeed in arguing the superiority of their position versus virtual representation (they simply stated it was 'obvious'), and, therefore, did not succeed in justifying their actions.

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

Because their claims of the 'tyranny' of King George are either so vague as to be unfalsifiable, heavily skewed, or outright false; basically, propagandistic rendering of current events.

[Islamic republiq of Julundar]

Declaration of Independence is Patrioticq propaganda, that is what it is there for.

Constitution is a list of rules for organizing the Republic.
That is why it is a totally different document.

[Bezombia]

Declaration of Independence is Patrioticq propaganda, that is what it is there for.

Constitution is a list of rules for organizing the Republic.
That is why it is a totally different document.

Why did you make your font larger?

[Seleucas]

Declaration of Independence is Patrioticq propaganda, that is what it is there for.

Constitution is a list of rules for organizing the Republic.
That is why it is a totally different document.

Yes... I was stating that the connection was that the DoI was Patriotic propaganda so as to set up a new political organization (indirectly and eventually, the Constitution), as opposed to either of the documents being some enshrining of human rights.

[Mkuki]

Yes, I do think and believe that the United States Constitution is the valid constitution of the United States.

[SD_Film Artists]

It's good that America has a non-partisan source to go on, but it's too often used as an objection to things for no further reason than "it's unconstitutional" (regardless of whether it really is against the constitution or not), which creates lazy debates.

[Distruzio]

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,

Incorrect. The purpose of the document is to define the federal government.

Society is something separate.

[Scomagia]

It's valid because the citizens of The United States accept it as valid.

[Dyakovo]

Is the American constitution valid?

Yes.
Thus ends another episode of simple answers for stupid questions.

[Pilotto]

Is the American constitution valid?

Yes.
Thus ends another episode of simple answers for stupid questions.

[Juggalo world]

Yes who the fuck would argue that it's not a valid document?

[Dyakovo]

Yes who the fuck would argue that it's not a valid document?

The OP, obviously...

[MERIZoC]

Valid is such a loose term. What about "Is it a good set of rules to base our country around?" Eh. I don't have much opinion on the Constitution. Some of the things in there I like, some I don't like. But I feel that the Constitution shouldn't get in the way of making morally right decisions.

[Pilotto]

But I feel that the Constitution shouldn't get in the way of making morally right decisions.

So what? The law can be disregarded when you want them to be? Then they're not laws.

[Juggalo world]

Yes who the fuck would argue that it's not a valid document?

The OP, obviously...

Fair enough lemme rephrase that
"Who,the fuck in their rift minds would argue that it's not a valid document"
Better?

[Islamic republiq of Julundar]

But I feel that the Constitution shouldn't get in the way of making morally right decisions.

So what? The law can be disregarded when you want them to be? Then they're not laws.

Morality and Law rarely coincide. Do the right thing, break the Law. Then you got 5 choices: deliberately get yourself arrested and be a martyr for the cause of changing the Law; overthrow the Constitution by armed force; say "A bigger boy did it and ran away."

[Dyakovo]

The OP, obviously...

Fair enough lemme rephrase that
"Who,the fuck in their rift minds would argue that it's not a valid document"
Better?

Ummm....
<.<
>.>
Not the OP?

[The Emerald Legion]

But it is still their duty. I don't get government benefits but I pay anyways.

The government openly persecuted them for obeying their religion, bottom line. The government openly persecuted anarchists and communists for their views. The government openly persecuted blacks and natives for their race.
Somehow, the constitution never prevented these things, but we view it as valid.

And why wouldn't we? Their religion is irrelevant to their duty to the government. Anarchy is stupid, and Communism had about as good PR at the time as Nazism, particularly given the whole "Global Revolution" thing they had going on, there was good reason to be suspicious of communists. And it didn't persecute natives for their race, but for their lands. It was a conquest, not a racial cleansing.

And racism once existed and wasn't top tier evil yet because people didn't understand anything yet. Boo Hoo.

[Meeptopian Empire]

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.

This is the first time I have seen reason to post to the forums. Jamal, I am just going to call you this for simplicity's sake, Jamal the question you posted is a decent one in the proper context, however the context you are putting it in is for the most part ignorant and foolish. The way these accusations were phrased was poor at best; the constitution does not "grant" anyone rights, it is a legal document created affirm the natural rights of people and to limit the government's ability to decrease said rights. The trouble with the anarchists and the communists is that they are groups of people who advocate for the violent overthrow of the government, this is not a form of protected speech (See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_502 ). As to the slavery aspect, until the 14th amendment slavery was still considered legal as well as slaves being considered "subhuman" at the time and each slave was only considered 3/5ths of a man thanks to the 3/5ths compromise, which without it a slave would have been considered 0/5ths of a man. As to the natives, they were for the most part considered hostile savages for the majority of the time. As a parting statement I would ask that you please read the constitution more fully before making a comment similar to this one, as it reflects poorly on you. Another suggestion I have is that if you are a U.S. citizen it would be a good idea to get a copy of "The Constitution of the United States, with Index, and the Declaration of Independence", which is basically a pocket constitution, this book is a good quick reference source (I got mine from my U.S. Government teacher who is a Madison Fellow, meaning he is a member of the James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation which is the group that provides him with lots of copies of this book to give to his students. (Link http://www.jamesmadison.gov/))