Jump to content


Photo

The Constitution Is Outdated!


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 silversurfer092

silversurfer092

    Yeezus

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,631 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 February 2013 - 02:36 PM

READ THIS FIRST PLEASE!!


I am not trying to start a debate. Rather, I'm writing a 5 page paper on why the Constitution is outdated. This is for an easy as shit class and I don't think we need to cite our sources. So please, people, throw some shit out as to why you think the Constitution is outdated. Even if you think it isn't, if there is a way you could see it as being outdated, throw it out here. I know some of you people are smart (looking at you sirmethos/kain, force), so help me out here.

#2 Pseudonym

Pseudonym

    Aqualad

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,845 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 February 2013 - 02:48 PM

It's been a while. The world has changed.

#3 force_echo

force_echo

    Pretentious, Obnoxious, Annoying...humanity's last hope

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC
  • Interests:Anything Interesting

Posted 03 February 2013 - 02:53 PM

Well, in any discussion about why the Constitution is outdated, you have to keep in mind that the Founding Fathers KNEW it was going to be outdated. That's why they structured it the way they did, to allow for revision and updating. Only 1 thing can't be currently changed in the constitution- how the states are represented in the senate and house. The beauty of the document is the fact that it transcends all ages and situations in its approach while keeping the fact that the control and fate of the nation lies with its people...not its government. So, I would put that in my paper.

The need to keep a militia might be considered a fairly outdated concept in the constitution. An argument can be made about how the electoral college is outdated. An argument can be made that it's too hard to get rid of an incompetent president and that the constitution is too hard to revise.

#4 deojusto

deojusto

    I am One with the Ferret.

  • FPL Undercards Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,023 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

Posted 03 February 2013 - 02:54 PM

Why should we write your paper for you?

#5 silversurfer092

silversurfer092

    Yeezus

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,631 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 February 2013 - 02:57 PM

Why should we write your paper for you?


Sweet dude.

#6 Nova Force Nova

Nova Force Nova

    Deadpan Snarker

  • CBUB Character Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,957 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A couch near you.
  • Interests:Interesting stuff.

Posted 03 February 2013 - 03:12 PM

It was written in a time of wooden teeth and when people could be considered property?

#7 FoxFingers

FoxFingers

    webmaster

  • Electric Ferret
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,491 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 February 2013 - 03:27 PM

White wigs, knee socks and platform buckled shoes are also outdated... which is too bad really. WE NEED TO BRING BACK TEH SEXY!

#8 silversurfer092

silversurfer092

    Yeezus

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,631 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 February 2013 - 03:29 PM

I did like the Pony Express...

#9 Dinsdale Piranha

Dinsdale Piranha

    Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,136 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Far away

Posted 03 February 2013 - 03:50 PM

(He wasn't looking at me :( )

#10 M Bison

M Bison

    Cool dude

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,385 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester, England

Posted 03 February 2013 - 04:22 PM

You don't need to cite sources? What madness is this?

#11 silversurfer092

silversurfer092

    Yeezus

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,631 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 February 2013 - 04:52 PM

You don't understand the easiness of this class. I was supposed to give a detailed, 15 minute presentation. I gave a 2 minute presentation on an article I didn't read. Still got full credit.

#12 Darxeth

Darxeth

    Nuking the site from orbit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Raccoon City

Posted 03 February 2013 - 04:54 PM

Wow. Really?
I had to cite my sources for a presentation about Albino people in 7th grade.

#13 Ruinus

Ruinus

    Plebiscite Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SupaFreedomland AKA USA
  • Interests:Star Wars, Guilty Gear, Guns N' Roses, astronomy, school, English, reading, science fiction, drawing, video games and playing guitar.

Posted 03 February 2013 - 06:21 PM

I'd argue that it is outdated because, rather than being rewritten constantly to include in all the Amendments, we keep the same old format. Consider the Fourteenth and Nineteenth Amemdents, the first which overturned the ruling that blacks could not be citizens, and the second that gave women the right to vote. As it stands right now the Constitution sorta reads like this:

You cannot bar any citizen from voting.

PS Blacks can be citizens.
PSS Oh, also women can also vote.


It should be rewritten to take into account all the Amendments to be something like:

Any person regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, gender, religion etc. etc., born in the US or passing a citizenship test, can become a citizen. You cannot bar any US citizen from voting.


So we should rewrite the entire Constitution with all the Amendments written into the actual body of the Constitution. And, if in another 200 years or whatever we end up with 20+ new Amendments we write it over again.

#14 Darxeth

Darxeth

    Nuking the site from orbit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Raccoon City

Posted 03 February 2013 - 06:25 PM

I'd argue that it is outdated because, rather than being rewritten constantly to include in all the Amendments, we keep the same old format. Consider the Fourteenth and Nineteenth Amemdents, the first which overturned the ruling that blacks could not be citizens, and the second that gave women the right to vote. As it stands right now the Constitution sorta reads like this:



It should be rewritten to take into account all the Amendments to be something like:



So we should rewrite the entire Constitution with all the Amendments written into the actual body of the Constitution. And, if in another 200 years or whatever we end up with 20+ new Amendments we write it over again.


I like that idea.

#15 sirmethos

sirmethos

    A Man of the People

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,142 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denmark

Posted 03 February 2013 - 06:48 PM

The very first thing I would point to, in arguing that the constitution is outdated, is the vagueness of the language in it.

The fact that it is so vague in its wording, makes it ambiguous, and makes it possible for opposing sides to point at the constitution and say "see! the constitution says we're right", while preaching their own interpretation.

The most notable being the first and second amendments.

From the first: "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."

and "no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."(article 6)

Those that speak for the separation of church and state, point to those, and use them as part of their argument.

While those that are against the separation of church and state, point to the fact that "separation of church and state" is not written directly, and claim that it was written to protect the church from the government, instead of the other way around.

Personally, I think that's the number one example of why the constitution is outdated.


If we look at the second: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

1. There is no way the founding fathers had modern weaponry in mind, when writing this.
2. Again, vague language. What, exactly, does "a well regulated militia" mean?

Pro-gun people, point to that to defend their right to own literally any weapons, from handguns to grenade launchers. And yet they never talk about "a militia", but focus purely on "the right of the people to kee and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Despite the fact that the necessity of a militia, is the direct qualifier for that right.



As a final note(though possibly slightly off topic):
1. Thomas Jefferson himself, wrote that any law or constitution, naturally expires after 34 years(my memory is not perfect, so the number might be slightly off).
2. A Supreme Court Justice, said in an interview last year: “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.”

#16 force_echo

force_echo

    Pretentious, Obnoxious, Annoying...humanity's last hope

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC
  • Interests:Anything Interesting

Posted 04 February 2013 - 04:27 PM

The very first thing I would point to, in arguing that the constitution is outdated, is the vagueness of the language in it.

The fact that it is so vague in its wording, makes it ambiguous, and makes it possible for opposing sides to point at the constitution and say "see! the constitution says we're right", while preaching their own interpretation.

Yes, argue this if you want to look like an idiot who overlooks the entire point of the Constitution, and why it's written like that, namely so it's NOT outdated. Seriously though, this is an argument for the exact other side, and has nothing to do with how the Constitution is outdated. My 8th grade teacher wouldn't have accepted that argument, I'm assuming a college professor won't either.

#17 corvette1710

corvette1710

    The Bastard Child of Sarcasm and Hypocrisy

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,202 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mansion, Pluto
  • Interests:Stuff. Durr.

Posted 04 February 2013 - 04:39 PM

Your eighth grade history teacher must've been anal retentive.

#18 FoxFingers

FoxFingers

    webmaster

  • Electric Ferret
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,491 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 February 2013 - 05:02 PM

My 8th grade teacher wouldn't have accepted that argument, I'm assuming a college professor won't either.


You may be giving college professors a weeee bit too much credit there.

#19 bigballerju

bigballerju

    The Last Son of Krypton

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,316 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hollywood, Florida
  • Interests:Sports, Women, Comics, Games, Music, Clubs, Movies, and more.

Posted 04 February 2013 - 05:08 PM

I understand what Methos is trying to say. He may be talking about how the amendments and other articles lack detail in explaining the rights or what you may not do. The freedom of speech is often used because it's vague enough where people on either side could use it to there advantage. One could argue the first amendments are outdated in the sense they don't fully explain the right or what your forbidden to do. Although if you were to use a arguement such as this you better make sure it's real good and I would cite sources depending on whether your in college or not. Being that I am in college if I were doing it I would look over the constitution, cite some sources, back up your arguements, and not try to half ass it. Plenty of arguements as to why it can be outdated. So far Force Echo and Ruinus brought up good points in there posts. The founding fathers knew it would be outdated in the future hence why it can be changed in some parts, updated, and more.

Some college professors might accept Metho's arguement depending on how he went about explaining it and backing it up. Others would find it unacceptable.

#20 silversurfer092

silversurfer092

    Yeezus

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,631 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 February 2013 - 07:39 PM

You may be giving college professors a weeee bit too much credit there.


Especially this one. We got let out of class early because it was too windy outside. There was a project where we were supposed to make cultural food of our ancestors or some shit. I walked in with my iPod, played U2, Flogging Molly, and Gaelic Storm and said "Here's how Irish music has evolved". Got an A+.

As for methos's argument, force is actually right on that one. The vague wording is a better argument for why the Constitution is still viable. However, the paper is to compare and contrast why the Constitution is outdated. So it can still go in the paper!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users