Jump to content


Photo

The Constitution Is Outdated!


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#21 Landon

Landon

    The Main Character

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,479 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SATX

Posted 04 February 2013 - 08:08 PM

The Constitution isn't outdated. Humans are outdated. Robots would be able to process and interpret it way better than us. Update the populace!

#22 sirmethos

sirmethos

    A Man of the People

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

Posted 05 February 2013 - 06:01 AM

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like an idiot who overlooks the entire point of the Constitution, and why it's written like that, namely so it's NOT outdated. Seriously though, this is an argument for the exact other side, and has nothing to do with how the Constitution is outdated.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.


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 However, the paper is to compare and contrast why the Constitution is outdated.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!


1. The fact that something can be used as an argument for one side, does not mean that it can't also be used as an argument for the other side. As nicely demonstrated by my example with the 1st amendment.

2. That it was written like that for a specific purpose(namely, to avoid it becoming outdated), is not, in any way, an argument against it being outdated.

The vagueness of the language, along with the fact that it is the most difficult to amend of any constitution currently existing in the world, are some of the main things that actual authorities(law scholars, Supreme Court Justices, etc) from all over the world, point to, when explaining why the American Constitution is outdated, and why other countries that are in the process of making a new constitution, no longer look to the American constitution for inspiration.

Also @Force, you seem to have completely ignored the two examples I made, as well as the two quotes(from Thomas Jefferson, and the American Supreme Court Justice).

#23 silversurfer092

silversurfer092

    Yeezus

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

Posted 05 February 2013 - 10:09 AM

I'd have to disagree. With the vague wording, it can be used to say it is not outdated. It's vague, so it can be stretched to fit whatever someone else needs. For example, the President article. Teddy Roosevelt did whatever he wanted that wasn't expressly forbidden by the Constitution. Taft went the other way and did whatever the Constitution said he could. Roosevelt was very liberal with his translation, Taft was not. So the vague wording is there so that as the times change, so too does the interpretation.

#24 sirmethos

sirmethos

    A Man of the People

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

Posted 05 February 2013 - 12:30 PM

I'd have to disagree. With the vague wording, it can be used to say it is not outdated. It's vague, so it can be stretched to fit whatever someone else needs. For example, the President article. Teddy Roosevelt did whatever he wanted that wasn't expressly forbidden by the Constitution. Taft went the other way and did whatever the Constitution said he could. Roosevelt was very liberal with his translation, Taft was not. So the vague wording is there so that as the times change, so too does the interpretation.


And again, the fact that it can be used as an argument for one side of the debate, does not, in any way, mean that it is not also a valid argument for the other side of the debate.

#25 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 05 February 2013 - 03:47 PM

1. The fact that something can be used as an argument for one side, does not mean that it can't also be used as an argument for the other side. As nicely demonstrated by my example with the 1st amendment.

2. That it was written like that for a specific purpose(namely, to avoid it becoming outdated), is not, in any way, an argument against it being outdated.

The vagueness of the language, along with the fact that it is the most difficult to amend of any constitution currently existing in the world, are some of the main things that actual authorities(law scholars, Supreme Court Justices, etc) from all over the world, point to, when explaining why the American Constitution is outdated, and why other countries that are in the process of making a new constitution, no longer look to the American constitution for inspiration.

Also @Force, you seem to have completely ignored the two examples I made, as well as the two quotes(from Thomas Jefferson, and the American Supreme Court Justice).

No, it cannot be used as an argument for "the other side" because the vagueness of the Constitution has nothing to do with whether it is outdated or not. You can't argue how the singular measure of why the Constitution is NOT outdated as an example of why it is without sounding like a complete dumbass. Like I said before, it is an argument for the other side, and it's definitely not an argument for both sides, since that doesn't make any sense.

Yeah, maybe that's because your two examples serve to illustrate a point that doesn't make any sense, and the two quotes, by seemingly your own admission, have nothing to do with the rest of what you said.

#26 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 05 February 2013 - 03:50 PM

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

Do you even know what that means? Taking off for using the complete WRONG point for an argument isn't anal retentive, because it's not a minor detail, it's literally that the entire foundation of your argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users