"I don't think too many people are against the idea that a country ought to have a constitution."

Except Sicarius.

Thuc, it doesn't matter how old it is. It's still in force and you have to go through a very long, unpleasant process to change that.

Dr, it's not my fault that you guys are too lazy to look up Constitutionalism. Why would I waste my valuable time to explain something that everyone should already know about?

I believe that we should give over control of the world to the dolphins. They're really smart and besides, who doesn't love dolphins?

Jesus Christ!! Go away, forum troll!!

(clapping)

Every time I read the subject of this thread, I read unprepared instead of prepared. It just sort of pops into my head. And everytime I read something knew in this thread from Diplofool, he proves that the unprepared in my head is the more accurate interpretation. <sigh>.

""I don't think too many people are against the idea that a country ought to have a constitution."

Except Sicarius."

Har har. I've given you a rational definition of constitutionalism, do something with it. Or are you busy grading midterms?

Draugnar, I read it that way, too.

Don't call me Jesus Christ please. Troll will suffice. Though I'm not really a troll and rarely comment but this particular thread always popping up at the side of my screen irritates me. If people want to babble about politics and religion aren't there more appropriate sites for this? Why can't this forum be about the game? I hate both subjects and I don't see why they should be here. I still prefer the dolphins to politicians or dieties.

I am pretty busy, but I'm referring to the political view of constitutionalism, not the literal definition.

How convenient. So what is the political view of constitutionalism, professor?

C-K,

I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to the Diplofool.

That a given government(in my case, the U.S. government) should follow their constitution word for word and not do anything aside from that.

So a government writes a constitution that has one word. Breathe, and you don't think it should help it's citizens? I know this is an extreme and higly unlikely example, but it makes a point that not every possibility can be accounted for in a document, even a living document that can be amended by the people as things will come up that prompt the amendment, but will need to be addressed before said amendment is written, voted on, and applied.

So while I agree that the U.S. Constitution shouldn't be outright ignored (as our courts have been want to do on occassion), I realize that somethings weren't thought of by the founding fathers or by the wise men who have set into motion the various amendments since. Considering a new amendment hasn't been submitted since 1971, that's a significant amount of time in the developed world (yes, I know the 27th was ratified in 1992, but it was originally proposed in 1789, 202 years earlier, and took forever to get ratified).

So what do you think we should do when wading into previously unheard of territory? Just ignore it and shove our collective heads in the sand? That's what constitutionalism would have you do.

So..once its down on paper and approved.... thats it.

forget about changing,adapting it, updating it, time stands still, nothing changes!
and the Reconstruction Amendments / 13th Amendment ?

What's this Ultrasonic Coniferous stuff?

Ok, NOW you've finally given us something to at least sort of work with. Your interpretation of "Constitutionalism" is an extremely strict reading of the constitution. I would argue for a somewhat looser reading of some sections than you probably would, but I'd still argue that I believe in "constitutionalism." You're going to have to get even more specific than that to get any sort of real debate going.

I don't advocate violating the Constitution in governance, and I don't think anyone here really seriously would. (Well maybe Sicarius, but he doesn't want any sort of government at all, so I'm not really sure how he fits into this conversation). Some things I would advocate for the government doing by my reading of the Constitution are perfectly permissible, but by yours might not be. The problem is that said document isn't always totally clear, and was being interpreted and argued over almost from the time it was written.

You're an idiot when it come to constitutional law, The_Master_Warrior.

"...follow their constitution word for word and not do anything aside from that."

Not everything the government does is explicitly in the Constitution. There's nothing in the Constitution which actually establishes the Cabinet, or the method for admitting new states, or a definition of what "advise and consent" for presidential appointments actually means. These have all been developed by the government later on, with the Constitution as a guide. If we followed the Constitution word-for-word as if it we were Biblical literalists, we couldn't have a peacetime military. That's authorized by acts of Congress and Executive Orders.

Your word-for-wordism is moronic. It's not at all like originalism, which holds that we should look to the history of the time when the Constitution was written to really undertand what it says. It's a far different thing to say the government should be limited by what is actually in the Constitution and not ridiculously expand on authority given there, and quite another that the explicitly written down powers are the only things a government can do. The necessary and proper clause of the Constitution itself even rejects your absurdly constrained theory!

He's an all-around idiot, Invictus. You don't have to specify the field. :-)

*Irrational*

Answer me! I couldn't be more clear or be asking in better faith.

hahaha
that's one of the better quotes from the threads

"ANSWER ME!"
-Invictus

"we couldn't have a peacetime military. That's authorized by acts of Congress and Executive Orders."

Bullshit. The Constitution give the government the responsibility of defending its citizens.

"I have a new political view and am prepared to defend it rationally and without foul language."

See, that sentence is completely ironic because not only have you not been able to defend your completely screwed version of Constitutionalism but there is a lot of foul language on these posts.

There is no way in hell that you can follow the constitution word by word and still have a functioning government because simply there are functions of the government that were not written for in the constituiton (the cabinet) that are necessary (the necessary and proper clause, duh!).

So much for no foul language.

The Constitution forbids a standing army, but we have one. The regular army is allowed to be deployed on US soil now, and the whole military apparatus, while technically different from a straight-up standing army academically, keeps its full war making potential in peacetime. That's not a value judgment either way, it's just an example of the consequences of a tortuously strict literalist reading of the Constitution.

"The Constitution forbids a standing army, but we have one."

Where?

Ah, now I see. You want a literal interpretation of the constitution but... you haven't actually read it. So what you want is a literal interpretation of what you *think* is in the constitution. Good luck with that.

The Patriot Act and the DMCA are constitutional based on what congressmen let lobbyists convince them is in the Constitution. If Congress can just ignore it when it passes laws with no repercussions from the court, why should the citizens be bothered to familiarize themselves?

@John Galt - Assuming that was directed at me, I would say perhaps you're right in general. But if you are advocating for an extremely strict reading of the constitution as the centerpiece of your political thought, I would assume you would want to familiarize yourself with the text.

Based on the amount of irrational post, I think my restraint in foul language is quite respectable.

I've read the Constitution word-for-word, from Preamble to Amendment 27.