Well, I've been going in-depth into the U.S. Constitution, and was wondering if anyone had some insight on the subject.
I ask this question because, although I'm just a Middle School student, I see that the U.S. Constitution writers' wrote the Constitution in a way that could be changed, or revised enough to fix future issues, but it seems this hasn't been properly put to use.
One reason why I THINK this is hasn't been put to use is the redundant laws, bills, etc. that are still in use today. They wrote the Constitution over two hundred years ago, and we still use it (the current Constitution, NOT the Articles of Confederacy), with nothing, but miniscule changes.
I believe we need to go through I figure out what was made for THEN, and what we need NOW. Some laws, implied rights, bills, and even parts of the governmental branch seem useless, maybe even counterproductive to todays standards.
Remember, this could be absolute BS what I am saying, due to this is just what I'm seeing the U.S. Constitution as a Middle School student/child.
If you would like to open my eyes to anything, please do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Will be changed at some point, I'm too lazy right now.
Um... There is no need to open your eyes for anything. I would recommend continuing your education in government, politics, law, and the judicial system because only then will you understand how the Constitution really works. I am not trying to sound rude here, but to be taken seriously in this type of discussion would really require a lot of background knowledge on your part.
Just wait until high school.
Edit: If you want me to explain to you stuff, just ask, but I would rather not (takes away about 1 hour of my life )
I ask this question because, although I'm just a Middle School student, I see that the U.S. Constitution writers' wrote the Constitution in a way that could be changed, or revised enough to fix future issues, but it seems this hasn't been properly put to use.
You're referring to the amendments. And yes, those have been put to good use.
One reason why I THINK this is hasn't been put to use is the redundant laws, bills, etc. that are still in use today.
I guess I'll require you to be more specific here. I won't let you get away with just saying they're redundant without saying how. And don't get constitutional law confused with every other law in the system from state to local municipal laws.
They wrote the Constitution over two hundred years ago, and we still use it (the current Constitution, NOT the Articles of Confederacy), with nothing, but miniscule changes.
If you're just saying then that the Constitution is anachronistic, well in many ways that is true. Its main purpose was to guarantee people with rights the authors felt should be inalienable. And as clever a document as it was for its time, even the guys who wrote couldn't have the foresight to make it hold up forever in a changing world. Therefor they made it possible for amendments to be made to it pending a specific legislative process.
As for amendments that many people feel are obsolete, such as the 2nd Amendment, that is more often a political issue now than just a constitutional one. Different sides of the political spectrum use amendments of the Constitution to evoke political statements and create wedges between people. I mean, there are times when constitutional rights of yours really are violated or at least threatened. And some people, not just for political purposes fight to protect those rights.
I believe we need to go through I figure out what was made for THEN, and what we need NOW. Some laws, implied rights, bills, and even parts of the governmental branch seem useless, maybe even counterproductive to todays standards.
That's really asking a lot. And it's not like Congress which makes up the legislative branch would ever admit to being largely ineffective and saying, "Okay guys, let's pass a law that says we cannot exist anymore." And the Supreme Court which makes up the judicial branch certainly wouldn't do anything either to jeopardize their existence. But just because we get angry at our branches of government for being ineffective or completely incompetent, that doesn't mean we should just try to get rid of them. For one reason, you never ever can get rid of them. And another, having nothing there instead of at least something just means even less would probably get done. Government is an ongoing experiment. For the U.S. anyway, its Constitution is the framework and guideline of how to proceed in government. We're always trying to do what we think may improve things, but there isn't just one we. There are several we's, partisan groups, differing ideologies, political parties, specials interests, all groups that assert themselves in keeping things the way they feel things should be.
Remember, this could be absolute BS what I am saying, due to this is just what I'm seeing the U.S. Constitution as a Middle School student/child.
Eh, you're asking the right questions though. At a glance, there really are things about the Constitution that don't make much sense. But I believe anyway, that it does more good than not. If not in its entirety than at least specific things that guarantee important freedoms. People may argue, "Nuh uh! Your freedoms are violated even with the Constitution in place!" Don't listen to those people. Cause what is their solution to that? They don't have one. The Constitution does only what it can to protect people's rights. But it can't stop people in power from totally getting around it, breaking the law, breaking the Constitution. Obviously the Constitution would work better if people were more honest and not so divided. People have different interpretations in the Constitution. This is what the study of law is all about. If you ever want to really bore yourself, sit through a Con law class and listen to aspiring lawyer students conduct moot courts and argue how the wording of a single fucking sentence is actually why they ARE innocent and NOT guilty.
See, some people want to believe in a literal interpretation of the Constitution. I'm not sure there is such a thing because the phrase literal interpretation itself seems like an oxymoron.
I ask this question because, although I'm just a Middle School student, I see that the U.S. Constitution writers' wrote the Constitution in a way that could be changed, or revised enough to fix future issues, but it seems this hasn't been properly put to use.
One reason why I THINK this is hasn't been put to use is the redundant laws, bills, etc. that are still in use today. They wrote the Constitution over two hundred years ago, and we still use it (the current Constitution, NOT the Articles of Confederacy), with nothing, but miniscule changes.
I believe we need to go through I figure out what was made for THEN, and what we need NOW. Some laws, implied rights, bills, and even parts of the governmental branch seem useless, maybe even counterproductive to todays standards.
Remember, this could be absolute BS what I am saying, due to this is just what I'm seeing the U.S. Constitution as a Middle School student/child.
If you would like to open my eyes to anything, please do.
Just wait until high school.
Edit: If you want me to explain to you stuff, just ask, but I would rather not (takes away about 1 hour of my life )
I guess I'll require you to be more specific here. I won't let you get away with just saying they're redundant without saying how. And don't get constitutional law confused with every other law in the system from state to local municipal laws.
If you're just saying then that the Constitution is anachronistic, well in many ways that is true. Its main purpose was to guarantee people with rights the authors felt should be inalienable. And as clever a document as it was for its time, even the guys who wrote couldn't have the foresight to make it hold up forever in a changing world. Therefor they made it possible for amendments to be made to it pending a specific legislative process.
As for amendments that many people feel are obsolete, such as the 2nd Amendment, that is more often a political issue now than just a constitutional one. Different sides of the political spectrum use amendments of the Constitution to evoke political statements and create wedges between people. I mean, there are times when constitutional rights of yours really are violated or at least threatened. And some people, not just for political purposes fight to protect those rights.
That's really asking a lot. And it's not like Congress which makes up the legislative branch would ever admit to being largely ineffective and saying, "Okay guys, let's pass a law that says we cannot exist anymore." And the Supreme Court which makes up the judicial branch certainly wouldn't do anything either to jeopardize their existence. But just because we get angry at our branches of government for being ineffective or completely incompetent, that doesn't mean we should just try to get rid of them. For one reason, you never ever can get rid of them. And another, having nothing there instead of at least something just means even less would probably get done. Government is an ongoing experiment. For the U.S. anyway, its Constitution is the framework and guideline of how to proceed in government. We're always trying to do what we think may improve things, but there isn't just one we. There are several we's, partisan groups, differing ideologies, political parties, specials interests, all groups that assert themselves in keeping things the way they feel things should be.
Eh, you're asking the right questions though. At a glance, there really are things about the Constitution that don't make much sense. But I believe anyway, that it does more good than not. If not in its entirety than at least specific things that guarantee important freedoms. People may argue, "Nuh uh! Your freedoms are violated even with the Constitution in place!" Don't listen to those people. Cause what is their solution to that? They don't have one. The Constitution does only what it can to protect people's rights. But it can't stop people in power from totally getting around it, breaking the law, breaking the Constitution. Obviously the Constitution would work better if people were more honest and not so divided. People have different interpretations in the Constitution. This is what the study of law is all about. If you ever want to really bore yourself, sit through a Con law class and listen to aspiring lawyer students conduct moot courts and argue how the wording of a single fucking sentence is actually why they ARE innocent and NOT guilty.
See, some people want to believe in a literal interpretation of the Constitution. I'm not sure there is such a thing because the phrase literal interpretation itself seems like an oxymoron.
If I can open your eyes to anything, avoid majoring in political science.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Note taken.
Thanks for basiclly answering my question BTW, to both of you.