hobbit said:
bdbdbd said:
hobbit said:
bdbdbd said:
hobbit said:
bdbdbd said:
"Need for the constitution to change accordingly with the change in society"
Captain obvious strikes again. That's called democracy. |
good thing we live in a Republic and all our states are republics. Seriously, how can one wish to change the document that tells the government how to run and what they can't do to us, on a social whim? That's why its really hard to change it.; unless you get judges that will destroy its meaning.
|
If the minority wants to change it, then there's no problems. Democracy happens. If majority wants to change it, but it won't be changed because the paper says not to. Then, democracy doesn't happen. I can't imagine a situation where constitution would run over the majoritys will. In an extreme case, the constitution will be overrun by force.
|
again its a good thing we live in a Republic then. ITs not like we can't have spending bills and laws without changing the constitution. All the constitution does is tell the government how to run and what they can't do to us.
|
You don't now understand how stuff works. It doesn't matter whether there's a paper that tells you what to do. Once the majority of people is backing you, you can wipe your ass with the said paper. The case is a little similar to what happened in 1861-1865 in USA. Majority wanted to get rid of the slavery.
|
lol what? the civil war was started because Lincoln wanted to use the power of the President to take away states rights. The southern states jumped the gun and started a war instead of fighting it in court. And yes in The usa we follow the constitution, just wait until the health care case gets to the Supreme Court to see this. If a majority ever got big enough that they could replace the constitution then you will see the usa break apart again.
|
Well, if the health care case goes to supreme court and bounces back because it's against the constitution, the constitution needs to be changed in order for it to match the peoples will. Anything else is just madness.
USA didn't break apart, technically speaking. If i'm not mistaken, the southern states are still a part of USA, they just lost the civil war.
Breaking apart doesn't mean that there would be states supporting this and states supporting that. It would likely be a mixed bag of people inside the states supporting X or not supporting. However, who's in control of military forces? The elected government or the opposition?
When someone is talking about the need to change the constitution as times pass, the someone is essentially talking about preventing a situation where people go to arms to run their will.
