Category: Politics
The Constitution is and was meant to be a living document.
This debate began on Wednesday, June 25, 2008, 12:46:54 PM Pacific Time.
| Who Won This Debate? | ||||
 1 Vote |
12 Votes |
|||
Versus |
||||
Pro ~ Round 1
The U.S. Constitution is and was intended by the Founding Fathers to be a "living" document, that is, they intended for it to change with the times, and it does. As an opponent, I would like you to attempt to prove that the Constitution should be interpreted exactly as it was written and that it should not be a "living" document.
The U.S. Constitution is and was intended by the Founding Fathers to be a "living" document, that is, they intended for it to change with the times, and it does. As an opponent, I would like you to attempt to prove that the Constitution should be interpreted exactly as it was written and that it should not be a "living" document.
Con ~ Round 1
Thank you for this debate.
No I'll start off by pointing out that my opponent says that a living document changes with the times. However, this cannot be how the framers meant as a type of law system.
Take this example: In the distant future, "freedom of speech" is defined as "you can say anything you want, as long as it is not criticizing the government". Now obviously, you can tell that the framers meant for a right to criticize the government. However, if this "changed with the times", the new times would take away that right.
My opponent is correct, however; the Constitution is a living document - but not for the definition he gave. A "living document" is a document that can be changed , or amended in our case. This allows for the formation of new laws and the altering of old ones. But with the definition my opponent used, the Constitution is not living, because it was not meant to "change with the times".
Thank you for this debate.
No I'll start off by pointing out that my opponent says that a living document changes with the times. However, this cannot be how the framers meant as a type of law system.
Take this example: In the distant future, "freedom of speech" is defined as "you can say anything you want, as long as it is not criticizing the government". Now obviously, you can tell that the framers meant for a right to criticize the government. However, if this "changed with the times", the new times would take away that right.
My opponent is correct, however; the Constitution is a living document - but not for the definition he gave. A "living document" is a document that can be changed , or amended in our case. This allows for the formation of new laws and the altering of old ones. But with the definition my opponent used, the Constitution is not living, because it was not meant to "change with the times".
Pro ~ Round 2
Sorry, what i should say is "can be changed with the times", obviously it does not mean that the Constitution just changes automatically, but that it can and should be amended to reflect the times. I was looking for someone who believes that the constitution should not be "interpreted" and should be taken "literally". That said, let's get debatin'.
Sorry, what i should say is "can be changed with the times", obviously it does not mean that the Constitution just changes automatically, but that it can and should be amended to reflect the times. I was looking for someone who believes that the constitution should not be "interpreted" and should be taken "literally". That said, let's get debatin'.
Con ~ Round 2
Well, my previous points still apply to that. I actually thought you meant "can be changed with the times", so . . . yeah. Extend all my points I guess? Anyway, the "living" part of the Constitution is that it can be amended.
Well, my previous points still apply to that. I actually thought you meant "can be changed with the times", so . . . yeah. Extend all my points I guess? Anyway, the "living" part of the Constitution is that it can be amended.
Pro ~ Round 3
okay, just forget this debate, it's turning out to be a lot suckier than i thought. 100characters 100 characters
okay, just forget this debate, it's turning out to be a lot suckier than i thought. 100characters 100 characters
Con ~ Round 3
Okay...
Extand all my p100 CHARACTERS 100 CHARACTERS 100 CHARACTERS 100 CHARACTERS 100 CHARACTERS 100 CHARACTERS
Okay...
Extand all my p100 CHARACTERS 100 CHARACTERS 100 CHARACTERS 100 CHARACTERS 100 CHARACTERS 100 CHARACTERS
Member Comments (10)
Only members can post comments.
Killer: But if I was Communist, I would say so in my profile where it says political party or whatever. Or something.
surfride: That still doesn't address my main point, which is that the term "living document" refers to the process of adding amendments, not interpreting it.
surfride: That still doesn't address my main point, which is that the term "living document" refers to the process of adding amendments, not interpreting it.
1 Month Ago
Imagine my surprise, when I found that I logged on and my argument was posted without my logging on earlier. . .Upon questioning my brother, I found that he had logged in and posted an "argument". Here is MY argument, sorry about the delay. I feel that Gahbage's argument is entirely based on grammar.
Of course the constitution is meant to change with the times. As the times change, so does people's desire for changes in laws, women's suffrage for example. The times demanded women's suffrage, and it was granted. The document changes, and the will of the people, which dictates what "the time" desires, is what changes the documet. Sorry again about the fake argument thing.
Of course the constitution is meant to change with the times. As the times change, so does people's desire for changes in laws, women's suffrage for example. The times demanded women's suffrage, and it was granted. The document changes, and the will of the people, which dictates what "the time" desires, is what changes the documet. Sorry again about the fake argument thing.
1 Month Ago
Gahbage, are you aware that the hammer and sickle on your picture makes you look like a communist?
1 Month Ago
Lol.
25 characters. 25 more characters.
25 characters. 25 more characters.
1 Month Ago
surfride reminds me of Cartman from South Park: "Screw you guys, I'm going home!"
Pretty childish.
Pretty childish.
1 Month Ago
I have a question that I have always wanted to ask a broad constructionist. If the founding fathers intended the constitution to be subject to broad and sweeping interpretations, both pliable and subject to future change, why on earth did they spend so much time agonizing over every last word and phrase? Furthermore, why did they include an amendment clause if they wanted us to just reinterpret it when the need arose?
1 Month Ago
Aha sorry. >.<
25 characters
25 characters
1 Month Ago
gotta say, this is turning out to be a bit lamer than i thought. . .i was sort of looking for an extreme conservative who hates Roe v. Wade and the like.
1 Month Ago
Wow . . . I posted before I was finished . . .
1 Month Ago
I can't type. >.< "No I'll start off..." should be "Now I'll start off..."
1 Month Ago
Copyright © 2007 WebCorp, LLC™, all rights reserved.