args

The constitution should be interpreted based on what it would mean if it was written today.

I apologize for my failure to post last round. The time to post was far less then I had anticipated, and I neglected to ensure that it was indeed the three days I am used to. As a result, I gladly concede the conduct point to my opponent, but would ask my arguments be considered regardless. Constitution: The time to post was far less then I had anticipated, and I neglected to ensure that it was indeed the three days I am used to. As a result, I gladly concede the conduct point to my opponent, but would ask my arguments be considered regardless. Constitution: Universal Law The primary contention my opponent operates on in his case is that the Constitution is not eternal; it can be and has been outdated, and should be replaced by a modern alternatives. This is patently, by its very meaning, false. The definition of "Constitution" is "a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed." (1) The very concept of a Constitution amounts to a groundwork of a legal system that does not change, hence why the Constitution of the United States is so vague. Laws are meant to adapt, but a Constitution holds the basic tenants which laws shall not ever break. The reason the Ten Commandments could never be instilled into a society is because they attempt to take matters that should be legal issues, and turn them into a Constitution. Times may change; in the 1700s, Tories and Christian oppressors were the threats, and now it has become Fascists and Islamic Extremists. But the Constituion holds true. Free speech will not be restricted, and in this way, the Constitution is eternal. Because ultimately the Constituon will adapt, due to it being not a series of laws, but a series of rules laws must be based on. So, I must ask. Which of the 27 amendments in our noble consitution would my opponent see "re-interpreted"? Which article no longer holds true in the modern world? Free speech? Trial by jury? No restriction on voting rights? I challenge my opponent to raise a single grievance with an amendment that can be resolved simply by recontextualizing the writing. The Constitution simply need not change. However, were there ever to be a legitimate complaint against a section of the document, there are processes which which it could be solved. For example, by very heavy majority, it is technically possible to have amendments eliminated, added, or altered by popular vote or congress. But to suggest that the solution is merely to interpret the Constitution differently to somehow adhere universal rules to the contemporary world is puerile. The Constitution is interpreted as to constrain the abuses of law-makers and the flaws in the political system. Opening it up to any theory or analyzation will result in chaos, and whomever makes those decisions holds uncontrollable and irreconcible power, I have few characters remaining, so I will leave my rebuttals here. Good luck to my opponent in future rounds, and I apologize once again. (1) http://dictionary.reference.com...