The US Constitution

[iflyboats]

Is am engaged in a debate with a friend who is a strict constitutionalist. It seems to me that the utlimate authority for human action is a rational code of morality, not a written document. Is it moral, therefore, to disregard the constitution where it contains flaws? Or is the Constitution morally binding even when it is wrong? Does it matter that politicians have been shitting on the Constitution for over a century now, and that it is sometimes practically necessary to violate the constitution in order to approximate the best course of action? Would it be moral, for example, for the President to orden the bombing of Iran without a declation of war by Congress?

Edited January 10, 2011 by iflyboats

[CapitalistSwine]

I would say the Constitution should be adhered to until proper reform of its flaws is possible, thats a complex thing and someone else may elaborate on it if they wish, but a standard of justice must be kept, or at the least attempted, and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. There is an amendment process for a reason, and although many say the process is difficult (and frankly it should be) historically speaking most amendments were swept through quickly and with popular support if I am remembering correcting. That of course does not make those amendments automatically good ones. Putting aside my personal belief (which is not popular here) that attacking Iran would severely weaken this country military, politically, and particularly economically, the issue of who should have authority and when with regard to war and the final command of the armed forces has been a long-standing debate. If one has to choose I would prefer the safer options, i.e. Congress, as was is a very serious matter. The US in particular has had a history of brazenly entering wars or even entering them on falsities on more than one occasion. At the same time, things should be structured so that we may effectively retaliate quickly if need be. Another interesting spin on this whole thing is there is such as thing as making things illegal and then allowing pardons after the fact if the judgement was deemed to have been a sensible one.

Edited January 10, 2011 by CapitalistSwine

[Dante]

Certainly citizens of this country have no inherent duty to adhere to the Constitution, but I believe that overall the Constitution provides a rational method for settling debates between the different branches of government. Even if, at any point in time, Congress is inappropriately tentative in its war declarations while the executive branch would be willing to be more aggressive, this is not conclusive evidence that the Constitutional war-making process is flawed in any way. There must always be a predetermined method for declaring war on other countries, regardless of which way certain branches of the current government lean today. Such an objective decision-making process is in the self-interest of every citizen of the United States, and the Constitution provides as good a decision-making process as any other.

Edited January 10, 2011 by Dante

[Grames]

Or is the Constitution morally binding even when it is wrong?

I don't understand how anyone could ever ask this question. The U.S. Constitution is a legal document about the organization of a government, it is only ever legally binding. If you don't know the distinction between a moral code and a legal code you will never get your thinking straight.

[iflyboats]

The U.S. Constitution is a legal document about the organization of a government, it is only ever legally binding. If you don't know the distinction between a moral code and a legal code you will never get your thinking straight.

Good point, but that was only a misuse of language on my part. I understand the distinction.

[Grames]

Good point, but that was only a misuse of language on my part. I understand the distinction.

You don't understand it if you can't remember it appropriately and apply it as needed.

Anyway, go see the Tara Smith articles linked in this thread for ammunition against your 'strict constitutionalist' debating opponent.

[iflyboats]

Anyway, go see the Tara Smith articles linked in this thread for ammunition against your 'strict constitutionalist' debating opponent.

Thank you.