DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**StizePypemype** · 10-22-2005, 01:08 PM

What is the US government and constitution if not a philosophical experimentation?

The US Government may be an 'experiment' as you put it, but the Constitition is an explicit legal document. It is not a 'guideline', it is the highest law of the land - nothing 'experimental' about that.

To me, it seems obvious what the prominent authors intended even if they were compelled to compromise their esoteric ideals in order to progress.

Indeed, what the "prominent authors intended" seems obvious and contradictory to a wide variety of people. That's why I'm inclined to concentrate on the text itself for the basis of law. Much more solid ground there.

So Michael, Dr. Goodtrips, Begle1, wphelan, I take issue with states rights in some instances. Some of the major themes of this philosophical experiment is individual liberty and another is limitation of government. Does anyone disagree with that all by itself?

I disagree. The US Constitution is not a novel with 'themes' or plots. It is an explicit legal document that may only be ammended in a specific manner and process.

So when states rights interfere with individual liberty, individual liberty usually takes precedence. The only thing that trumps individual liberty is individual liberty. That's how I see it.

I don't see this. The recent issue (or decisions in respect) of eminent domain betrays your assertion here.

10-22-2005, 01:08 PM	#2
StizePypemype Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 479 Senior Member	What is the US government and constitution if not a philosophical experimentation? The US Government may be an 'experiment' as you put it, but the Constitition is an explicit legal document. It is not a 'guideline', it is the highest law of the land - nothing 'experimental' about that. To me, it seems obvious what the prominent authors intended even if they were compelled to compromise their esoteric ideals in order to progress. Indeed, what the "prominent authors intended" seems obvious and contradictory to a wide variety of people. That's why I'm inclined to concentrate on the text itself for the basis of law. Much more solid ground there. So Michael, Dr. Goodtrips, Begle1, wphelan, I take issue with states rights in some instances. Some of the major themes of this philosophical experiment is individual liberty and another is limitation of government. Does anyone disagree with that all by itself? I disagree. The US Constitution is not a novel with 'themes' or plots. It is an explicit legal document that may only be ammended in a specific manner and process. So when states rights interfere with individual liberty, individual liberty usually takes precedence. The only thing that trumps individual liberty is individual liberty. That's how I see it. I don't see this. The recent issue (or decisions in respect) of eminent domain betrays your assertion here.
	Quote