Being constitutional is not as important as doing something that develops us better as human beings
Debate Rounds (3)
Thesis: Doing things in a constitutional only manner is no way of governing America. Doing things solely as the constitution states is not always the best idea, as it can easily slow us down as a country. On more than a few subjects, America is still fighting over topics that have been taken care of in other countries, and for a long time with some of them, too.
We need to keep changing as the times change. It is inevitable that the population of America, and the world for that matter, is only going to increase. And as our size increase, so should our policies.
Thesis: Careful following of the constitution is essential to the continuation of the American way of life; sadly, in recent history, we have broken away from the original intent of the constitution. The purpose of the constitution was to establish and limit the powers of the federal government while also protecting natural rights. Article one, section 8 of the US constitution delegates 18 specific areas in which congress has legislative authority. Everything beyond that which is specifically written in article one, section 8 or included as an amendment to the constitution was intended to be left to the individual states. To put it plainly, there is very little that the federal government was intended to have authority over. Obeying the constitution as it is written would have meant having a "small" government which manages basic needs while providing the states with infinitely more freedom to adapt to the times and implement the most effective policies for their particular state.
However, the constitution is a little dated, and although it can be amended, it should not be the only law of the land. The constitution has the bill of rights. The bill of rights seem good in theory, but again, it was made for the time it was made in. I am for guns being available to law abiding, mentally sane people. However, the constitution mentions anyone should be allowed to have it, and that we should have them in case of a tyrant government. In the event of a tyrant government, which just about every president was in someone's opinion for the last sixty years. Nowadays, if someone disagrees with someone, they can just go and hurt another one. Sure, they get in trouble if they do, but it's a lot better if nothing ever happened. This is not a gun control debate. That was just a start.
The bill of rights also has a very popular law that someone who believes another one owes them 20 dollars or more can bring them to court. They did not take inflation in to account, and now, court costs are higher than that. Yes, carefully analyzing the constitution may be a good way to live, but there are situations where the constitution does not support what we need. The way Christians look to the bible for answers seems to be the way we Americans should look to the constitution.
tyler3923 forfeited this round.
As I missed my opportunity for a rebuttal, I will simply make a conclusion statement.
The U.S. constitution; while inconvenient for certain politicians (cough* Obama), is our single greatest shield against tyranny and our stalwart protector of liberty. The constitution is never outdated as it provides its own mechanism to change with the current era. Thus, the highest priority of our government should be to operate within the confines of the constitution.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.