Do we still believe in the Constitution?

CPT Richard Riley — Sun, 15 Jun 2014 08:36:24 -0400

The current culture of ideology and sociology that exists in the United States makes for an interesting mix of thoughts and ideas. To piggy-back on MCPO Treants popular discussion regarding ‘Do you believe the Bill of Rights is outdated & should be either dropped in its entirety or at least rewritten?’ where do we stand on our belief in the Constitution? Some believe the document created over 227 years ago holds little bearing on our present lives due to its ‘outdated’ language and ideas. Others believe in the Constitutions vital relevance today as a cornerstone of our system.

The Articles of Confederation our infant Nation started with proved to be unworkable and nonfunctional in a short period of four years. Have we now arrived at a time the series of compromises made back in 1787 that cobbled together the document we presently regard as The United States Constitution has also become unworkable and outdated? Has this Montesquieu influenced instrument outlived its original purpose?

Response by LCpl Steve Wininger made Jun 15 at 2014 8:59 AM

LCpl Steve Wininger — Sun, 15 Jun 2014 08:59:39 -0400

The only thing that has become unworkable, at least to some, is their attitudes toward the Constitution. Congress can't even come up with a budget let alone rewrite the Constitution.

Part of the reason, at least in my opinion, that some want to rewrite the document that has been the foundation for our country is because it does not fit their progressive lifestyle.

If the Affordable Care Act (Contradiction in terms), The USA Patriot Act, NDAA, and other legislation are any indication of what a new Constitution would be like, we might as well name the Bill of Rights, the Rights of Entitlement.

I for one will look for a piece of desert in some mine field somewhere if they rewrite our constitution. Why would one want to remove the foundation of the house after it has been established, chances are, it will crumble.

Response by SSG Ed Mikus made Jun 15 at 2014 1:35 PM

SSG Ed Mikus — Sun, 15 Jun 2014 13:35:44 -0400

The people do, im not sure our elected officials know what it is.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2014 3:54 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:54:21 -0400

If we don't believe in it why are we in a profession that takes an oath to uphold it?

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2014 3:57 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:57:35 -0400

The question should be do you believe in the oath you took to defend the Constitution. People do not take an oath to a party, person or place, they take the oath to the Constitution itself. The Constitution has within itself the ability to change. Case law is not Constitutional law. The politicians and parties have muddied the very foundation of this country. Do I believe in the Constitution, you are d@mned right I do. However, I've completely lost faith in the career politicians who no longer live by the oath they took.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 11 at 2014 11:26 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 Jul 2014 23:26:39 -0400

Show me a longer living document in a current republic and I will eat ours. It works, just need some fresh, honest leaders.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 2 at 2014 9:23 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 02 Aug 2014 09:23:56 -0400

As a descendant of Timothy Matlack (Penman of the Declaration of Independence, among other titles and accomplishments) I take my Oath of Enlistment very seriously. My forefathers helped to build this nation, and I intend to protect it and its Constitution.

It's not just a piece of paper. It's not just a formality that we recite when we enlist of re-enlist. If you are not taking it seriously, then you are lying to yourself and everyone you serve with.

Response by SSG Maurice P. made Sep 25 at 2014 12:39 AM

SSG Maurice P. — Thu, 25 Sep 2014 00:39:50 -0400

whoa back the freak up don't let O'bama and his man George Soro's bend you at the knee's that constitution was written by real intellectuals...They realized that time means progress so they made allowances for the future... all we have to do is amend whatever it is we are trying to change ..................

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 25 at 2014 1:17 AM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 25 Sep 2014 01:17:52 -0400

CPT Richard Riley. I am fully committed to supporting and defending the US Constitution . . . but I would seek an amendment to provide for recall of each and every administration official by a vote of no confidence . . . leading to national elections to replace the entire administration. Warmest Regards, Sandy

Response by SPC David S. made Oct 3 at 2014 10:19 PM

SPC David S. — Fri, 03 Oct 2014 22:19:13 -0400

I do, however there are a number of instances where I feel the Supreme Court has decided on cases in a way that just baffles me. This goes for states courts as well.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 10 at 2014 10:16 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 10 Nov 2014 22:16:52 -0500

Collectively, I think the problem is not a lack of belief, but a lack of understanding.

You mentioned the Articles and the impetus to change that lead to the Constitution. The usual history class glosses over that period, and over the debates that followed the Constitutional Convention. The debate was between the Federalists--those who wanted to strengthen the Federal government via the Constitution and the Anti-federalists--those who feared that the Federal government would be strengthened too much. If one reads the editorials and broadsides of that time, written by the anti-Federalists, one can make a list of fears that they had, that have come to pass--many are quite prophetic. If you read the Federalist papers, written to counter those anti-Federalist fears, the theme is that those fears are unfounded.

The Federalists won the debate, and though it took another 100 years for the cracks to really start to appear, the Anti-federalists won history. At least so far.

No. The Constitution is not unworkable nor outdated. We no longer adhere to its original purpose--the fault is in us, not in it.

Response by SGT Edward Valiket made Dec 28 at 2014 3:15 AM

SGT Edward Valiket — Sun, 28 Dec 2014 03:15:48 -0500

If you swore an oath to uphold the constitution you better damn well believe in it and the bill of rights

Response by SGT Michael Glenn made Jan 2 at 2015 9:33 PM

SGT Michael Glenn — Fri, 02 Jan 2015 21:33:25 -0500

I believe what it originally was intended for, what I dont believe is the way Government has tried to twist it for their benefit over the years

Response by Capt Gregory Prickett made Jan 6 at 2015 3:47 AM

Capt Gregory Prickett — Tue, 06 Jan 2015 03:47:59 -0500

The Constitution is fine as is. Well, we could lose the 17th Amendment, but otherwise it's OK.

Response by 1SG Eric Rice made Jan 6 at 2015 7:04 AM

1SG Eric Rice — Tue, 06 Jan 2015 07:04:42 -0500

The U.S. Constitution is not unworkable. The words written need to be interpreted with the mindset of the times they were written. They still remain relevant just as much today as it did then. The United States fundamentally changed the world and those changes stemmed from how we operate as a "Republic".

The main issue we have today is not that we have career politicians but we have politicians who no longer believe in the American ideals. The majority are in it for personal gain and not for the benefit of the constituents. I personally blame the American People for not caring about what is happening in the political arena. We need to get rid of the mindset that talking about politics being taboo. If we believe that the Constitution is still relevant then we should be the first ones willing to start the conversation.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Jan 6 at 2015 1:07 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Tue, 06 Jan 2015 13:07:49 -0500

It's the only document I've taken an oath to support and defend. I still believe in it.

Response by LtCol Garret Whiteside made Jan 9 at 2015 3:41 PM

LtCol Garret Whiteside — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 15:41:49 -0500

Yes, even at 66 I would pick up arms again tomorrow to defend our constitutional rights. Our want to be king is in for a rude awakening. The whole atmosphere on capitol hill has changed. The whole thrust of America first and knowing they will move bills forward has everyone up there in a better frame of mind. I was just there on Tuesday. Our President will have to use his Vito power now. Then the American voters will know the real deal. when transparency starts spin stops. They may pass bills I don't agree with, but they will be constitutionally correct and bi-partisan. You can feel the change.

Response by LtCol Garret Whiteside made Jan 9 at 2015 3:50 PM

LtCol Garret Whiteside — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 15:50:18 -0500

It is both workable and current! but we need strong leaders not career politicians! Go to capitol hill since the new congress and see the new attitude and loyalty to our Constitution. It was great to see.

Response by SGT Jim Z. made Jan 21 at 2015 11:10 AM

SGT Jim Z. — Wed, 21 Jan 2015 11:10:50 -0500

I firmly believe in the United States Constitution and it does not need to be retired or changed just enforced properly. The Constitution does not cover every law that is the United States Code (USC).

Response by PO1 Steven Kuhn made Jan 22 at 2015 11:42 AM

PO1 Steven Kuhn — Thu, 22 Jan 2015 11:42:12 -0500

CPT Richard Riley I believe that our ideology and sociology have changed so drastically because of the liberal dribble they are forcing on our students. For example, just like in the movie "God's Not Dead", my wife was in a sociology class where the professor tried to force his atheist beliefs on his students. My wife, having a firm faith and belief system, was able to stand up to him and ended up getting an A in his class not because they shared beliefs but because she was able to defend her faith without fear and full of passion. On the same note, but sort of a double standard, professors with strong religious or political values are admonished for sharing them with the class, but I know this liberal professor was free to spout what ever dribble oozed out of his mouth. If we teach the TRUE history of our Founding Fathers, complete with their belief system and why they wrote the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights the way they did; better yet, since Common Core is teaching the 5 pillars of Islam in schools across the nation, why not give the religion our country was founded on - Christianity equal time in the classroom? Where are the atheists, Wiccans, worshippers of the devil, etc., who usually cry any time religion is brought up in the classroom when Islam is taught? Another double standard. No matter how much you disagree with it, the truth is there for anyone to find. Our country was founded on Christian Principles by men of integrity and faith. These things were taught in our public schools until the 1930's. It is a matter of public record. Instead of being mad about the truth, why don't we get mad at WHY someone(s) would want these truths taken out of our classrooms? How much better do you think our country would be; with regards to morality, patriotism, etc., if we could just reinstate the belief system that helped make America the great nation she once was? Take a look at what happened in the 1960's when they took the Bible and prayer out of schools. Look at the teen pregnancy rate, abortion rate, divorce rate, drug and alcohol abuse rate, and see how they escalated when they took God out of schools all because of a simple and earnest prayer by some young children for our families, fellow students men and women, our leaders and our nation! I believe with all my heart that our Supreme Law of the Land has helped us outlast a host of other governments that have risen and fallen in the same time period as we have existed. And we have existed with much less turmoil than countries who do not have these documents as the backbone of what our nation stands for!

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Jan 22 at 2015 1:17 PM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Thu, 22 Jan 2015 13:17:23 -0500

As has been stated, we all took an oath to support and defend. The question is, though, what are we supporting and defending?

We have the documents the framers wrote, but we don't necessarily know all the behind the scenes things which influenced their decisions. This is why we have the three branches of government - Legislative, Judicial and Executive.

This is in some ways analogous to how traditional Jews see the Torah (literally Five Books of Moses, but more generally, all the corpus of Jewish teaching). We know what is written in the Torah, but we don't know all the background of why it's written the way it is. Yet, the Rabbis of blessed memory legislated out certain parts of the Torah, using the Tradition as they received it.

So, for instance, Lex Talionis, "an Eye for an Eye" is very clearly defined as monetary compensation in the Talmud, which is the corpus of Rabbinic thought written down in about the 6th century CE (AD for Christians).

The same applies to the Constitution - our Framers set up a system. That system still operates. We may hate the notion of the Electoral College, and say there's no reason for it these days, but it's there so we have to use it, unless and until such time as an Amendment is passed removing the requirement.

We may not agree with the decisions of the Supreme Court, the Legislation from Congress, or the Executive Actions of the President (and all Presidents have done this; Obama isn't doing anything new), but this is the system our Founders put in place.

If you don't like it - you can work to change it, or work to put different people in DC (I wouldn't mind that), but DON'T sit here complaining about it - that is counter-productive...

Response by Sgt Packy Flickinger made Jan 22 at 2015 5:34 PM

Sgt Packy Flickinger — Thu, 22 Jan 2015 17:34:50 -0500

Unfortunately we have one such individual of power who thinks it's an "old and out dated document".

I still believe in it as well as the laws created under it.

Response by PO3 Zachary Dowty made Jan 22 at 2015 7:41 PM

PO3 Zachary Dowty — Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:41:57 -0500

I'm all for the constitution, without it as a guideline we wouldn't be were we are today. Those who currently hold gov. Positions because of the change by them for them I don't agree with. The Senate seats should return to being state employees, who are still controlled by the people they are to represent. Doing this will eliminate a lot of the propaganda that has taken place to fulfill their own gains. I.e. changing or attempting to change the second amendment.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2016 11:59 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 21 Mar 2016 23:59:19 -0400

So many toy with liberty and freedom. This is why they conceive its destruction and many mock its authority and power - thus the state of our Union.