free forum make a forum for free message boards free forum hosting free phpbb forum phpbb create free forum

rhirsch · Joined: 16 Nov 2009 Posts: 35

Please post the points, questions, arguments that you didn't get to make today - or any new ideas that have been brewing. Talk to and challenge each other. Please post at least 2 times.

Free Forum

emills · Joined: 05 Jan 2010 Posts: 19

I thought the debate went rather well. But I thought the last one was better. I'm not sure why, but i think the last one may have been a bit less structured. I feel like when they have less structure it is easier to go back and forth, which is more interesting, in my opinion.

But in some ways it was also harder, to have the open rebuttal. It is more difficult to be consistent. I am not sure about my own team, but i did notice some inconsistency on the other team. Although, i do think it is sort of inevitable when debating something that is set- up and not really "in the moment."

Someone had said something about how states are very different, and have different needs and interests. And would therefore need their own bill of rights rather than one that covers everybody. But I would like to point out that there is really no protection in the bill of rights that a citizen of a country would not want to have, and that if states want theirs to be more "personalized," it is possible for them to write up a sort of extension of the bill that would apply to their own state as long as it did not conflict with the constitution.

kcameornburr · Joined: 09 Apr 2010 Posts: 2

A bill of rights is unnecessary because individual liberties have already been protected by the constitution. Alexander Hamilton quotes on page 38, ""We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and out posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America."" Therefore, a Bill of rights has no place in the constitution.

emills · Joined: 05 Jan 2010 Posts: 19

Keaton, the problem is that this particular line is incredibly vague, and it could be easily interpreted in many different ways. Liberty means different things to different people. Rights are probably one of the most important things to have written down and spelled out for everyone, so that people can refer to them when they are being unfairly treated.

mlong · Joined: 05 Jan 2010 Posts: 22

I don't know, personally, I disagree with Emily. I actually thought today's debate went a little better than the last one. I thought it was really helpful that we all talked in our groups the night before and figured out our opening statements. That helped a lot and I felt like everyone was a little more prepared.

Emily, you said, "Rights are probably one of the most important things to have written down and spelled out for everyone, so that people can refer to them when they are being unfairly treated."
I agree with that, rights are important to have written down. However, they do not belong in a bill of rights because the constitution covers everything that is necessary for ruling our government. States need to have the power to govern themselves and the way they can do so is by having their own set rules regarding individual's rights.

esumner · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 9

I disagree with Emily. I feel the debate went much better than the last one, maybe also because we had more time. I wish there was more time though because it was the last 10 or 15 minutes when the debate really started to become more of a debate than a prepared conversation.

During the debate somebody brought up that the Bill of Rights only effects the government. I started wondering if it only effects them, can't they eventually change it for their benefits as a government instead of as a country? Because the power of changing the Bill of Rights is in the government. Who is in charge of making sure they follow it?

cbauchner · Joined: 02 Apr 2010 Posts: 11

i realize that Hamilton said that keaton but can you point to the part of the constitution where the people's liberties are protected like they would be with a federal bill of rights
_________________
Cam Bauchner

kcameornburr · Joined: 09 Apr 2010 Posts: 2

Cam, I point to the lack of any powers granted in the constitution to infringe the rights of the people.

Jesse · Joined: 02 Apr 2010 Posts: 8

Emily Sumner, can you explain your question a little bit more? Did someone say that the Bill of Rights only affects the government? Is that who you mean by “them?”

I thought what was said (at least on the pro bill of rights side) was that the Bill of Rights must be used alongside the Constitution and be enforced by the government and specifically the judicial system. On page 45, the article talks about how the Bill of Rights would dole out power to the judicial system. You ask who is in charge of making sure it is followed which I would like to answer… The government is responsible for protecting the rights of citizens by having a warrant before entering a citizen’s home, providing a fast and fair trial, among other rights… The Bill of Rights holds the government more accountable for responding to their citizens and treating them fairly…

I would also add that The Bill of Rights gives citizens responsibility, rights, and freedom, but also holds citizens accountable. If citizens know their rights, they are more likely to be active citizens… If something is not being followed through, that is why there is a Supreme Court in place and government officials who have sworn to the United States… So what I am saying is that I believe The Bill of Rights will be maintained and followed by the people and by the government, in a partnership!

Jesse · Joined: 02 Apr 2010 Posts: 8

Also, Morgan, while states need to govern themselves, The Bill of Rights does not prohibit this from happening. It just adds uniformity and a nationwide expectation... We have a Constitution for the entire nation, meaning that we need to standardize our peoples' rights as well. This will not prohibit states from having their own governments but it will protect people regardless of where they live. If we want to join together as a nation, our country must be united, and we must all have basic human rights. We have experienced tyranny and totalitarianism and the splitting of the country when it came to federalist/anti federalist ideals but now is the time for our country to join to protect the people who live here! This can be done with the support of state governments and federal government.

kdaum · Joined: 02 Apr 2010 Posts: 2

In regards to the debate today, I felt this one went much better than the last. It seemed everyone put in a greater effort that overall increased the value of the discussions and difficulty of the debate. I especially liked that we were able to keep the debate moving fluidly without awkward pauses while even running out of time.

In response to Jesse's comment, " If something is not being followed through, that is why there is a Supreme Court in place and government officials who have sworn to the United States… So what I am saying is that I believe The Bill of Rights will be maintained and followed by the people and by the government, in a partnership!"
If you believe that sworn government officials shall follow their rights to the United States as representatives for the people, why should we show distrust in our representatives in writing a Bill of Rights. If anything, the rights outlined in such a bill would allow oppression in the form of officials loosely interpreting the document. And who is to say enumerated rights would still apply a hundred years later?

mlong · Joined: 05 Jan 2010 Posts: 22

Jesse- Actually, the Bill of Rights does prevent the states from the majority of self-governance. What is governing a state if you can't even make up your own rules to protect the people in it? The nation already has uniformity from the Constitution. We have one, expansive government ruling over the country. Having the same laws for people in each state takes away state's individuality and, it takes away their right to be different and independent. If we standardized people's rights as well, then hardly anything would be left up to the state's for deciding. Though our government is expansive and the Constitution prevents corruption as best as it can, the larger government is too far away from the people to be able to properly protect their rights. In a nation filled with so many different people and cultures, there needs to be a chance for states to be different in their laws as well.

You said, "We have experienced tyranny and totalitarianism and the splitting of the country when it came to federalist/anti federalist ideals but now is the time for our country to join to protect the people who live here! This can be done with the support of state governments and federal government." The Constitution prevents this kind of corruption an tyranny, though. Having a Bill of Rights wouldn't affect whether or not our country will become corrupt, the Constitution does.

cbauchner · Joined: 02 Apr 2010 Posts: 11

having a national bill of rights wouldnt take away state' indivduality. Expressed in the Bill of Rights are just basic human rights, they're not the only laws that states live by. Each state has its own constitution that has its own laws that can be changed state by state. These constituitons give each state its own uniqueness, the bill of rights is only a section of the laws we live by. And because these Bill's grant people their human rights, each state's bill should have a lot of similarities so its not like they will be drastically different or anything
_________________
Cam Bauchner

Jesse · Joined: 02 Apr 2010 Posts: 8

Morgan, states can still make laws and govern themselves… And, why would states need to make laws that challenge freedom to assemble and petition the government (amendment I) or the fact that cruel punishments cannot be inflicted on people (VIII) among other amendments? These laws do not challenge state power but instead aid states in protecting their citizens.
Also Morgan, while the Constitution has built in important safeguards against a government that is entirely self serving and corrupt, it does not guarantee this. The Bill of Rights puts into place the mechanisms for dissent, freedoms, and protection from inappropriate government intrusion all of which were absent under King George… So the Bill or Rights will protect the country from infringing on human rights…

Some quotes:
“The force of the whole community should be collected and under such directions, as to protect and defend every one who composed it” (34.) This quote speaks about how every person is part of the community and we must protect each other…

“The structure of the new government, he asserted, with its separation of powers and guarantees of the right to elect representatives was enough to ensure the people’s liberties” says Hamilton on page 36. My question for you is, How do you know that the structure that the constitution has framed will be fair? If the goal is to protect peoples’ liberties, shouldn’t we write about peoples’ rights and powers in order to better help our citizens? And if the constitution is nationwide, don’t we need nationwide amendments?

Also, I think it is important to note that the Constitution partly is so important because it was written down and thus deemed “fundamental principles,” important and irreversible. The anti-bill of rights group keeps saying, why can’t we trust our government but I believe that putting these laws onto paper and then into practice solidifies a belief that people deserve to know their own rights…

jmax · Joined: 16 Oct 2009 Posts: 25

The very intent to protect what is rightfully ours, shifts the responsibility of a government from only legislating in the parameters they are given, to assuming power in all areas, save those which are expressly forbidden. This is a dangerous and primitive digression. The need to reserve certain rights inverts and regresses a uniquely progressive system. That is to say that for the first time in the history of man, we have a codified system of governance, which marginalizes its own invasiveness. By jumping into the defensive, you are effectively replanting the seeds of tyranny from the times of British oppression. The revolution has been won and the idea of what a government should be and whom it should serve has itself been revolutionized. By reverting to a combative attitude towards the potential evils of government, you thwart the possibilities of allowing for a truly revolutionary system.

Free Forum