is amending the constitutional to pass specific policy objectives moral or immoral?
89150
The passing of a Constitutional amendment is neither moral nor immoral. The issues the amendment deals with, however, is.\n\nMost of our entire codification of laws and judicial system is based on morals. It is immoral to murder. It is immoral to rape. It is immoral to kidnap. I think we all agree that these crimes are wrong both legally and morally.\n\nThere are plenty of issues of morality that the law deals with that we might agree on. In several states, sodomy is illegal. Drug use is illegal. Minors buying tobacco is illegal. Are these issues morally wrong? A good debate with arguments from each side could be made.\n\nOn to Constitutional amendments. The Constitution creates and protects our beliefs as a country. Amendment 13 bans slavery. Amendment 14 banned ex-Conferates from holding national office. Article 18 banned alcohol in the US and Article 21 repealed it. All of these amendments (and many more) deal with moral issues that we, as a society, have decided are either right or wrong.\n\nConstitutional amendment are designed to deal with more specific issues rather than broad issues, and the specific areas you discuss are prime areas for a Constitutional amendment. That is why is it so important that the country has intelligent discourse from citizens involved in the political process. Find out about the issue, make up your mind, and fight for what you believe is right.
890275
Honestly I thought that was already implied, but an amendment making it official would be a good step. However, the very people who would be affected by it or the ones who need to pass it as legislation, to that I say-----fat chance.
1061372
No:  It is not an issue of whether we agree with his policies or not.  Our Constitution works as it is and as the founding fathers intended.
629584
Was and is anything ever constitutional? After all we are basing this on codes of ethics, however ethics has no base becasue it deals with perception. Therefore, technically speaking only YOU can answer the question. Be a historian, read the information and interpret a reasonable answer. Yet nothing can be reasonable because everything is a product of your mind and your mind is a product of you.\n             Nonetheless, if you want my opinion, it was constitutional. After all, the radical reconstruction was implemented by radical republicans who wanted and got the emancipation of slaves after the Civil war. What was not constitutional was how the South tried to avoid and disregard all the laws imposed upon them (ie Jim Crow Laws, Plessy vs Ferguson, etc.)All that they were doing was helping the south by implementing ammendments such as the 13, 14, and 15 to justify their reasons for being there. It was a form of unifying the union after the war and through "carpetbagers" they were able to do so. However, the South did not like the "north" being up in their business, which of course resulted in the Reedemers and the Compromise of 1877.
895706
I do not think gay marriage or abortion should be made illegal.  I am simply an economic conservative and morally apathetic.  I believe drugs should be decriminalized and marijuana legalized.  I think the drinking age should be lowered as it serves to curb binge drinking, alcoholism and drunk driving, as people become accustomed to drinking earlier in life and it does not gain the "forbidden fruit" aura.  I am economically conservative, however, and feel that taxes show be dramatically lowered, the welfare state shrunken, and national security buffed up.  I feel that my moral stances make me different from many conservatives
729128
Ultimately, I think this is a non-partisan issue.  \n\nPreserving societal morals is a human question, not a Republican one.  \n\nTaking the vote to the states, is a good start, and wholly supported Constitutionally, under the 10th Amendment.
310861
It takes a lot to change the constitution. You might as well not waste your time on something as silly as changing it so an unpoopular governor can lose the Presidential election for your party. Because, it might make it harder to get a law change you do want.
441306
Nothing is perfect...\n\nThe Constitutional Amendments as they stand are excellent, unfortunately, we do not have these rights like the Constitution says. \n\nWith all the pandering to left-wing activist judges and the 9th "Circus" Court of Appeals, they are slowly taking away our rights and moving toward Socialism. \n\nIf the Constitution was interpreted by the Courts instead of judges legislating from the bench, we would see that our Constitution truly is the greatest living document in the world.\n\nWhy else would we have everyone in the world trying to get into our country?
70628
If you want to change the government then do so within the means of the constitution.  Make sure  you vote.
18151
Good luck with that.  How do you differentiate between "this legislation is good for the US" and "This legislation is good for my buddy, Billy Bob" in an enforceable, consistent way, that doesn't just transfer all power to whoever decides what was intended as a favor and what wasn't?\n\nOf course, a step in the right direction would certainly be to make the federal tax code transparent and fair.  That helps eliminate (or at least illuminate) all the loopholes and exemptions and rebates for special interest groups.
496026
Yes,use your imagination JUST_,I would vote for this if it were to follow the original constitution.There is a lot of"MEN" who would support having this come to fruition.We have a country that rejects its men,allows illegals to come in to any state,allows women to kill their unborn children,who would be living breathing people if they didn`t and allow people who are not citizens to acquire disability who can not speak English.Something that a six week night course could cure.The list could go on for hours but In the correct form I WOULD do what you ask. GOOD QUESTION!
684910
Absolutely not. Morality is a religious issue. \n\nGovernment should legislate based upon practical concerns and objective goals. Murder should be illegal because it causes violence, which disrupts the ability of society to function, and because it interferes with the victim's personal rights. It shouldn't be illegal because "only God can kill". Likewise, communications with a clergyman should be privileged because it serves the social goal of people seeking emotional help (same as a psychologist), and government has an interest in people being rational rather than having emotional breakdowns. Confessions are not legally privileged just because they are sacred in some religions.\n\nMost people don't actually take the time to figure out WHY something may be wrong or bad. Religions and/or politics simply tell them something is bad, and they just accept that conclusion without question.\n\nOnce you look at WHY something is bad, then the answer becomes clear. If it's bad because it interferes with a person's rights to life and liberty, or because it results in property damage, or because it harms the environment thus affecting the health of the community, or because it increases the risk of car accidents -- those are identifiable objective practical goals that are valid for the government to enforce via laws.\n\nIf it's bad because God made it a sin, or because your moral upbringing told you so, or because good people shouldn't do that -- those are not valid reasons to pass mundane laws. Granted, those may be moral reasons why you should choose not to do something. But the government should not not be dictating religious or moral beliefs, let alone attempting to enforce them.
1099151
It depends on what you mean by "actually."\n\nIn a pragmatic sense, whatever the U.S. Supreme Court says is constitutional is "actually" constitutional.\n\nPerhaps you mean, "Should it be constitutional?"  Well, obviously there are arguments on both sides -- and they were raised in Marbury v. Madison -- but I would have to agree with the Supreme Court:  What would REALLY throw off the balance of powers is if there were no checks and balances to prevent Congress from passing unconstitutional laws.\n\nFinally, perhaps you mean, "Was this what the Framers intended?"  Again, this was argued in Marbury v. Madison.  Probably the answer would be that some did, and some didn't.  However, what is the point of writing a constitution that limits the powers of Congress if there's no way to enforce the limitations?
60597
a constitutional ammendment.. very unprobable... \nthere are several ways to initiate the process for ammending the constitution, none of which are likely on this or any other issue.
1086339
The current debate is foundational.  It touches on the issues of how the country should be governed.  Whether we should employ democratic and constitutional processes to change the meaning and intent of the US Constitution and the granting of "rights."  Second, the current campaign will not ensure that your brother or any other gay or lesbian persons will actually enjoy the privileges and benefits that current heterosexuals enjoy now as a married couple.  In short, the current campaign for gay marriages is ill-conceived and will cause more harm than good for both homosexuals, bisexuals and heterosexuals.  You need to look beyond the hype and your emotions and become informed.  Your goals are not helped by using the incorrect political process.\n\nThere are several secular and non-religious reasons for rejecting the current process to secure "Marriage" or "Civil Unions" for gay and lesbians. I have summarized the major reasons below. For more indepth analysis, see the reference below.\n\nI.Why the Current Campaign to Establish Gay \nMarriages Is Anti-Democratic and Anti-Constitutional\n\n\nOur government was founded upon the premise that “Governments are instituted among men [and women], deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The current attempt to change the scope and meaning of the US Constitution in regards to 'gay marriages' by side stepping the amendment process will--in the end--jeopardize everyone's freedom. The attempt to expand the current tradition and meaning of marriage to include same gendered individuals through either a judicial pronouncement of a single state or federal judge--or a decision by a “State” or an Appellate Court, and/or through the edicts of several local politicians--should be seen as an attack on our constitutional democracy from within. \n\nSeeking to expand the rights of a few, by the few, by trouncing on the rights of the governed, should be seen as an act similar to those which occasioned the creation of the “Declaration of Independence.”\n\nIt is our position that expanding the rights of gays and lesbians to enter into marriage should be done through the amendment process that has been used for over 200 years. Seeking to side step the ‘constitutional’ process in favor of expediency is a sign not of enlightenment, patriotism, nor constitutional fidelity, but of hubris—of pride and arrogance. Historical and constitutional integrity requires all Americans to work to defeat the present attempt to expand the U.S. Constitution by the dictates of the few whether or not an individual believes that granting “gay marriages’ is a just cause.\n\nAs stated above and worth mentioning again, it is our position here that the real issue is not whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. The real issues are (1) did the original white male voters, who approved the original articles of the Constitution, mean to include gays and lesbians in the institution of marriage and, if not, (2) did subsequent voters expand marriage to include gays and lesbians and, if not, (3) what are the proper means for expanding the institution of marriage to include gays and lesbians?\n\nAs Americans, we should all believe in the use of the “proper means for a proper end.” The proper means for expanding the rights we have under the US Constitution is to submit such changes to the American people via a proposed Constitutional Amendment. We believe that the US Constitution should only be changed with the consent of the governed as is required in our democracy.\n\nThe current campaign to enact 'gay marriages' without allowing all Americans to exercise their right to vote is counter-productive to maintaining our constitutional form of democracy, divisive to society, a waste of tax payers' dollars and a frivolous use of the time and skills of our elected and judicial officials. We believe that our elected and judicial officials
360383
The national interest actually lies in ethics.\nWhile it might not seem so in the short term, acting unethically will weaken us morally. It also prompts others to retaliate etc. like 9/11 which cannot be good for anyone.\n\nWe should lead morally and ethically even if in the short term it puts us at a slight disadvantage.
731414
I like it....a great thought experiment!\nWhich is more important to the people who are, for instance, willing to vote for a *constitutional amendment* for godsake to restrict freedoms in this country by saying we as a nation claim that the pursuit of domestic happiness must occur only between people with the appropriately different genitals.  The kinds of genitals that can together make babies. sometimes unwanted babies. Those folks want to make pursuit of happiness restricted.  Okay.  I'd love to see the poll numbers on how many of them would also like to have "the right to life" of the fetus trump the "right to liberty" of the adult female.  It's doubtlessly true that if gay marriage were legal everywhere and rights and equal status were conveyed to gay couples, then there would be more newly 'appropriate' homes for kids saved from being aborted by those heterosexual breeding pairs conservatives would like to limit marriage rights to.\nBut of course, the folks who tend to vehemently oppose abortion likely wouldn't be too pleased with gay couples getting babies to raise.  \nWhat's interesting, really, is how many non-conservative types are against gay marriage but against limiting abortion rights.  So, the right of someone to end a pregnancy falls under her rights to privacy and control over her body, but the right of someone to fall in love with and pledge to be partner to another person is subject to government approval.  I understand all the 'get the government off my body" stuff in the abortion wars, but the anti-gay-marriage thing for non-conservatives seems to me mostly about an 'eww' factor.