YouDebateIt.com Return To Home Page

YouDebateIt.com -- Is It Better To Be A Divided Nation?
Topic: Is It Better To Be A Divided Nation?

Which do you prefer #1 or #2?
Vote below for the better argument.
Opinion #1
Debater: interested
Is the earth only 6000 years old?
To suggest that Constitutions should not evolve is as apt as to say that the earth and its inhabitants should not evolve. Should we still be a microbe in the briny?

A "Constitution" is a framework only. Many statutes are also a part of any Constitution. Should we still be burning witches because the Constitution before this "illegal" Constitution permitted it.

Times change; circumstances change. And Constitutions must change in light of those. It is why Constitutions are often described as "Living Trees." The part of the Constitution that is to prevent the development is, in particular, the power of the Courts to review legislation; also the right to impeach.

The federal government can never ignore "pesky" lines in the Constitution without Congressional approval AND Court review. If you think it does, then challenge it in Court. You have that right and it cannot be taken away from you.

Constitution are carefully written - when written. But only to facilitate legal interpretation.
Opinion #2
Debater: The Wild Goose
A "living, breathing" constitution is an effectively meaningless one.
Times may change, but human nature is fundamentally constant. Particular circumstances may change, but the principles of justice are immutable and fixed. If the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are indeed, as many claim, fundamental and permanent human rights, meant for all time, can any judicial interpretation change this fact?

Yet this is what happens. Through the process of constitutional "evolution", rights that are fixed and permanent, rights that are engraved in the natural law, disappear.

To trust the congress and the Supreme Court to "protect" the constitution and restrict the government is like having the fox guard the henhouse. Many claim "checks and balances" will protect us. Some say that I can appeal to the supreme court if I have a grievance against the government- but the court is itself an arm of the government. This is like saying that if I have a grievance against Joe, I can appeal to Joe's brother, Jim, for a "fair" judgment!
Supporting URL[s]:
http://www.mises.org
http://www.lewrockwell.com
http://www.lewrockwell.com
Which argument do you agree with more? #1   #2
Which argument is more persuasive? #1   #2
READ ALL ARGUMENTS ON THIS TOPIC
POST YOUR COUNTERARGUMENT TO THE MOST RECENT ARGUMENT ON THIS TOPIC
START A NEW OR SEPARATE ARGUMENT ON THIS TOPIC
READ & JUDGE OTHER COMPLETED DEBATES
PROPOSE ANOTHER DEBATE TOPIC
Share your view. Whose argument did you like better? I strongly prefer the argument of debater #1
I strongly prefer the argument of debater #2
I slightly prefer the argument of debater #1
I slightly prefer the argument of debater #2
I prefer the argument of debater #1, but I could do better!
I prefer the argument of debater #2, but I could do better!

  
Your comments will appear on SelectSmart.com. Look for ''Visitor Reviews''.

Welcome to YouDebateIt.com
This is the place for debate with an added element of friendly competition. This is a debating and essay resource and practice tool, not a debating society or club. There are no complicated rules, but these debates have structure. Each debate consists of a topic with two opposing views.

These are short essays limited to about 150-165 words. Present your strongest argument the first time, since you can't go back to change it--as with the National Forensic League and other speech and debate formats. Read these debates, then vote for your favorite arguments.

These debates are fun, informative and give exposure to all sides of the issues. Most debates will be archived (arguments that are obscene or offensive may be deleted). The better and more interesting debates will be featured.