The U.S. Constitution Versus the Dictates of Conscience

[McBell]

... I'm wondering why we feel obliged to be guided by a document written by men who lived in a time of immature 18th Century morality in the first place.

um...
To prevent those who would force the immature morality of a two thousand year old book to be the guide?

 

[metis]

That's true. If you are suggesting that as a counter to my argument in the OP, could you elaborate, please. I don't see why your point matters.

In that it it is not necessary to "dump the Constitution" as it can be and has been amended numerous times.

 

[joe1776]

Disagree no one is a God or owns crystal balls, decisions should be made after long thought and debated processes. Please support with reason why current dictates of conscience is better than thoughtful debate.

Judgments of moral right or wrong, and judgments of fair or unfair, are the products of conscience, moral intuition emerging from the unconscious.

Although there is no common agreement on reason's role in the process, over the past 20 years, science has confirmed that moral judgments are intuitive. It's currently being called "moral intuitionism."

Humans are born with a hard-wired morality: a sense of good and evil is bred in the bone. I know this claim might sound outlandish, but it's supported now by research in several laboratories --- Paul Bloom, Yale psychologist

 

[joe1776]

In that it it is not necessary to "dump the Constitution" as it can be and has been amended numerous times.

It takes too long to get that done. In the interim, injustice rules. I'd have to do some searches to get the dates but how long did it take between the end of slavery and the 1960s Civil Rights laws?

 

[McBell]

It takes too long to get that done. In the interim, injustice rules. I'd have to do some searches to get the dates but how long did it take between the end of slavery and the 1960s Civil Rights laws?

309 days

List of amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

 

[joe1776]

309 days

You're fudging. It took almost a century after the writing of the Constitution to dump slavery and then another century for the descendants of slaves to get equal rights as a matter of law.

 

[McBell]

You're fudging. It took almost a century after the writing of the Constitution to dump slavery and then another century for the slave to get equal rights as a matter of law.

Seems to me you really should have asked your original question in a much better wording to better reflect what you were actually asking for.
As it stand now, it looks like you are moving the goal posts.

 

[joe1776]

Seems to me you really should have asked your original question in a much better wording to better reflect what you were actually asking for.
As it stand now, it looks like you are moving the goal posts.

It seems to me you misread the question. Here it is again.

It takes too long to get that done. In the interim, injustice rules. I'd have to do some searches to get the dates but how long did it take between the end of slavery and the 1960s Civil Rights laws?

309 days doesn't answer the question.

 

[McBell]

It seems to me you misread the question. Here it is again.

It takes too long to get that done. In the interim, injustice rules. I'd have to do some searches to get the dates but how long did it take between the end of slavery and the 1960s Civil Rights laws?

309 days doesn't answer the question.

You are correct.
I did misread the question

 

[McBell]

It takes too long to get that done. In the interim, injustice rules. I'd have to do some searches to get the dates but how long did it take between the end of slavery and the 1960s Civil Rights laws?

95 - 105 years

 

[metis]

It takes too long to get that done. In the interim, injustice rules. I'd have to do some searches to get the dates but how long did it take between the end of slavery and the 1960s Civil Rights laws?

It's not the Constitution that's at fault-- it's those who wrote it, amended it, but still didn't do enough to deal with all our problems.

Thus, it's a people issue, not a document issue.

 

[joe1776]

It's not the Constitution that's at fault-- it's those who wrote it, amended it, but still didn't do enough to deal with all our problems.

Thus, it's a people issue, not a document issue.

I don't see that how it's labeled makes any practical difference.

This was my argument in the OP:

If we dumped the Constitution, and our decisions on policy were made on the current dictates of conscience, we could make swifter progress toward a better society.

Do you agree or disagree that if "We, the people" did this, it would be a better society?

 

[McBell]

I don't see that how it's labeled makes any practical difference.

This was my argument in the OP:

If we dumped the Constitution, and our decisions on policy were made on the current dictates of conscience, we could make swifter progress toward a better society.

Do you agree or disagree that if "We, the people" did this, it would be a better society?

Whose conscience?
I ask simply because there are in fact those who would bring back slavery...

 

[joe1776]

Whose conscience?
I ask simply because there are in fact those who would bring back slavery...

The standard for justice the world over is the judgment of minds unbiased on the relevant issue. The problem, of course, is that, at times, in some cases, it's not possible to find an unbiased group. But that's the best we can do.

 

[McBell]

The standard for justice the world over is the judgment of minds unbiased on the relevant issue. The problem, of course, is that, at times, in some cases, it's not possible to find an unbiased group. But that's the best we can do.

And how is that better than the current system?
I mean, you have the bold empty claim that it would be faster, but how do you know that it actually will be quicker?

 

[joe1776]

And how is that better than the current system?
I mean, you have the bold empty claim that it would be faster, but how do you know that it actually will be quicker?

I figured this premise to be common knowledge and not a "bold, empty claim." I expected the counter-argument that slow-but-sure was better (three posters argued that).

If you're unaware that Constitutional amendments in the courts are a very slow process, I don't have any way of proving it to you but I won't concede the point because I think it ought to be common knowledge,.

 

[McBell]

I figured this premise to be common knowledge and not a "bold, empty claim." I expected the counter-argument that slow-but-sure was better (two posters argued that).

If you're unaware that Constitutional amendments are a very slow process, I don't have any way of proving it to you but I won't concede the point because I think it ought to be common knowledge,.

Ok.
I will now flat out ask you what makes you think your proposed proposal will be faster?

 

[joe1776]

Ok.
I will now flat out ask you what makes you think your proposed proposal will be faster?

Logic.

Using the example of abortion, a national referendum on the issue could decide the issue for say a ten-year term (another referendum at that time).

The issue has been battled in the courts for the better part of the last century will still no end in sight.

 

[McBell]

Logic.

Using the example of abortion, a national referendum on the issue could decide the issue for say a ten-year term (another referendum at that time).

The issue has been battled in the courts for the better part of the last century will still no end in sight.

What logic?
All you have done is make the claim and then talk about how slow the current process is.

If you have presented the details of your proposed process, I must have missed.
Perhaps a link to it?

 

[joe1776]

What logic?
All you have done is make the claim and then talk about how slow the current process is.

If you have presented the details of your proposed process, I must have missed.
Perhaps a link to it?

If your mind is incapable of grasping that a national referendum on the abortion issue is a much faster, and much better, solution on the question, then I'll concede that there's nothing I can say to prove my argument to you.

However, I don't make arguments in this forum to prove anything to my opponents. I write for impartial readers should any happen by.