UnDebate:Does the U.S. Constitution remain relevant over 200 years later?

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Does the U.S. Constitution remain relevant over 200 years later? Many say yes, many say no. Many say that debaters who invoke vague and duplicitous language to avoid addressing key issues should be banned from debating anything. Such debaters may be ignored by many, and followed by many, but many will not care at all. The debate over the relevancy of the United States Constitution can be broken down into two primary houses: The White House that uses laws to keep the population in line, and the house next door to mine whose occupants scream that their "Constitutional Rights are being violated" every time the cops come and throw them in jail for growing a little ganja, LOL.

Background information[edit]

The Constitution ("Con" for short) was written a long time ago, like before any of us was born, and before smart phones. It has something to do with Magna Cartas (a large carton of tobacco) and some Federalist Papers (used to roll the tobacco into smokes). A group of old white guys gathered because they were pissed off over their tax bill from England. They should have used the Internet to search for information on how to challenge the amount, but, because they were real old and their grandchildren were outside playing in the sunshine and fresh air, no one was available to resolve their modem issues so they did the old fashioned thing and handwrote a letter. This eventually became the Constitution.

Instead of just saying "Hey, England, go fuck yourself, but keep on sending the musicians," the old folks went bat shit and wrote about a three part governmental system with an underlying theme of separation of powers, tricked the states into thinking they retained some measurable modicum of sovereignty against the newly created Federal Government, and slipped in some racial jokes, like "How many slaves does it take to make 6 free people? 10! Because they only count as three-fifths of a person," LOL. Con, Sec 2, Art 3.

Well, enough about that stuff. Over the intervening period between then and now, a lot has changed, like really cool high capacity magazines and rapid fire rifles, butt-sex has been determined to be a fundamental right (Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558), and kids don't play in the sunshine any more, unless the FPS MMP game they are on displays a high res image of the sun. So, why don't we just let judges figure it out instead of binding them to the Con? And why don't we expand the definition of "judges" to include the "You're Guilty!" IPhone App?

Oh ya, you're going to love this. As if a bunch of old people handwriting a document isn't laughable enough, after they were done, they fell asleep with the TV on, drooled, woke up, and said "Shit, we forgot a bunch of stuff!" Instead of just starting over, they came up with all these amendments, like the government can't bash your door in unless they get a warranty, indigent criminals get free counseling, and you can carry a gun while you make a speech.

I like making armed speeches, you just feel so much more confident. But, now on to the debate.

Argument 1[edit]

Yes[edit]

The Con IS still relevant because it is the foundation of all our law, other than common law that traces it's roots as far back as Ancient Greece. Regardless, any common law or statute that is in conflict with the Con will be declared Unconstitutional and rendered powerless. Without this certainty in our society, chaos would ensue as every jurisdiction would create its own law and people could not travel without fear of surprise local low springing forth and ensnaring them in a vicious battle between jurisdictions, eventually devolving into civil war.

No[edit]

That other guy is some sort of over educated anus. Who travels any more? Gas is too expensive. If we took all the collij educated morans who really think this stuff is important, and dropped them off on an island in the middle of a big lake, like the Pacific, the rest of us would get along just fine, just like we do now. Nobody walks around wondering if pleasuring himself in public was OK in Ancient Greece. In fact, it probably was and the Con is just that, a big Con by a bunch of uppity old folks who don't like it when I touch myself while staring in their daughter's window. Get rid of it, let the people figure out the rest.

Argument 2[edit]

Yes[edit]

The Con is really important because it protects you from a-hole cops. From personal experience I can tell you if they bash in your door without a warranty, the city has to honor the warranty anyway and pay for your door, let you out of jail, give you back your weed, and give you some money. Without the Con the a-hole cops would just bash down my door all the time, no warranty, take my weed, and make me eat crappy jail food. Signed, dude from the house next door.

No[edit]

The Con has little, if any relevance today because modern society has stretched and twisted the meaning of the original words so as to leave only a thread bare connection with the original old guys and their tax gripes. This thread is constantly at risk of breaking, yet our legal system functions just fine. We apply common sense rules based on modern values to current situations. While tethered to the Con, we risk our legal system being unable to process the demands of modern justice. This is evidenced by the perpetual backlogs in the courts while judges and academians debate the original meaning of words over 200 years out of context. Instead of holding on to the past, we need to embrace the future and put modern technology to work to insure our individual freedoms. Signed, author of "You're Guilty!" IPhone app.

Verdict[edit]

Constitutional scholars squarely believe in the power and vibrancy of the Con and it's role as the repository of the founding principals of our nation. There are not very many of these scholars and we know where they are (universities), so who cares what they think? On the other hand, scofflaws and hooligans threaten to overrun our streets if laws become confused and muddled by unrestrained development of "judge made law." What we can rest assured of is that the Con is a large document, about 16" by 30", that can be cut up into little pieces and auctioned off to people who like historical junk sitting in their display cases. This money can be given to homeless vets or old hookers, people who have given a lot, and have little to show for it.

Therefore, the Constitution is relevant, and should be exploited by being sold off to collectors.