Supreme Law of the Land....
Print ViewOK - a simple plan but a bit different than before. Your comments will be made in two stages. You might want to open up a word processor to write your blog comments on, then you can copy and paste them to the comment page. You'll be hopping around in the middle of writing your comments, so if you do this you won't have to worry about accidentally closing the blog window and losing your comments.
FIRST:Read these two articles from WorldNetDaily:
SECOND: Write your comments as usual. Refer to specific points in the article!
THIRD: AFTER you have read the articles and written your comments -- but before you post anything -- read what Article 6 (clause 2) of the U.S. Constitution says. (Click the link to the Constitution and scroll down to Article 6, clause 2.) It may shed new light on your thinking or perhaps reinforce what you already wrote.
FOURTH: In light of what you just read (Article 6 of the Constitution), add any further thoughts you have below what you already wrote and now post all of it. If you already knew what Article 6 says, just say so at the end.
Yeah, i know these articles are 5½ years old; Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist died and was replaced by John Roberts; Sandra Day O'Connor retired and was replaced by Samuel Alito; BUT the issues discussed are very much alive and kicking RIGHT NOW.
DEADLINE: Sunday night @ midnight!
JUNIORS! Review for tomorrow's test by going to the new links on the homework page -- also, all chapter reviews and such MUST be in tomorrow.
I would have to say that the constitution can be used during a global age, but who knows if it will be. A lot of people read between the lines of the Constitution and pretty much do what they want.” America, it's becoming more and more one world of many different kinds of people. And how they're going to live together across the world will be the challenge, and whether our Constitution and how it fits into the governing documents of other nations, I think will be a challenge for the next generations.” I pretty much agree with that because as more people come into the U.S and our country becomes bigger they seem to be going more away from the constitution. Things that have been set down earlier have been changed to fit how we are now. But I think that we should still follow the constitution and laws that have been set down by those before us. I don’t think that we should rely on foreign law because our country is different from other countries so we should make our own laws and stick to them. Even though many immigrants have come into America we shouldn’t change the way we live because of them because why they came to America in the first place was because we are different from there country.
Posted by carrie — Jan 22, 2009 23:02
I think the constitution could make it in the global age. I really think we need to follow the constitution. We don't need to rely on foreign laws when immigrants come into our country. If they don't like our laws, they can leave. I think we need to keep the laws that were made when the constitution was established. Even if the constitution is more than 200 yrs old, we still need to follow it because it is the supreme law of the land.
Posted by Brian — Jan 24, 2009 23:25
Personally I don't really understand everything about these articles and exactly what they mean. But a few things that I do know is that like Breyer said, "The world is growing together and is becoming more and more one world of many different kinds of people." In the Bible, it says that one of the signs of the end times is that we will be a one world system. A one world system would pretty much mean that our laws would be merged with other countries laws as one. I think we should keep the laws that were originally put in the constitution no matter how old it is. Good and bad is still good and bad no matter how much time has passed. The constitution was made for the people and by the people for a reason. But no matter what we think or say when God predicts that something is going to happen, then it is definitely going to happen.
Posted by Brittney — Jan 25, 2009 14:01
This first article really had me confused, because I couldn't really understand what they were talking about, and everything was just kinda thrown in there, in no particular order. What I guess is being discussed is whether or not the constitution should be re-written, or completely disregarded, due to the fact that society has changed so much. The second article is mostly on Sandra Day O'Connor, and her part in all of this. The second half of the article is basically a repeat of the first one, and talks about how homosexuals should have personal rights now, and again about how the constitution applies to things differently now, because society has developed and changed. I read the clause, and I honestly can't understand it at all. I guess it says that any judges of the states are bound by the constitution in changing the laws therein.
Posted by Elise — Jan 25, 2009 22:26
Wait...how are we supposed to make an impression and make a mark if we're just like everyone else? Honestly, we're the United States of America and the Constitution we're talking about, not the United Nations. What will happen to "I'm proud to be an American"? (Not to mention that "I'm glad to be human" is probably going down the tubes too.) It's the same with all the religions in America. We need to come together, but we can't become the same. When the lines that separate us start to blur, what happens? Right and wrong become one (relative truth, anyone?), cultural background means you are insulting someone, and it becomes so much easier for terrorists to manipulate us. I even think that the United States have blurred their own lines too much. Hmm...this all makes me think of the end times a bit, not to get off topic or say that I necessarily think that the end of the world (as we know it) is going to happen within this century. What exactly is staying on topic? All I saw was write what comes to mind after reading these articles, haha. And about the Constitution, if the people no longer consider it the Supreme Law, the fact that it says so is pointless. It would be like your neighbor saying he owns the world. Since you don't believe that, the fact that he says it makes no difference. The non-interpretivists would just say that the founding fathers never realized that the world would grow so inter-connected anyhow.
Posted by Seth, the Jeenior — Jan 25, 2009 22:46
Honestly the idea of changing the whole Constitution scares me. I see the point of needing to change it to keep up but, America has strayed so far from it's original founding to be a nation of babies. People here take their freedom for granted and now what the government to bottle feed them. America is divided over everything from the War in Iraq to the homosexuality issues. Everyone complains about their 'rights' and soon we are all going to have to tape our mouths for fear of getting sued because we 'offended' someone. In a way we are losing our freedom because we can no longer say, print whatever, what we think or believe because it might offend someone ( doesn't that sound a little bit unconstitutional for violating freedom of speech, and the press and so on?). Anyway, I think it would be a disaster to completely change the Constitution because there are no godly people left it seems in the government left and I for one do not want new laws that I can garentee will defend homosexuals and abortions. There are no morals left in America and it only gets worse, if we change the Constitution America will be saying that all of this is right because people feel it's right, well boo-hoo for them suck it up and stick to what once made our country great. Copycating foreign laws won't help either, we maybe can learn a couple of things from other countries but Scalia said: "The court's discussion of these foreign views (ignoring, of course, the many countries that have retained criminal prohibitions on sodomy) is ... meaningless dicta. Dangerous dicta, however, since this court ... should not impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans," we need to make our own decisions, and if other countries don't like it oh well. We need to learn to stand our ground on the decisions we make that we think is best and not back down because someone else questions it. Article 6 clause 2 just supports what I have said. America needs to stand it's ground and those who want to change it can take over Antarctica and start another country there because things will only keep declining if we don't go back to where we started.
Posted by Gracie — Jan 25, 2009 22:56
What in the world is O'Connor and Breyer thinking. I think of America as a leader not a follower, so why should we be following the example of other nations. If we wanted to follow the ruling of European Governments we would never had left Europe. It just doesn't make sense to me. If the Founding Fathers had intended us to follow the ruling of foreign courts then they wouldn't have stated that the Constitution is to be the Supreme Law. In Article 6 of the Constitution it states that our Congress should be consulted on any decisions being made, not a foreign congress
Posted by Tim — Jan 25, 2009 22:58
This is a very tough topic to make a decision on. With the new technology uprising and advances, there are questions about laws. The writers of the Constitution would have had no idea about these advancements and how to make laws for them. But I think they did the best possible job and the US Constitution is a great standard for this nation. Straying from the Constitution will only bring this nation down. You can't make new technology as an excuse to disobey the Constitution.
Posted by Ethan — Jan 25, 2009 23:08