[Chancellor]

Quote by: Captain Cardio That's the problem right there - is that you don't feel the need to give a reason for your opinion. The debate doesn't end there - you need to provide some sort of reason for why you think the government shouldn't play any parental role.

The question was asked and an answer was given. I don't usually feel the need to elaborate further unless someone asks for such elaboration. Now, to answer your further request for elaboration, I don't think government should play any parental role first because that is not a power that has been given to the American government, second because the government did not give birth to the children and, therefore, does not have the rightful responsibility for raising them.

Are you saying social services, or age restrictions on movies are unconstitutional?

On a federal level, yes.

Or are you claiming the majority of Americans don't want social services or age restrictions for movies?

Most Americans don't know any better. They want social services because they think they're getting something from the government (when it's really coming from the tax payers). They want age restrictions for movies so that they don't have to carry out their parental responsibility in deciding what they will and will not allow their children to watch.

If the majority of Americans want those two things, shouldn't the constitution be amended to suit them, rather than have us dogmatically hold on to a dated piece of paper that erroneously represents our values? Or should we hold on, in the interests of appeasing you, the minority.

This is the point you've been missing in what I've been saying. The only way the American people can cede to the federal government these powers is to either amend the Constitution or to scrap the Constitution and come up with a new one.

Yes the US should be sticking by it's constitution

To do otherwise is good cause for another revolution.

, or if it doesn't, it should go through the proper procedures for amendment, but appealing to it as the moral authority on an issue, especially when your stance on that issue doesn't represent the majority's desires, is not valid.

Amending the Constitution is itself constitutional. But, yes, for our constitutional republic the Constitution is the only moral authority on any issue that involves the federal government.

You're interpretation of the above as 'some preference must be given to the rights of the parents', could just have easily have been interpreted as 'the government needs to get involved in some ways'.

No, it can't - unless you're reading into it. I'll tell you what I've said to others: my posts mean exactly and only what I post and not what you or others read into them. There is nothing being implied or inferred and there is nothing written between the lines. Now, to clarify the statement I made, some preference must be given to the rights of the parents - over the "rights" of the children (whether children even have rights is subject to debate).

You're not really answering the question. - and you didn't even address the fact that the government is already involved in certain ways of which society largely approves - with other movie viewing restrictions and social services. You've taken an absolutist attitude toward this thread, and completely abandoned the actual issue.

I did address it by saying that just because the government is involved doesn't make it right. It doesn't matter that society largely approves because it's still not right. If society wants to cede such powers to the federal government they must either amend the Constitution or replace it with a new one. And, yes, that is absolute!


CONTINUED...