Quote:

---

abltsandwich said:
Good luck being able to make the post you just did without the protections of the Constitution.

---

Quote:

---

SlashOZ said:

Quote:

---

abltsandwich said:
Good luck being able to make the post you just did without the protections of the Constitution.

---

So, the entire internet is dependent on the U.S. constitution? Interesting. Please explain more.

---

Quote:

---

abltsandwich said:

Quote:

---

SlashOZ said:

Quote:

---

abltsandwich said:
Good luck being able to make the post you just did without the protections of the Constitution.

---

So, the entire internet is dependent on the U.S. constitution? Interesting. Please explain more.

---

That's not even what I said.

---

Quote:

---

abltsandwich said:

Quote:

---

SlashOZ said:

Quote:

---

abltsandwich said:
Good luck being able to make the post you just did without the protections of the Constitution.

---

So, the entire internet is dependent on the U.S. constitution? Interesting. Please explain more.

---

That's not even what I said.

---

Quote:

---

SlashOZ said:

Quote:

---

abltsandwich said:

Quote:

---

SlashOZ said:

Quote:

---

abltsandwich said:
Good luck being able to make the post you just did without the protections of the Constitution.

---

So, the entire internet is dependent on the U.S. constitution? Interesting. Please explain more.

---

That's not even what I said.

---

Oh cuz I thought you said that I wouldn't be able to write what I wrote without the U.S. constitution. Why not another constitution? I'm sure similar things are expressed everyday by people throughout the world. Please explain why the U.S. constitution is the SOLE reason for my freedom to express how much bullshit our constitution is and then I'll say you are right. As long as there is at least 1 other country that allows people to talk shit about the U.S. constitution your argument is full of it. Heck, I don't care if the U.S. constitution allows free speech. Plenty of other constitutions do that as well and there is no reason we couldn't write a better constitution right now than the one we have.

---

It's easy to talk about this when you're listed as living in "reality".
You obviously don't live in the states.

Quote:

---

Meteloides said:
They also prevented the people from being anally violated by the government. Or at least made the process much more difficult for the government.

---

Quote:

---

Meteloides said:

It's easy to talk about this when you're listed as living in "reality".
You obviously don't live in the states.

---

Quote:

---

ToiletDuk said:

Quote:

---

Meteloides said:
They also prevented the people from being anally violated by the government. Or at least made the process much more difficult for the government.

---

Thanks to the wars on drugs and terror, it's considerably easier for the government to do so than it used to be.

---

Quote:

---

ToiletDuk said:

Quote:

---

Meteloides said:
They also prevented the people from being anally violated by the government. Or at least made the process much more difficult for the government.

---

Thanks to the wars on drugs and terror, it's considerably easier for the government to do so than it used to be.

---

It sure is. But we had 200-ish years before they started getting really good at circumventing the constitution. More specifically, at convincing us to give up our constitutional rights.
Fear is the enemy of freedom.

Quote:

---

SlashOZ said:

Quote:

---

Meteloides said:

It's easy to talk about this when you're listed as living in "reality".
You obviously don't live in the states.

---

I am from the states and I think our constitution is straight fucked. Heck, I'm studying U.S. constitutional law right now at law school in the good ol' US of A. I also think people that use arguments such as "that is unconstitutional" to support their agend are equally full of shit by appealing to an arbitrary set of rules similar to how religious people try to impose their views on others by appealing to the Truth contained in their religious texts.

---

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
it isn't arbitrary, it isn't the word of god and Paulbots are incapable of interpreting it.

---

I am pretty sure he has more of a problem with the paulbots than with the Constitution, and who can blame him?

I've softened on Paul though. I really don't want him to get elected, but I like the messages he brings to the table. Every election cycle, more people listen to what he has to say. although I disagree with him on any number of policy issues, nobody else has the balls to get up on the debate podium and insist that drug prohibition is a violation of everything the country stands for that must be overturned. That's really the only thing I definitively like about him. The rest seems pretty hazy to me. :notsureifwant: on most of it, unfortunately.

I'm going to make a political forecast, though: Obama wins '12, and Rand Paul, the attractive young Ron Paul clone with his own Resounding Populist Message, gets elected President in 2016. It's the Republican answer to Obama.

Watch and wait.

Quote:

---

Meteloides said:

Quote:

---

SlashOZ said:

Quote:

---

Meteloides said:

It's easy to talk about this when you're listed as living in "reality".
You obviously don't live in the states.

---

I am from the states and I think our constitution is straight fucked. Heck, I'm studying U.S. constitutional law right now at law school in the good ol' US of A. I also think people that use arguments such as "that is unconstitutional" to support their agend are equally full of shit by appealing to an arbitrary set of rules similar to how religious people try to impose their views on others by appealing to the Truth contained in their religious texts.

---

It's really hard to argue for or against anything from a perspective of objective reality, though.
Like, the government is doing something that is clearly messed up or oppressive or privacy-violating or what-have-you.
If you point at it and declare, "That is wrong." You don't have a legal leg to stand on.
If you point at it and invoke your religion and the inalienable rights of man, you will be laughed at.

All we can really do is say, "Hey! You're breaking the agreed-upon rules!" It isn't fair and we know it. But the only way we can oppose it is with the Constitution.

---

So according to you the only way to say something is wrong or right is to have laws. However, you neglect to see the regress you have just created. In order to say a law is good and therefore worth making a law in the first place there must be a legal reason to do so. This regress can go back further and further and to the point where your argument actually invalidates the constitution you are trying to defend. 

Look, the idea is avoid trying to determine starting point as the ultimate arbiter of what is good or bad or right or wrong. Using the constitution as a basis for saying something is right or wrong is just as stupid as using religion.

People can create their own laws just fine. Our constitution served its purpose when our country we just a youngin'. We've grown old, we need some new rules to govern us. Our constitution is like training wheels on a bike but what the U.S. really needs is a new kick ass sports car of a constitution.

IMO, we should learn from the past instead of blindly following its dictates. I'd rather break off and start new than be bound to this wadded up and soiled piece of paper we hold with such high esteem simply because it is the constitution. bah

Quote:

---

danielx said:
a new constitution you say? Hopefully our government reads it, unlike the healthcare bill.

---

Quote:

---

danielx said:
i wasn't saying that. I was just saying the government doesn't read half the shit they pass, and has been proven time and time again to be corrupt, do we trust them to write a new constitution.

---

Quote:

---

colemantallent said:
danielx, I am saying that WE need to write a new constitution, not our government.  We need to take our country back from the government running it, draft a new constitution, and reinstate government.

---

Quote:

---

  Let me point out that health insurance is a complete waste of money for a healthy young male who doesn't intentionally vault himself out of cannons on a regular basis.

---

Quote:

---

SlashOZ said:
IMO, we should learn from the past instead of blindly following its dictates. I'd rather break off and start new than be bound to this wadded up and soiled piece of paper we hold with such high esteem simply because it is the constitution. bah

---

And I would rather live in a world without authority.
But this is reality. And idealism has no place here!

Quote:

---

Meteloides said:

Quote:

---

SlashOZ said:
IMO, we should learn from the past instead of blindly following its dictates. I'd rather break off and start new than be bound to this wadded up and soiled piece of paper we hold with such high esteem simply because it is the constitution. bah

---

And I would rather live in a world without authority.
But this is reality. And idealism has no place here!

---

Quote:

---

SlashOZ said:
That's right, you paulbots that think saying something is unconstitutional aren't welcome here. You think that following the constitution somehow leads to better results than something that is unconstitutional. You rely not on the merits of your assertion but on the power that the word "unconstitutional" has within the minds of those you wish to persuade.

The U.S. constitution isn't the word of god so why do people treat the constitution as if it is?

Oh no! Someone has transgressed our arbitrary rules!!!

The federal government has too much power? How about the idea of the constitution having too much power? People can invoke the idea of constitutionality to fellow politicos and it is like Santorum invoking the idea of his bible and christian god.

Is there any real meaningful difference between a book written thousands of years ago that is full of shit and more recently written document that is equally full of shit?

Why do secular politicos feel completely justified in rallying around the constitution as if it were the word of god while at the same time decrying someone on the far right who wants to outlaw gay marraige or eliminate a woman's right to choose?

What would be so wrong if we pissed all over our current constitution and made a new one. Heck, I bet we could write a new constitution that isn't nearly as fucked as the one we have to deal with now.

/rant of a law student.

---

Quote:

---

starfire_xes said:
If you are a law student OP, give us a rational argument that wouldn't get laughed out of a court.  Tell us what exactly is wrong with it instead of using a bunch of thinly disguised emotional rhetoric.  Make valid points.

Law student my ass.

---

Quote:

---

ButteredToast said:
Let's hear your constitutions first 10 amendments.

---

Quote:

---

SlashOZ said:

Quote:

---

colemantallent said:
danielx, I am saying that WE need to write a new constitution, not our government.  We need to take our country back from the government running it, draft a new constitution, and reinstate government.

---

Hella this post +1

---

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
Where does the Constitution allow the government to compel someone to buy a product?  A product that isn't even necessarily a sound purchase except for third parties that might, on the off chance, get stuck with a bill.  Since they aren't paying it's good for them.  For the purchaser?  Not so much.  Let me point out that health insurance is a complete waste of money for a healthy young male who doesn't intentionally vault himself out of cannons on a regular basis.

---

Quote:

---

starfire_xes said:
Well, what you just stated is almost all opinion, you know that?  Opinion isn't valid evidence.  Do you want to change something?  Then propose the constitutional amendment to change it.  That is how it was written.  There is a valid process you know.

Take one of your points, and argue your opinion with evidence.  Then propose the amendment you would use to change the constitution.  Do that and you will impress me, really.  You have to use logic and examples, not emotion and opinion.

---

Quote:

---

DosileFlynn said:
1. and it is brought into the modern era by the precedents set by the supreme court at the time.

3. even if women or non-whites could vote at the time, it would have made no difference to how the constitution was written. and they are not discriminated against in the constitution.

4. you'll find that most constitutions around the world borrow and copy to a certain extent from multiple other prominent constitutions. why change what works?

6. inside america the constitution cannot be compromised, outside america it has no jurisdiction.

the issues of america's actions abroad is not the fault of the constitution, but the administration of the time.

7. i don't know the specifics of how the voting system works in america... i'm guessing its one senator per state, but just in theory it has to be that way. it wouldn't work if they said something along the lines of " one senator per 5 million people ". then the other more powerful states would be able to gain an unfair advantage over the lesser states.

8. ???

9. the debate between centralism and state based power is one that has been going on for a long time. i think the states should remain in control of their affairs as much as they can, again this is a dilution of power exercise. if the federal has too much power and can just over-rule the states and control everything, then it is possible that the administration could become a boarderline dictatorship. and besides, the states know their own issues best. they are in the best position to run their state at a micro level, while the fed oversees the process at a macro level and keeps everything in order. but there are arguements for both sides to this issue.

---

1. Current supreme court chief justice John Roberts doesn't even know what a text message is. yeah the SCOTUS is really on top of modern day america.
2. you don't think women and minorities voting would have affected the constitution? you fucking serious? black people were considered 3/5ths of a person in the original constitution and women couldn't own property.
3. we fought a revolution to gain independence from england and then we basically incorporated all of their laws into our constitution. you don't see the irony here?
4. exactly, our constitution acts as if the U.S. is the exception to the world instead of a part of the world.
5. you don't even know how voting works in the U.S. and you are arguing about our constitution? Please, save us all the time and don't post about things you are ignorant of.
6. dictatorship? the executive cannot make laws unless congress gives the exec power to do so. the legislature cannot equal a dictatorship because it isn't one person. taking power away from the states doesn't equal a dictatorship. all it means is that we are not a system of government that has two separate spheres that try to compete for power. Also, the State lines in the U.S. are incredibly arbitrary in the western united states. Just google "Cascadia" for more info on the PNW.

Quote:

---

black people were considered 3/5ths of a person in the original constitution

---

Quote:

---

DieCommie said:

Quote:

---

black people were considered 3/5ths of a person in the original constitution

---

I thought that was after the civil war?  What part says that?

---

Quote:

---

SlashOZ said:

Quote:

---

starfire_xes said:
If you are a law student OP, give us a rational argument that wouldn't get laughed out of a court.  Tell us what exactly is wrong with it instead of using a bunch of thinly disguised emotional rhetoric.  Make valid points.

Law student my ass.

---

1. Most of the constitution was written with the 1700's in mind.
2. Most of the constitution was written before even a third of the states were a part of the Union. Heck, most of it was written with only 13 states involved.
3. Most of the constitution was written before women or non-whites could vote.
4. Most of the constitution incorporates by reference the common law tradition of England.
5. All of the constitution was written pre-internet.
6. The constitution sees the United States as a totality of sovereign power that cannot be compromised to world powers. It basically completely ignores our role and place on the world stage and our belligerent actions abroad seem to confirm this lack of foresight in our current constitution.
7. The constitution has built in inequities regarding voting power. Senator from South Dakota = same vote as Senator from Cali? Get real.
8. A parliamentary system would work far better as would a plurality voting system. There is a reason when the USA invades a country and wins we set up a parliamentary system instead of one that models our own constitution.
9. The distribution of powers between the feds and states is not as it should be. Education should be a national concern only, same with defense. In fact, states should have little power other than being districts used for voting purposes. The idea of state's rights in general is outmoded. Federal law in almost all cases is superior and almost all instances of the federal law fucking up, drug laws for example, stem from our not having a parliamentary system and allowing a minority to block progress. ie the filibuster.
10. You want me to make a legal argument about why the constitution should be gotten rid of? You do understand how stupid that request is right?

---

Quote:

---

starfire_xes said:
OK.  You want a Centrally controlled system instead of a constitutional republic.  So change it.  And a lot of your points are clearly debatable, but to make a bunch of broad sweeping generalizations as you did would take months to defend or attack.  You should know that.

Have I not explained my points that are opinion based with my own arguments or links? Also, were some of my arguments not straight up historical facts such as those regarding race and women?

Just because you don't like a Constitutional republic that doesn't mean your system is going to be better.  You want an all controlling central federal government with absolute power?  Yuck.  I want them to stay out of my fucking face and let me answer to the states.

So you want the Articles of Confederation? Let me know how that works out, oh wait . . . This is one of those historical facts you might want to learn yourself about.

For example you stated (to paraphrase not quote) that we have all the wars and illegal government intervention in foreign countries.  Thats the federal government doing that, yet you want to give them MORE power to do those things/  Doesn't make rational sense. 

I want to rewrite the constitution so that it forms a federal government that will act responsibly on the world stage instead of the weird exceptionalist posture we have now. Also, I didn't say increase the Federal government's military power, you are putting words in my mouth. That is why you shouldn't paraphrase and then make strawman arguments from the paraphrase.

The constitution is fucked is so broad that it could mean almost anything.  Maybe you should pick ONE specific point of it that is wrong, get evidence, and make an argument for it.  Isn't that how you are taught in law school?  Making over-broad generalizations in an argument can lead to opening up holes for the opposition to attack you.  Didn't they teach you about specificity and the need to limit what you say so you don't open yourself up to counter-defense to your argument?
No, I have given reasons and explained myself. You, not so much. You haven't said anything of substance except to build strawmen or attack me. Also, I have given reasons for why the constitution is bad. In fact, we've already gone over those points and it is clear you have no clue how to answer any of them which is why you have resorted to you own overly general statements, strawman arguments, and personal attacks.

---

Quote:

---

DosileFlynn said:
well, i'm inclined to agree on the stream lining of laws and similar issues for efficacy. i think thats great. what i disagree on is the running of the state, the state still needs to be sovereign to a degree and be able to handle its own affairs.


but theres two sides to every coin; in australia, our corporate law is standardized at the federal level, and more or less functions the same in every state. this is great for efficacy, because lawyers don't have to follow multiple different codes and have certainty in their responsibilities and boundaries. with this model you would hope that they ' get it right ' the first time, and have a flawless legal framework.


The flipside is that in america, the corporate law is not standardized at a federal level, there are differing corporate codes in different states, making the boundaries and responsibilities different in different states. which at first seems like a bad thing, but it also has an upshot, in that the states can try to attract the business of big corporations by having a legal frame work that is accomodating to their needs. it means corporations can shop around and choose to set up shop in the jurisdiction which is most favorable to them. it means there is competition between the states to win this traffic, and that it gives them an incentive to always be improving and bettering their legal framework.


but a big problem of this sort of model is that large corporations that function across multiple states encounter all sorts of jurisdictional troubles, i.e. transactions between new york --> miami, which law applies? where had the contract originated? did the parties state expressly which set of rules are to apply?? etc etc. and the corporations may have to tailor their actions when conducting commerce in different states. where as with the standardized model, none of these problems occur.

The forum shopping really only helps them on the small scale internal market of the United States and hardly effects international trade which is the future of the market. Yet another reason why a strong federal government is important.
















also-

1. whether he uses text messages or not is irrelevant.
Except to show that the Supreme Court is not in touch with modern day america.
2. sure, but i'm saying, they haven't been unfairly prejudiced in the writing of the constitution.
women couldn't own property or vote and you don't think that prejudiced them? Black people were slaves and you don't think that prejudiced them. Sorry but that makes you look like an idiot.
3. to gain legal autonomy, they just copied parts of the U.K.'s system because it worked.
Yeah, the whole women can't vote or own property and minorities can't vote and slavery. Great traditions that we imported. Heck, slavery costs hundreds of thousands of lives in a civil war. thanks founding fathers and incorporating slavery.
4. every constitution acts the same way. countries can't make laws or regulate anything that is outside their jurisdiction. there would need to be a new tier inserted above the federal level at a global level for this to happen.
Exactly, we should view the federal government as a state among the nations of the planet. So instead of having florida, NY, Texas, etc. we have Candada, the U.S., Australia, etc. This is a global world not some unknown and unconnected world anymore.
5. lol...
6. yes... but i'm saying if the federal has control of all of the states, they can function in a dictatorship fashion, over-ruling and controlling the states actions. again its a centralization of power. thats what the constitution does, it attempts to dilute the power in numerous ways so as to prevent abuse of that power.
The Federal Government is doing that now except instead of having laws that represent the people we have a whole bunch of laws from long ago governing us. We have a mish mash of laws across the states.

it is confusing to have a dichotomous legal system, but i think the states are situated in the best position to look after their own affairs. the federal government is too far detached from the real issues at state level. if everything was transferred to the federal, the states would inevitably at some point be prejudiced by not receiving the full attention they need. i guess it could function if the federal government increased significantly in size, and had teams of constituents that look after all of the states on the federals behalf, but then again, is that what the states are already now??

The weird legal system is what produced the negative effects of federalism that you point out. This is why I brought up the way a parlimentary system votes. It is more responsive to the electorate. This is also why the Senate and the filibuster make no sense. A single senator can literally bring the government to a halt if they want. Its totally fucked. State governments are just as responsive as the federal government except state and local politics are even more brutal and cutthroat and prone to corruption.

the consitution changes in one way, and one way only (excluding the developement of precedents). in australia it is by referendum. i don't know what it is in america... but i'm almost certain there would be a similar process of voting to make ammendments. it's supposed to be difficult to alter for a reason.

the reason it is difficult to alter is because it was designed to protect a certain class of people. The more you can prevent change from happening and the slower you can make it take with things like a filibuster then you can further a ruling classes protections.

---

Quote:

---

Meteloides said:
"You know what we need to do?
We need to rise up and take our government back! We need a new constitution!
Fuck the old constitution! Our new one will be infinitely superior to the old one!"



"Wait, you want specifics?

... Fuck."

---

Quote:

---

DieCommie said:

Quote:

---

black people were considered 3/5ths of a person in the original constitution

---

I thought that was after the civil war?  What part says that?

---

Quote:

---

boner soup said:
Hahaha, that's fucking awesome ((totally the vibe I got)).

---

Quote:

---

SlashOZ said:
Okay, meteloides you want specifics?

1. Freedom of speech.
2. Freedom of and from religion. This basically means you can believe what you want but you cannot use it as a reason to impose your will on others.
3. 1 person 1 vote.
4. Run-off elections.
5. 1 house of government instead of 2. With a parliamentary system that has a Prime Minister instead of a separate president.
6. 3 level judiciary. District ct. Appellate Ct. and Supreme Court.
7. Everyone is treated equally regardless of citizenship. ie the terms illegal alien or enemy combatant would be meaningless.
8. All trade agreements must conform to international governing body standards.
9. Right to life. ie government health care.
10. Right to property. ie government cannot seize your property without due process.
11. innocent until proven guilty.
12. education is exclusively federal.
13. commerce is exclusively federal.
14. trade is exclusively federal.
15. marraige is without legal consequence. ie no tax breaks/incentives or discrimination.
16. Age of majority is 16. ie can vote, get married, own property, enter into contracts, buy alcohol, tried as an adult, etc.

I can go on.

---

Quote:

---

amilibertine said:

2 - impossible to keep people from imposing religious will on others,  if the law was written this way then the religious people would just change tactics and start claiming their ideas aren't religious in origin
The religious folks would have one hell of a time trying to justify preventing access to contraception to women if they can't rely on the religious beliefs as a reason to withhold such access.
3 - What do you mean 1 person, 1 vote?  Get rid of the electoral college?  Voting on laws?  Voting on elected officials?
I mean, get rid of the electoral college, get rid of the senate, get rid of the filibuster, get rid of first past the poll voting.
4 - We can't even get one round of voting right and you want two?  I'd agree if we could go back to all paper ballots and the counting of ALL votes in full view of the public.  These are the concerns that really need addressing before we go adding a second round of voting.
So even though other countries have runoff elections you don't think the U.S., most technologically advanced country on the planet can't do it? Not to mention several places in the U.S. already use such a system including San Francisco and Portland. This is workable.
5 - As has already been stated this is a matter of preference. Doesn't seem like anyone who lives in this kind of system is stepping up to say it's better than having two houses.
What are the preferences for two houses other than slowing the pace of government? Unicameral governing bodies are more efficient. This list of countries using a unicameral body is quite long with notable members including China, New Zealand, Sweden, and Portugal. Also of interesting note is that when we were setting up the Iraqi government we decided they should have a unicameral parliamentary government instead of a system like our own.
6 - Is that really so different than the system already in place?
Only without the state court system. Uniform laws for the win! No discrepancies = better.
7 - Not sure I really understand this one.  Could you expand on it a bit?
Sure thing. Currently, if you are deemed an "illegal alien" you are subject to criminal action and deportation. You cannot hold a job legally either. I would eliminate such a classification of persons and implement a system where all peoples would be given the same privileges and immunities as U.S. citizens. Similarly, the term enemy combatant would not mean some sort of extra-legal status where our government can use "enhanced interrogation techniques", extraordinary rendition, or indefinite detention at places such as Gtmo.
8 - Ummm, no.  We are a sovereign nation and we don't answer to any higher body, otherwise there isn't a point in having a country at all.
This is the exceptionalist attitude that plagues our foreign policy I would rather avoid. A constitution that ensures that our government view itself in a proper light on the world stage is essential. We should give extreme deference if not total authority to international governing agencies. One world government is the future brah.
9 - Health care isn't a right.  I shouldn't have to pay taxes for someone else so they can get free health care while I have to work for it.  Besides, as I'm about to point out, any time the federal government is given control of something they ruin it completely.
You're right. Health care isn't a right, now. It should be however. Also, national health care is basically the same thing as paying insurance except that the broader pool of people paying into the system defrays costs to a much greater extent thus lowering costs for everyone in the long run.
12 - Education should be left to the states.  The DOE should be abolished as it's ruined our educational system. 
Proof? Most medical advancements are a result of federal research dollars distributed by the DOE. Not to mention in a global economy a strong federal government with national standards for education and the national power of funding would greatly help our competitiveness on a global market. We would be much worse off had the federal government not got involved with education. You might want to google land grant colleges for a history of federal intervention when it comes to the establishment of state colleges.
13 - If our country was a lot smaller I would agree with this, but as it is now this just isn't feasible.  You expect the federal government is going to be competent enough to govern all commerce?
Our federal government already does this to some extent. There are local regulations but for the most part they could and should be implemented on a national basis. For example, liquor laws vary from state to state and county to county and there is no real defensible reason for such discrepancies and differences based on arbitrary state and county lines.
14 - This is another disaster waiting to happen.  All companies and states should have to go through the feds to trade and do business with other nations and corporations? Really?
Trade refers to our economic relations with other countries. This is actually the status quo right now. Not to be rude but this is just one of many instances in this thread where people have shown a complete ignorance of our current constitution which they are trying to defend.
15 - What would be the point of getting married then?  We should encourage people to have families and the incentives gained from marriage help to promote that.  The law should be changed to remove the restrictions on marriage though, such as gay marriage.  People joining their finances to better their situations is good for the economy.
So you think the government should be able to coerce people into living a certain lifestyle through our tax structure? Alright, forget this provision on marraige and I'll just support an all out ban on marijuana since you think the government should encourage certain lifestyles. /sarcasm. I was just trying to keep government out of our lives with such a provision. You know, the whole freedom from government interference in our lives and religious freedom. Why should we support one lifestyle choice like marraige over others such as not getting married?
16 - I don't know how I feel about this one.  On the one hand some 16 year olds are fully capable of handling these rights.  On the other hand some 18 year olds aren't capable as it is now.
I think placing people in a position of responsibility will ultimately get them to be more responsible. If you put people in a position where they are not responsible then they are likely to be less responsible in their actions. When you boil it down though this is simply a provision that is there to grant more freedoms to more people.

---