So tonight there is more of a trickle down from the continuing debate about whether the new deal was justified. There are several really strong arguments on both sides of the debate but I will say that one of the worst arguments I heard was that we should follow good policymaking over whether we are being constitutional.
Woah! Woah! Woah! (not woo woo woo!)
There are several problems with this argument:
1. The Constitution is the oldest document in human history that still today is being followed and implemented to a 't." Needlessly creating a stir over whether we should follow this document is considered treason.
2. If we don't follow this document then other countries will not follow theirs because America is an EXAMPLE of what other countries should do. We are the country that ended WW2, we are the country that promotes human rights the most.
3. To not follow the constitution even in a time of depression, is flawed logic. For it is logic that men like Hitler, Genghis Khan and other rutheless leaders used (all is fair in times of crisis)
4. THERE IS NO NEED EVER TO NOT FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION. The constitution is not a document of RESTRICTIONS but rather a document of RIGHTS. To be unconstitutional is to deny rights not eliminate restrictions. Denial of rights is a violation of autonomy.
5. We can never VIOLATE autonomy for it is incomparable to any other gift that life has given us.
Don't believe me (well you should!) Try catching up on your literature!
Jurgen Habermas [University of Frankfurt]
David Velleman [Professor of Philosophy, NYU]
Dwight Furrow Author“Moral Agency.”
Derek Parfit [Oxford]
Francis kamm- author Non-Consequentialism, the Person as an End-in-Itself, and the Significance of Status Reviewed work(
John M. Taurek 1977 [PhD in Philosophy at NYU],
Robert Zokick- author “Moral Constraints and Moral Goals.”
Just to name a few qualified individuals that support this ideal.