Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rolan7]

Does that have anything to do with the evolution of the constitution through amendments, though?
Yeah, anything the constitution doesn't cover somewhat defaults to the people (or the states, in most cases).

But through the people's elected representatives, the constitution can be updated.  Maybe not even "improved".  But it's inherently an evolving core of a living government.

[sluissa]

You could potentially amend it with "Scratch everything before this, Donald Trump is God-King for all eternity."

Not that that would ever... you know what... I'm not going to say that. It might happen. We'll just have to wait and see... but the point is you can do anything you want with the constitution as long as you follow proper procedure to do it.

[Rolan7]

And that's why the requirements for amendments are pretty severe.
If we get to the point where 2/3 of the House, and separately the Senate, both agree that...
Eh, for example, alcohol is to be abolished...
Then yeah, that's just how it is.  A foundation of our union, which we are loyal to via our state, is that alcohol is abolished.

Fortunately that requires an overwhelming majority of both houses, and the Senate is particularly... resistant to fads.

It's not an accident, the founding fathers had at least a glimmer of insight.

they did miss a lot, and there's a lot more that they judged too radical to pass...  But they did set up a robust, evolving system.

[nenjin]

I think Americans pretty much universally agree that the Constitution is a living document that changes over time to reflect our society. We just disagree very strongly about what should change and why. Amendments granting rights are (generally speaking) my preference over those that deny rights. Everyone wants to the Constitution to enshrine their values.

That said, when you think about issues like....Citizens United and corporate rights vs. disenfranchisement, or that terrorist's cellphone and the right to privacy vs. security....just about anything can be a double-edged sword if you make it a right. I would like a right to privacy in the Constitution but I can easily think of a dozen examples of where that would blow up in our faces. So instead we have crazy shit like Hulk Hogan boasting about his sex tape in public and then turning around and winning millions against a gossip rag for running stories about it. (The case is a little more complicated than that, but...)

Unrelated, the kerfuffle in the House the other day. Republicans basically last minute convinced several senators to change their vote on a bill that would bar Federal Contractors from firing or discriminating against LGBT workers on the basis of their gender or sexuality. There was a big to-do and Paul Ryan, who wasn't there, chimed in and said "The Executive has no business deciding on this. This should be up to the states to decide for themselves."

I wonder if he missed the part where the Executive and not the States get to say what goes for Federal Contractors. I didn't really take Ryan for the "insert a quarter get a pre-recorded Republican message" type but now I dunno.

[mainiac]

I think Americans pretty much universally agree that the Constitution is a living document that changes over time to reflect our society.

I think most conservatives would say they disagree with that.

[nenjin]

It's hard to take that stance then also call for changes to the Constitution, which they have. And if you support the bill of rights, you're supporting the idea that the Constitution adapts to changes in our expectations of what is right.

[mainiac]

I would tend to disagree with the opinion myself.  All the same I believe a majority of them hold it.

[Frumple]

C'mon nenj, this is the american conservative movement. Holding contradictory positions is basically tuesday for 'em these days. Whether they believe the constitution is immutable depends on whether they're talking about the second amendment or enshrining the christian definition of marriage. Coalitions are a hell of a drug.

[Strife26]

There's a remarkably easy answer to the private vs security argument, in our old friend the fourth ammendment, that second most-abused of the pack these days. 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[nenjin]

It's still not clear cut enough for today. Metadata, surveillance, all these things exist outside the home and business or being outright detained on the street, which was the original intent of the 4th amendment. How you can know a search is unreasonable if you're not even aware it's occurring?

C'mon nenj, this is the american conservative movement. Holding contradictory positions is basically tuesday for 'em these days. Whether they believe the constitution is immutable depends on whether they're talking about the second amendment or enshrining the christian definition of marriage. Coalitions are a hell of a drug.

Oh I know. I just wish there was more room for debate so these contradictions could be exposed. We've kind of squeezed that out of the the actual discourse though, because no one really likes having to explain or defend their positions. Sort of like my Paul Ryan example above.

[Baffler]

It's still not clear cut enough for today. Metadata, surveillance, all these things exist outside the home and business or being outright detained on the street, which was the original intent of the 4th amendment. How you can know a search is unreasonable if you're not even aware it's occurring?

It's not proof enough on its own, but the fact that both the searching itself and its legal justification are shrouded in secrecy is pretty telling.

[origamiscienceguy]

Hillary Clinton just released this venn diagram:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

According to Hillary, of 83% of gun owners the only ones who are 90% of Americans are the ones who support universal background checks.

wot?

[sluissa]

That's not how venn diagrams work.

[Frumple]

Definitely an iffy diagram. Pretty sure it's trying to say that 90% of americans support universal background checks, but 83% of gun owners don't. Wouldn't know with any degree of certainty without seeing the data they're using for it, though.

... also pretty sure that whoever made it doesn't really understand how venn diagrams work, but I'd imagine most of the polity doesn't either so I guess it's a wash.

E: Mind you, I don't exactly blame people for having forgotten or never picked up how the things function. For the grotesque majority of the population, they'll see perhaps a dozen or two of the things in high school (and maybe college) math and then most likely never again.

[Shadowlord]

but 83% of gun owners don't.

The opposite.

Still a terrible venn diagram, and completely useless.