Print

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

[deathpunch578]

I think this is why the constitution should be rewritten from the ground up to better accommodate a modern society. (the 2nd amendment especially)

[Maximum Spin]

I think this is why the constitution should be rewritten from the ground up to better accommodate a modern society. (the 2nd amendment especially)

And this is why G. K. Chesterton should be taught in public schools.

[smjjames]

A reliable, unbiased news source... If only such a thing existed. ):
There has to be more to this story.
Yet, we probably won't ever know.

More to what story? Trump trying to keep Romney out by keeping Sen. Hatch from retiring? Sounds like the usual political maneuvering. Obama would have done the same kind of thing.

I think this is why the constitution should be rewritten from the ground up to better accommodate a modern society. (the 2nd amendment especially)

Can you honestly see a constitutional convention going well in this political environment? 13 colonies had to ratify it, now states 50 would have to, and a single state not ratifying it would send the whole thing back for a rewrite. I agree that the constitution would need some updating for modern society, but getting in amendments to it is challenging already.

I think this is why the constitution should be rewritten from the ground up to better accommodate a modern society. (the 2nd amendment especially)

And this is why G. K. Chesterton should be taught in public schools.

Who's G. K. Chesterson? Nvm, I'll just wiki that.

[deathpunch578]

I think this is why the constitution should be rewritten from the ground up to better accommodate a modern society. (the 2nd amendment especially)

Can you honestly see a constitutional convention going well in this political environment? 13 colonies had to ratify it, now states 50 would have to, and a single state not ratifying it would send the whole thing back for a rewrite. I agree that the constitution would need some updating for modern society, but getting in amendments to it is challenging already.

I think this is why the constitution should be rewritten from the ground up to better accommodate a modern society. (the 2nd amendment especially)

And this is why G. K. Chesterton should be taught in public schools.

Who's G. K. Chesterson? Nvm, I'll just wiki that.

1. I don't think its possible to have a new constitution in the current political atmosphere, but it would be nice

2. what does this guy have to do with anything, as far as I'm aware he was just an artist with some people saying he was anti-semetic

[sluissa]

Who's G. K. Chesterson? Nvm, I'll just wiki that.

I'll be honest, hadn't heard of him either, but the ideas I'm seeing are pretty common... This line is a good sum up:

After belabouring a great many people for a great many years for being unprogressive, Mr. Shaw has discovered, with characteristic sense, that it is very doubtful whether any existing human being with two legs can be progressive at all. Having come to doubt whether humanity can be combined with progress, most people, easily pleased, would have elected to abandon progress and remain with humanity. Mr. Shaw, not being easily pleased, decides to throw over humanity with all its limitations and go in for progress for its own sake. If man, as we know him, is incapable of the philosophy of progress, Mr. Shaw asks, not for a new kind of philosophy, but for a new kind of man. It is rather as if a nurse had tried a rather bitter food for some years on a baby, and on discovering that it was not suitable, should not throw away the food and ask for a new food, but throw the baby out of window, and ask for a new baby

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Spin is referring (probably) to Chesterson's Fence, which is an argument that the namesake made that reform is destructive and foolish unless the reasons behind the existence of the thing being reformed away from are understood.

[McTraveller]

Curious here - why do you think that it is the Constitution that is wrong, and not modern sentiment?  Or put another way - how would you make an unbiased determination of which is which?

It's as dangerous a thing to think "old is outdated" as it is to think that "old is perfect and we just misinterpret it."

[smjjames]

You have a point on making a clear unbiased determination of which is which.

As for what could be modernized, the second amendment could use some clear and concise language, that's for sure. And before anybody yells at me for pushing a liberal anti-gun agenda, I'm not, it could be made to the advantage of gun owners and it would be to everybody's advantage if it were clear and concise.

However, I don't see an amendment to the second amendment happening when nobody can agree on what the status quo should be.

[deathpunch578]

Curious here - why do you think that it is the Constitution that is wrong, and not modern sentiment?  Or put another way - how would you make an unbiased determination of which is which?

It's as dangerous a thing to think "old is outdated" as it is to think that "old is perfect and we just misinterpret it."

well I would say take out all of the irrelevant parts, stuff like quartering soldiers, and rework a lot of things, 2nd amendment (out dated), the marriage part (whats the point of it if states can change it all they want causing some to support gay marriage and others outlawing it, just have it regulated by the federal government), add in government funding for certain necessities (healthcare, education, prison systems, etc.)

[sluissa]

Curious here - why do you think that it is the Constitution that is wrong, and not modern sentiment?  Or put another way - how would you make an unbiased determination of which is which?

It's as dangerous a thing to think "old is outdated" as it is to think that "old is perfect and we just misinterpret it."

It's something in the middle, more likely. It's not that the constitution is wrong, but it was written in a different time for a different purpose. However at the same time it's the framework under which all of us have learned to live our lives. Replacing it with a different and unknown framework might be to a benefit, but it might also be a detriment.

It's a case of better the devil you know. There's also the fact that the constitution is the foundation upon which all other laws and precedent are based. You rip out that foundation, the rest of the house ceases to stand. You can knock everything down and start from scratch, but it will be a long process of rebuilding until everyone has anywhere near the same level of comfort. You're damn likely to forget the can opener, and the couch is not going to feel the same for a long time, and oops, you forgot the door on the bathroom so everyone gets to watch you until it's fixed. It's not a simple thing to just rebuild and entire government from the ground up and make everyone happy. Much more simple is to simply find the parts of the foundation that are weakest and either shore them up with supporting laws, or if necessary add additional amendment beams to take some of the weight. Even that isn't simple, and still takes a lot of time and consideration and you have a chance of screwing things up, but it's still much easier to attempt to fix what's there, rather than start from scratch, because hey, while you're tearing it down and rebuilding it, we've all still got to live in it. It's not like we can just go borrow Canada's couch for a little bit until there's a roof on everything again.

[smjjames]

Curious here - why do you think that it is the Constitution that is wrong, and not modern sentiment?  Or put another way - how would you make an unbiased determination of which is which?

It's as dangerous a thing to think "old is outdated" as it is to think that "old is perfect and we just misinterpret it."

well I would say take out all of the irrelevant parts, stuff like quartering soldiers, and rework a lot of things, 2nd amendment (out dated), the marriage part (whats the point of it if states can change it all they want causing some to support gay marriage and others outlawing it, just have it regulated by the federal government), add in government funding for certain necessities (healthcare, education, prison systems, etc.)

How do you determine what's irrelevant and what's still relevant? which is mctravellers point. Also, you need to read up on the constitution, there is nothing in the constitution that talks about marriage, unless you mean add one, and locking specific funding numbers for certain things in the constitution doesn't sound like a great idea.

Also, funny that you list prison systems as a necessity.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm definitely willing to die on the Third Amendment hill.

[Maximum Spin]

well I would say take out all of the irrelevant parts, stuff like quartering soldiers, and rework a lot of things, 2nd amendment (out dated), the marriage part (whats the point of it if states can change it all they want causing some to support gay marriage and others outlawing it, just have it regulated by the federal government), add in government funding for certain necessities (healthcare, education, prison systems, etc.)

So, uh, you haven't actually read the Constitution, have you?

I know because there's no "marriage part". Marriage isn't mentioned in the constitution, nor should it be. Funding allocation isn't part of the Constitution, and for gods' sake, nor should it be. The "twenty dollars" mention in the seventh amendment is bad enough; imagine if it applied to something more important. What an utter mess.

And of course the fact that you perfunctorily say that the second amendment is outdated is just naked ideology.

I'm definitely willing to die on the Third Amendment hill.

Same here, 100% seriously. Not only is it a good rule to keep around, there are serious 3rd-amendment concerns in the nation already.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Since the Third has never been successfully used as rationale in a court case and the language of the amendment is pretty direct, I'm wondering what concerns you're thinking of here. It would be pretty shitty if the government started quartering soldiers around to save costs/suppress dissent, but I suspect you mean something else. Also, the Third probably doesn't have any effect anyway because it only prohibits quartering in peacetime, and we're never at peace.

Now I'm imagining lawyers arguing that armed forces outside the Army count because they aren't "soldiers". You must now feed the 100 Marines they stacked like wood in your basement breakfast or they'll burn down the neighborhood.

[Maximum Spin]

Since the Third has never been successfully used as rationale in a court case and the language of the amendment is pretty direct, I'm wondering what concerns you're thinking of here. It would be pretty shitty if the government started quartering soldiers around to save costs/suppress dissent, but I suspect you mean something else. Also, the Third probably doesn't have any effect anyway because it only prohibits quartering in peacetime, and we're never at peace.

Now I'm imagining lawyers arguing of armed forces outside the Army count because they aren't "soldiers". You must now feed the 100 Marines they stacked like wood in your basement breakfast or they'll burn down the neighborhood.

People are seriously trying to raise 3rd-amendment challenges to government surveillance and, in at least one instance I can recall, police commandeering of people's homes (which actually happens in some places); I don't think they have a shot in hell at success, really, but I want to keep the option open.