What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

BamaD -> What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 9:46:11 AM)

I have been told that we should chip away "objectionable" parts of the Constitution.
What parts should we chip away at?
It seems to me that stop and search chips away at the fourth.
Pretending that it is freedom from religion not freedom of religion hits the first.
Hate speech law hit the first.



Aylee -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 9:50:35 AM)

The 17th Amendment.

In fact, don't chip away with it. Repeal completely.

I am not too sure about keeping the 26th either.



mnottertail -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 9:50:40 AM)

I dont know that we should 'chip away' anything. I think there needs to be some redefinitions of words. Money is not speech, and corporations are not people. In like fashion to petition the government for a redress of grievances should not be the milieu of corporate lobbyists.



kdsub -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 9:57:07 AM)

It seems to me that over the years many laws have been enacted by State legislatures with the intent to chip away at the Constitution. Thank heavens for the genius of our forefathers in the way they instilled checks and balances that has kept the current interpretation of the Constitution pure and intact.

Notice I said "current interpretation"... this is important because the Constitution and it's amendments have been interpreted in different ways over its life. Nothing is perfect including the Constitution...many of the amendments can be explained and applied in many different ways. So it is a constantly changing document even if the words remain the same...And i guess this is as it should be.

Butch




BamaD -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 10:29:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

The 17th Amendment.

In fact, don't chip away with it. Repeal completely.

I am not too sure about keeping the 26th either.

If you want to change I agree with making an amendment to do so.
Not just pretend it means something different.
It is the tendency to do the later that bothers me.
I had experience with this in the military, they would have a reg for years, then decide it meant something different and rip people because they had been following the old definition of the reg.
PS
I'm not to crazy about those two amendments either.



BamaD -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 10:30:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

It seems to me that over the years many laws have been enacted by State legislatures with the intent to chip away at the Constitution. Thank heavens for the genius of our forefathers in the way they instilled checks and balances that has kept the current interpretation of the Constitution pure and intact.

Notice I said "current interpretation"... this is important because the Constitution and it's amendments have been interpreted in different ways over its life. Nothing is perfect including the Constitution...many of the amendments can be explained and applied in many different ways. So it is a constantly changing document even if the words remain the same...And i guess this is as it should be.

Butch



Redefining the Constitution is like changing the rules at halftime.
Besides if it means what you want it to it means nothing.



Musicmystery -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 10:38:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I have been told that we should chip away "objectionable" parts of the Constitution.

Who the hell told you that?

quote:

What parts should we chip away at?
It works well. It gets deliberately twisted around--we might clarify perhaps.

If there are objectionable parts, they should be discussed and amended, not "chipped away."

quote:

It seems to me that stop and search chips away at the fourth.

As does the Patriot Act. But it has rabid flag wavers anxious to catch them some terrorists supporting it on both sides of the aisle.

quote:

Pretending that it is freedom from religion not freedom of religion hits the first.

What bullshit. In fact, it was to protect the new government from the religious abuses of European experience that sparked this.

quote:

Hate speech law hit the first.

It's certainly a grey area. The question would be do we have a right to abuse others?



kdsub -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 10:43:08 AM)

quote:

Redefining the Constitution is like changing the rules at halftime.
Besides if it means what you want it to it means nothing.


But the above is NOT reality... The Constitution has been interpreted differently in the past... and in ways that would not be accepted today.
..and I am talking the same words.

Butch



mnottertail -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 10:47:28 AM)

I think that insofar as amendments to it, we would also probably rid ourselves of the electoral college altogether, and do it all by popular vote (which means I would not want to lose the 17th amendment)



kdsub -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 11:02:22 AM)

But wouldn't that mean that citizens of the populous cities with relatively little land area and different needs always control government. This would leave many citizens in the western and mid western states for instance with control of relatively large areas of land under represented.

This could mean those that provide support, such as food and power, for the populous cities would become resentful if the views were not represented and it could cause fatal problems for the Union... in my opinion... I believe this thought was the purpose of the electoral college in the first place.

Otherwise the college is a way to assure all voters are represented in Congress and in the Presidency....It makes them important to politicians running for the Presidency which means their needs will be addressed.

Butch




mnottertail -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 11:11:06 AM)

They do now, remember, these elections are monte carlo gaming scenarios, the deal is made in 'battleground' states, the four or five, not really nationwide, cuz the electoral college is a one-for-one mirror of Congress, comprised of their respective political hacks.



kdsub -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 11:19:01 AM)

But would you not agree that the need for compromises...of the hacks...lol, is because of the Electoral College. Not always are the Wyoming's and Montana's and the Dakota's needed but when things are close they are needed... And the way they go could mean a Presidency and an election without the popular vote..And...it would be the right one... for the Union anyway.

Butch



mnottertail -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 11:26:12 AM)

since it eventually fits a one to one representation, that is, for every 40k or so is an elector, and many states are a winner take all anyhow, you are sort of arguing against your initial claims. In any case, California, New York and so on do decide the elections.
If it were left to a popular vote, then there would be Lincoln-Douglas debates in such towns as Gumshoe North Dakota, and Dismal Seepage Arkansas, and not these semi-scripted, innocuous 'town hall' crap-a-thons.




BamaD -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 11:58:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

Redefining the Constitution is like changing the rules at halftime.
Besides if it means what you want it to it means nothing.


But the above is NOT reality... The Constitution has been interpreted differently in the past... and in ways that would not be accepted today.
..and I am talking the same words.

Butch

If you want to change the meaning have the guts to amend it, don't pretend that it doesn't mean something new just because you want it to.



mnottertail -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 12:03:48 PM)

But the meaning has changed over time, with gutlessness and nefariousness.


There was never a thought that corporations were people nor money was free speech from the founding of this country to the nutsucker packed Supreme court.

Thats recent.



slvemike4u -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 12:09:04 PM)

Chip away at...Heaven forbid that ever happens.....but as some other have mention a reinterpretation of original intent would be a good thing.
Corporations are not people and money,despite what the Court has ruled,is not speech.
Surprisingly to me after 15 posts not one mention of the Second and its interpretation ?
To me that would be the starting point for any new understanding of intent and what the framers could never have possibly imagined .



BamaD -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 12:19:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Chip away at...Heaven forbid that ever happens.....but as some other have mention a reinterpretation of original intent would be a good thing.
Corporations are not people and money,despite what the Court has ruled,is not speech.
Surprisingly to me after 15 posts not one mention of the Second and its interpretation ?
To me that would be the starting point for any new understanding of intent and what the framers could never have possibly imagined .

Because going there is an invitation to derailment.



slvemike4u -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 12:24:52 PM)

How would discussing the second be a derailment ?
The fucking thread asks the question ?
Is your head so far up your ass that you can't see that ?



Musicmystery -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 12:32:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Chip away at...Heaven forbid that ever happens.....but as some other have mention a reinterpretation of original intent would be a good thing.
Corporations are not people and money,despite what the Court has ruled,is not speech.
Surprisingly to me after 15 posts not one mention of the Second and its interpretation ?
To me that would be the starting point for any new understanding of intent and what the framers could never have possibly imagined .

Because going there is an invitation to derailment.

Wait.

You took two shots at the First Amendment, but the Second Amendment is a derailment?




slvemike4u -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/29/2014 12:35:54 PM)

Sacrosanct....to some,especially to those who view the butchers bill as simply the price to be paid so they can fondle and stroke their weapons [8|]



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625