|
joether -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (12/30/2014 3:07:52 AM)
|
The Bill of Rights maybe many things, but the one thing its not, is well understood by the majority of Americans. Go ahead and test it out on your loved ones and friends. Ask them to define the 1st amendment. Find out how many can get two of the five items correct. Do it as a New Years Eve 'Trivia Pursuit' question. And be sad when none of them can really answer it correctly. That most Americans can not explain the first amendment is not a good way of explaining the next twenty-six to follow. Most people have a smartphone at their fingertips, but when asked 'What are the five parts of the 1st amendment' they draw a complete blank on how to answer it.
The second amendment is so fucked up and corrupted, none of us should really be surprised by how things are panning out. The 'political football' game of 'whom scores better' is very irrelevant when watching doctors and nurses scrambling in the ER to save the life of someone hit by a bullet. Or the crushing sensation experienced when that doctors enters the waiting room to tell the hastly esembled and praying family "sorry, he/she didnt make it". That we get this one so wrong for so many reasons, that blame is easily cast on everyone, including those sitting on the side lines. This one could be fixed simply by understanding it. Most do not, since they have to much invested already. Be it political, financial, religious, or dare I say it....racial. So....the killing will continue, liberals making laws, conservatives becoming more unstable, and moderates playing 'who gives the best cookies and they'll join" bullshit.
With such self absorbed, selfish, and very hateful attitudes regarding the 2nd, most couldnt rattle off the third amendment. At one time this one had real meaning. In 2014, we have around twenty vacant homes for every one homeless person in our nation. Makes the 3rd seem somewhat silly given conditions.
Each of the amendments have exceptions to the rules (i.e. you cant shout 'fire' in a crowed theater under the 1st). But the 4th is the one in which those exceptions to the rules seem to really bite people in the ass for not knowing 'what is allowed' and 'what isnt allowed'. Further, that some would allow the government to accuse US Citizens of wrong doing just to fucking vote during an election. "Papers Pleases" was once used to show how a dictatorship or totalitarian regime controlled the people it lorded over. Now, its just 'acceptable' behavior in the red states of this nation. And the really ironic part is those people HATE the government snooping on their voting habits....
The fifth and sixth amendments have so many parts that tie together, that even the lawyers get them messed up in exams and cases. An we are expecting average Americans to understand this stuff, when they clearly cant get two items from the 1st correct? We are asking alot!
After that a trial by jury for issues that cost more than a Uppie Food Stamp. What is a Uppie Food Stamp you ask? Its what ATMs spit out when you give them plastic; a regular $20. Back in the 18th century $20 was a HECKUVA alot of money. By today's standards, you could have a trial by jury in a case were you are accused of jaywalking!
Most conservatives like to ignore the first half of the 2nd amendment and reinterpret the remainder however they want. I have often asked them if its 'ok' to do that with the 8th amendment? Or if the government can do that towards someone found under its control? The answer to both is 'no'. Yet, when asked what the 8th amendment is, they (like moderates and liberals) have no clue what its about. It has to be important enough to be in the Bill of Rights, but not important enough to know what it is, right? Yes, if its not 'ok' to ignore the first or last half of the 8th, nor reinterpret the first or last half. Then its not 'ok' to do either on the other 25 amendments, and CERTAINLY not on the 2nd. Consistency in the rules is how they have survives so long. I would think....anyone...on this site in particular could explain the difference between 'SM' and 'torture'. An yet, there are Americans whom believe most of the stuff used on 'enemy combatants' is not torture, since they follow the Bush administration's take: Its not torture unless the Torturer believes the Torturee is being tortured.
Then we have the 9th. How many Americans could get this one correct? Its less complicated than the 1st. Its like the odd numbers except the 1st and 5th get no 'equal face time in the US Supreme Court' anymore. Maybe they are feeling disciminated?
The tenth amendment is one of those 'no brainers'. The founding fathers liked to party and drink and felt rattling off another dozen less 'important' ideas could be better handles upon the states they lived in. Besides, there were 10 commandments, right? It worked for Christianity for 1800+ years. We could have had fifteen commend---er---amendments in the Bill of Rights.....right?
After that, there exists another seventeen amendments. You think Americans have little knowledge on the Bill of Rightsd? That's nothing compared to the next seventeen amendments. Sure people can rattle off a few of the more popular ones (i.e. prohibition). How about the 19th? You would think the ladies could rattle that one off at the very least, right? Pretty important when its time to vote, eh?
Chipping away? Everyone does it, on many different amendments. They all do it for a variety of reasons. Some are meant to bring the more noble aspects of Americans forward (i.e. Brown verse Board of Education as it relates to the 13th and 14th amendments). While others serve to push a political ideology rather than a constitutional one onto the population (i.e. Heller verse District of Colombia). That we rely on judges (the US Supreme Court most well included here) on 'keeping faith with the Constitution' seems to have turned into a relgious experience, rather than avoidance of such. That some in this nation feel that branch of the Federal government is perfect but the other two are corrupted to the core!
This forum has seen quite a few examples of people pushing for one amendment or another. From creating new amendments to handle problems (i.e. Gerrymandering, Voter ID, etc.) to modifying existing ones to some viewpoint. Many of these seem only to push the divde further, and screw the knife in each other's backs a bit deeper in some psychotic duel of 'getting even' with the 'other guy'. Sadly the reasons for creating amendments no longer really exists by the majority of Americans. That of creating liberty to protect the individuals from tyrannical forces whom always seem to be pushing in from every angle. The founding fathers thought that the government was the only entity whom could do such evil towards the citizens of this nation. Hence the creation of the Bill of Rights. In 2014, very powerful and wealth individuals, multi-national corporations, and large religious groups could become tyrants by their own right. Or join forces with each other. Or join in with an eveil and tyrannical government. All they have to do, is get Americans to spend more time pointing fingers at each others, creating new barriers of distrust, and feeding on fears at just the right moment; to allow it to happen. Seems they are doing a pretty good job, eh?
That people react to something with 'its my rights'; yet when asked what those rights are, they cant rattle them off. Nor....WHY...those rights were created into law. SO before we go 'chipping away' at one pillar or another of a building (metaphorically speaking), wouldn't it make sense to understand physics, design, construction, and material properties? Since chipping the wrong way, or demolishing all together, could have VERY bad effects on the nation as a whole. Dare I sound 'true conservative' here (and not the current pseudo conservative philosophy), in stating that we should go slowly on the 'creation' and 'modification' of amendments to so that we keep the most liberties present without unbalancing the many intricate and delicate balances currently in play in the nation.
|
|
|
|
