Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? - 12/29/2014 9:37:33 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DemonicGynoid

We should think about this VERY carefully, because if we can chip away one part, we can do it to another, like, the 1st amendment, like removing freedom of speech.

Distasteful as hate speech is, hate speech laws restrict unpopular views, exactly what freedom of speech is supposed to protect.
As I said at the beginning I consider stop and search to be a weakening of the 4th.
Once you weaken one it helps weaken the others even if that is not your intent.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to DemonicGynoid)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? - 12/29/2014 10:01:32 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
No, the 1st protects speech against government.

Unpopular views generically are on their own.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? - 12/29/2014 10:53:26 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: DemonicGynoid

We should think about this VERY carefully, because if we can chip away one part, we can do it to another, like, the 1st amendment, like removing freedom of speech.

Distasteful as hate speech is, hate speech laws restrict unpopular views, exactly what freedom of speech is supposed to protect.
As I said at the beginning I consider stop and search to be a weakening of the 4th.
Once you weaken one it helps weaken the others even if that is not your intent.

Popular speech does not need protection.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? - 12/29/2014 11:44:21 PM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

Actually, the 1st has five protections: Freedom OF religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Unfortunately, the way it's written, it would be easy for nefarious douche bags to do exactly as Bama claims; change a couple of words in the dependent clauses and you can kill five rights in one fell swoop.



Michael


_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? - 12/30/2014 2:05:37 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
Actually, the 1st has five protections: Freedom OF religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Unfortunately, the way it's written, it would be easy for nefarious douche bags to do exactly as Bama claims; change a couple of words in the dependent clauses and you can kill five rights in one fell swoop.

Michael



Just a note DS, its not "...freedom of assembly...", its "...the right of the people peaceably to assemble...". Big difference. I know your paraphraphing here. But I think we can both agree that people using peaceful means rather than intimidating ones, to make reasonable and good changes (if any) are the desired effect, right?


(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? - 12/30/2014 3:07:52 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? - 12/30/2014 3:31:23 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
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 ?

Yep this was the question. "What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at?"
Mikes question is only wrong if the 2nd amendment isnt part of the Constitution.
Maybe the "We" in the thread title was generic for "No lefties, no furriners including Brits"


Actually, I think the OP wasn't clear in his design. In another post, he acknowledged that he didn't hold two Amendments in high regard, but that they would require an Amendment to repeal/change. That's not exactly what he meant by "chipping away at." That's changing the Constitution. What he wanted to talk about, if I'm reading him right, was changing the way we interpret words and phrases. It's akin to the way the Interstate Commerce Clause stopped being about the commerce between two states (at the governmental level) and became about any commerce that crosses state lines (even down to the personal level). Instead of preventing one state government changing it's commerce laws (import/export into/out of the state) to benefit itself while economically damaging another state, it's now about the ability to regulate anything that has anything to do with commerce across state lines.

There was no actual change to the Constitution, except in interpretation, thereby "chipping away" at it being a document that limited government.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? - 12/30/2014 6:04:30 AM   
crazyml


Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline
"Chipping away" is nearly always a bad thing.

Not least because it is nearly always done in an undemocratic way.

There's a big big problem with some of the amendments, as the context within which they were created has changed dramatically, to the extent that courts have had to "imagine" the law. Take the fourth amendment and electronic mail as an example. Email, and electronic storage weren't on people's minds in 1791, and since then there have been a slew of very odd "interpretations" - many of which have the effect of chipping away at the protection that those amendments were designed to provide.

The most crucial amendments, which have been subject to massive chipping, are the 4th,5th and 6th.

While the 2nd gets lots and lots of attention, it's those three that have the most immediate and direct impact on the lives of citizens, and they're the ones that most threaten the liberty and freedom of Americans if they're horsed with.



_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? - 12/30/2014 6:48:19 AM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline
I think the families of gun fatalities might disagree with you where "immediate and direct impact" is concerned.
But perhaps I'm derailing once again

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to crazyml)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? - 12/30/2014 6:54:31 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Actually, I think the OP wasn't clear in his design. In another post, he acknowledged that he didn't hold two Amendments in high regard, but that they would require an Amendment to repeal/change.

And it's why it's difficult to take him seriously. Amendment X is sacrosanct in an "What part of sacrosanct don't you get" argumentative way, and yet other Amendments are ill-advised and need to be changed.

It's pretending to embrace a higher intellectual and moral ground, when it's really just "My opinions are truth, and all others are idiots" approach with no attempt at a rationale or in learning why others hold different positions.

Now that would be a discussion. I actually enjoy open, honest discussions with people who disagree with me, for example, because you can really get into what others are seeing. It's a more useful vantage point. But when it's a bunch of children stamping about, not so much.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? - 12/30/2014 8:21:06 AM   
crazyml


Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline
No, I don't think you're derailing, and you make a good point, but I have a sense that you may have misunderstood mine.

Yes, of course, to the families of gun fatalities, the 2nd amendment may be right up there in terms of immediate and direct impact, but notwithstanding the terrible effects on these people, there are relatively few in number compared with the number of people whose lives are ruined as a result of a lack of respect by govt and law enforcement for their 4th,5th and 6th amendment rights.


_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? - 12/30/2014 8:29:13 AM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline
Agreed....

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to crazyml)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? - 12/30/2014 12:58:29 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Actually, I think the OP wasn't clear in his design. In another post, he acknowledged that he didn't hold two Amendments in high regard, but that they would require an Amendment to repeal/change.

And it's why it's difficult to take him seriously. Amendment X is sacrosanct in an "What part of sacrosanct don't you get" argumentative way, and yet other Amendments are ill-advised and need to be changed.
It's pretending to embrace a higher intellectual and moral ground, when it's really just "My opinions are truth, and all others are idiots" approach with no attempt at a rationale or in learning why others hold different positions.
Now that would be a discussion. I actually enjoy open, honest discussions with people who disagree with me, for example, because you can really get into what others are seeing. It's a more useful vantage point. But when it's a bunch of children stamping about, not so much.


You missed the point I was trying to make. It was probably my fault for not explaining better.

I don't think this thread was started to discuss what actual wording changes should be taken care of in an amendment to change the US Constitution. That's not really "chipping away," but an actual change. I think the OP was looking to discuss things that could be changed by changing the meaning of the words already used. That requires no amendments at all. That's not, really, changing the US Constitution, either.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? - 12/30/2014 1:54:37 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

"Chipping away" is nearly always a bad thing.

Not least because it is nearly always done in an undemocratic way.

There's a big big problem with some of the amendments, as the context within which they were created has changed dramatically, to the extent that courts have had to "imagine" the law. Take the fourth amendment and electronic mail as an example. Email, and electronic storage weren't on people's minds in 1791, and since then there have been a slew of very odd "interpretations" - many of which have the effect of chipping away at the protection that those amendments were designed to provide.

The most crucial amendments, which have been subject to massive chipping, are the 4th,5th and 6th.

While the 2nd gets lots and lots of attention, it's those three that have the most immediate and direct impact on the lives of citizens, and they're the ones that most threaten the liberty and freedom of Americans if they're horsed with.



And yet in another thread you praise doing exactly that because the US in so undemocratic.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to crazyml)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? - 12/30/2014 1:55:55 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
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 ?

Yep this was the question. "What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at?"
Mikes question is only wrong if the 2nd amendment isnt part of the Constitution.
Maybe the "We" in the thread title was generic for "No lefties, no furriners including Brits"


Actually, I think the OP wasn't clear in his design. In another post, he acknowledged that he didn't hold two Amendments in high regard, but that they would require an Amendment to repeal/change. That's not exactly what he meant by "chipping away at." That's changing the Constitution. What he wanted to talk about, if I'm reading him right, was changing the way we interpret words and phrases. It's akin to the way the Interstate Commerce Clause stopped being about the commerce between two states (at the governmental level) and became about any commerce that crosses state lines (even down to the personal level). Instead of preventing one state government changing it's commerce laws (import/export into/out of the state) to benefit itself while economically damaging another state, it's now about the ability to regulate anything that has anything to do with commerce across state lines.

There was no actual change to the Constitution, except in interpretation, thereby "chipping away" at it being a document that limited government.

Yes this is my whole point, if you want to change it, change it, don't pretend it means something different today than it did yesterday.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? - 12/30/2014 2:17:01 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline
But that just it ,it does mean something different today than it did in the 1790's.
It has to,we have changed,the world has changed a thousand times in a thousand different ways.
How can you take a strict constructionist view when we ,as a society,have evolved(or devolved in some cases)so very much.

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? - 12/30/2014 2:25:29 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Has anyone really read the Madison notes and some of the other notes and biographies and writings of these guys who made this constitution? OUR FATHERS did a Monte Hall, $200 who's got a coathanger deal to throw this all together, it was a series of compromises, and not intended to be the end all and be all of our American way of life.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? - 12/30/2014 2:56:09 PM   
crazyml


Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
And yet in another thread you praise doing exactly that because the US in so undemocratic.


No I didn't praise doing exactly that.

Are you a liar, or stupid?



_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? - 12/30/2014 2:57:53 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
Can't he be both?

(in reply to crazyml)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? - 12/30/2014 3:02:31 PM   
crazyml


Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline
Ah, yes, good catch.

But I suspect too many options are likely to alarm a bama.

_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.094