U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-20-2008, 10:21 AM
 
19,183 posts, read 27,737,865 times
Reputation: 4000

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
Well, we have pretty much already ignored or modified by conspicuous indifference a number of The Amendments, such as #10 (i.e: leaving items not specifically detailed in The Constitution to be administered by individual States. Perhaps this would include abortion rights, women's rights, personal property and water rights, etc. etc.?)
No rights at all are covered by the 10th Amendment. Only powers are, and as with federal powers, state powers may not abridge the rights of the people, whether those are enumerated rights or rights protected instead by the umbrella of the 9th Amendment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
In truth, I and others, with a growing sense of conspiracy, am wary of those who want to open this document to wholesale revisionism in light of what's "current" or "modern". Do we then officially open it every, say, ten years? Are our values more valid or more well thought out now than those of our FF? Isn't that a bit conceited? Or dangerous? Is it not possible to make it work the way it is now, with thoughtful respect for others' views? A sort of ""Fair and Balanced" interpretation?
That would be the safe, and even conservative, plan. The ultimate costs of any open rewriting could very easily come to trivialize any marginal gain. Single steps forward at the price of hundreds of steps backward is no sort of bargain to be making.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-20-2008, 10:57 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,062,995 times
Reputation: 3717
Default I agree, sort of.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
No rights at all are covered by the 10th Amendment. Only powers are.
I agree with you, but the thread spoke only to re-writing the Constitution in general, not about changing rights per se. But of course the Feds and the SCOTU do go about happily adjudicating our rights on things that, properly, should be the venue of States only.

It's a tad bit frightening, but the sheeple-lemmings apparently don't much pay attention anyhow. They are, after all, busy watching "The Hole".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 10:59 AM
 
2,180 posts, read 3,187,061 times
Reputation: 838
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy View Post
i think we need to change the constitution to make it easier to drum the senators out faster than every 6 years. there should be 2 year terms for senators. that might make them a little more responsible. i read that some of the votes on the bailout were influenced by whether they would be up for reelection or not.
Setting aside for the moment the original question, I've got two observations on this point:

1) The reports about voting on the bailout vis-a-vis re-election were about the U.S. Reps who do have 2 year terms.

2) Having them have more frequent elections leads to their feeling more pressure to vote in a way that would get them voted back in, not less.
********

Returning to the original topic, one of the risks of re-writing the Constitution is that the folks who want shorter terms might lose out to the folks who want longer terms! There is usually a constituency that wishes for the opposite of every major change you can think of.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 11:59 AM
 
2,180 posts, read 3,187,061 times
Reputation: 838
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
In truth, I and others, with a growing sense of conspiracy, am wary of those who want to open this document to wholesale revisionism in light of what's "current" or "modern". Do we then officially open it every, say, ten years? Are our values more valid or more well thought out now than those of our FF? Isn't that a bit conceited? Or dangerous? Is it not possible to make it work the way it is now, with thoughtful respect for others' views? A sort of ""Fair and Balanced" interpretation?
I am as wary as you are, I think, about those who want to open it up for a thorough (or even substantial) re-write. It might amuse you to know that there is probably as large a group of folks anxious about a conspiracy among those of a more conservative bent. I know that reading your reservations put a smile on my face!

Of interest to me is that there are some states with a provision to regularly ask the people if they want a Constitutional Convention. For example:
Quote:
A majority vote of both houses of the General Court is required to place the following question on the ballot: "Shall there be a convention to amend or revise the constitution?" If such question has not been submitted to the people in ten years, the Secretary of State is required by Pt. II, Art. 100 to place the question on the ballot. A majority of qualified voters participating in an election is required to convene a convention. At the next election the delegates are elected by the people, or earlier as provided by the General Court. A 3/5 vote of the number of delegates is required to send a proposed constitutional amendment to the people at the next biennial November election. A 2/3 vote of the qualified voters participating in an election is required to adopt a new amendment.
According to Wikipedia:
"Since 1793, there have been only five constitutional conventions, with twenty-six amendments adopted of the sixty-four proposed. Sixteen times the people have voted negatively to question of calling a constitutional convention.


"Before 1980, the only method for amending the constitution was by convention every seven years. The adoption of an amendment to Pt. II, Art. 100 allowed for either the General Court or Constitutional Convention to submit amendments to the people for adoption."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 03:19 PM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,236 posts, read 40,266,772 times
Reputation: 10915
The Constitution doesn't protect us now, nor do our military members defend it for us--instead deferring to domestic enemies of the Constitution!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 10:24 PM
 
2,180 posts, read 3,187,061 times
Reputation: 838
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
The Constitution doesn't protect us now, nor do our military members defend it for us--instead deferring to domestic enemies of the Constitution!
Okay, I'll bite!

Given that you asked the question initially but have posted this, what do you think should be done? Is there a way to address the concerns you have (which I do not wholly share) and give the revised constitution any more protection than we get with the current one?

And if not, are you advocating that we just toss it away as indefensible and unsalvageable?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2008, 12:02 AM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,251,619 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
I was discussing another matter, and the response I was given was, "It's 2008! Get with the times!" And that got me to thinking--even though *I* personally have no problem with tradition and customs--shouldn't we rewrite the Constitution, make that antiquated document fit into the "modern world"?

Do you think we should "get with the times"? Or stick with proven tradition?
The fathers of our Constitution were very smart guys, they did give us a way to update and change what needs to be changed. It is a VERY hard process to change it, 2/3 of congress are needed to get things added. I feel that the Constitution is fine as is, and if something needs to be added, so be it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2008, 03:32 AM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,236 posts, read 40,266,772 times
Reputation: 10915
Quote:
Originally Posted by jps-teacher View Post
Okay, I'll bite!

Given that you asked the question initially but have posted this, what do you think should be done? Is there a way to address the concerns you have (which I do not wholly share) and give the revised constitution any more protection than we get with the current one?

And if not, are you advocating that we just toss it away as indefensible and unsalvageable?
I think it needs to be scrapped, and the government obliterated. Every man for himself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2008, 06:24 AM
 
Location: Eastern Kentucky
1,237 posts, read 2,640,714 times
Reputation: 1262
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
That wasn't what I was getting at.

There are traditions that we've carried on for years. As recently as the 1950's and '60s, women tended to stay in the home. But we don't see that anymore, right? It's considered "outdated". Well, the Constitution is over 200 years old, and by that same logic, it's "outdated".
The constitution is not a tradition. It is the basis for a democratic society which allows for change. However, I think the foundning fathers meant for the basic rights and premises to remain unchanged.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2008, 06:32 AM
 
Location: Eastern Kentucky
1,237 posts, read 2,640,714 times
Reputation: 1262
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
I think it needs to be scrapped, and the government obliterated. Every man for himself.
TKramer,
Trust me, you don't even want to think about going there. Just take a flying trip to some country that does not have a just, strong government in place and if it doesn't scare the pants off of you, you are a stronger person than I am.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top