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 10-16-2008, 04:34 AM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,236 posts, read 40,321,195 times
Reputation: 10916

Advertisements

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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-16-2008, 04:46 AM
 
12,870 posts, read 12,786,580 times
Reputation: 4446
i think we better put a clause in that does not allow the treasury secretary to control the flow of money in this country. that is a dangerous road that we will be going down now!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2008, 04:55 AM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,236 posts, read 40,321,195 times
Reputation: 10916
Well! there's a vote for rewrite...or at least an amendment.

Speaking of amendments...would the Founders really want people to be armed with the technology of today? Or were they merely okay with black powder blunderbusses or muskets?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2008, 06:30 AM
 
Location: Ottawa, Canada
609 posts, read 1,044,558 times
Reputation: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
Well! there's a vote for rewrite...or at least an amendment.

Speaking of amendments...would the Founders really want people to be armed with the technology of today? Or were they merely okay with black powder blunderbusses or muskets?
thats a tough question.. how much could the founder of really known about todays society? the problems? the new technology ect. does it need to be changed.. i dunno... change for the sake of change is (if the current system works well) is just as stupid as conserving for the sake of conserving (if there is a better system although "better" is often a matter of opinion)

i didnt relaly give an answer. just more questions..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2008, 12:15 PM
 
Location: Fredericksburg, Va
5,120 posts, read 12,749,639 times
Reputation: 7223
While they haven't actually "re-written" the Constitution, Congress is hell-bent on "re-interpreting" it! It's a dangerous thing. Leave it as it is, and let's try to get back to how the founding Father's intended this country to run!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2008, 12:19 PM
 
Location: CO
1,599 posts, read 3,009,410 times
Reputation: 488
The Founding Fathers were pretty smart guys. They wrote the Constitution to be as timeless as possible and to have the basic principles needed for a free society. But even as hard as they tried, eventually, we will find some of the ideas to be outdated. People/society evolve and things change.

However, I think the idea of rewriting it would be dangerous. The amount of outside influence in politics these days is insane - especially from groups with outrageous amounts of money. It seems everyone has an agenda and who knows how a new version of the Constitution would end up looking like due to those influences. I trust the Founding Fathers more than I trust 90% of the politicians around today. I'd rather we not touch it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2008, 01:07 PM
 
Location: Nebraska
4,222 posts, read 7,005,270 times
Reputation: 6603
Default Standing Army

Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
Well! there's a vote for rewrite...or at least an amendment.

Speaking of amendments...would the Founders really want people to be armed with the technology of today? Or were they merely okay with black powder blunderbusses or muskets?
************************************************** *****
I have read just about all of the documents the Library of Congress has archived concerning the Founding Fathers and their discussions before adopting the Bill of Rights, specifically those about the Second Amendment.

One of the biggest fears of the Founding Fathers was the presence of a "standing army". What exactly is a standing army? There were two types of military during Colonial times. The "Militia" was a group composed of volunteers consisting of, at that time, Males from 16 to 45 IIRC. These volunteers were from local communities and had elected officers. If there was an emergency the militia was called upon. The British had troops in the Colonies, often paid mercenaries (Hessians for example). This was the "Standing Army" feared so much by the Founding Fathers. When writing the Second Amendment the FFs wanted the PEOPLE to have weapons that could be used to deter a tyrannical government and its standing Army. At the time of the Revolution the common infantryman on both sides carried firearms and various knives, swords, hatchets, etc. Organized groups had cannons. Since a cannon even then was very expensive a private citizen was not likely to own his own cannon.

The FFs thought that if a large number of private citizens owned personal weapons there would be enoughfirepower in the hands of the "PEOPLE" to resist any tyrants, foreign or domestic.

Fast forward to the present.
The concept of the Second Amendment is still that the PEOPLE have enough firepower to resist tyranny, whether in the form or foreign invaders or domestic tyrants. The infantrymen in modern armies carry fully automatic firearms and weapons like RPG's (Rocket propelled grenades) and even Stingers etc. In a one on one situation where a member of a Standing army and a citizen are in a confrontation we all know who will win. However if a Dictator should attempt to subjugate the USA and its citizens he/they would be facing over One Hundred Million pissed off and ARMED citizens. As long as there are millions of citizens who posses firearms the possibility of being taken over by force is not likely.

However a smart tyrant would find out ways to take away the weapons of the citizens by doing it in such a way that makes those people think it is for their own benefit and safety. That is one reason that it scares the crap out of me when I read or hear comments like;
" does anyone really need an Ak-47?'
"Should anyone be allowed to buy more than one weapon a month?"
"Should anyone but soldiers and Law officers own weapons?"
"We should register all firearms".

If any of you have made comments like that or think that way you might want to re-examine your thinking.

GL2
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2008, 02:06 PM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,236 posts, read 40,321,195 times
Reputation: 10916
No one's really addressed the issue about the Constitution being an antiquated document. Two people have admitted that society has changed since it was first written

Gunluvver...if they were frightened of a "standing army", then why do we have one?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2008, 02:58 PM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,944,947 times
Reputation: 3848
It's evident from historical documents (such as the Federalist Papers) and on the face of the Constitution itself that it was designed to adapt itself to the times. The Founding Fathers were brilliant, and they knew that the flaw of all political Utopias was the failure to anticipate economic, social and political change. That's why they designed a more realistic Utopia that was able to accommodate change.

Still, the Constitution is not immune from obsolescence. One interesting aspect of this is the Commerce Clause. For those who don't know, that's the part of the Constitution that empowers the Federal government to regulate "interstate commerce". Since the Federal government is one of limited powers (or, speaking in proper legal parlance, enumerated powers), the Commerce Clause also means that only the states can regulate intrastate commerce. Well, today, many people are complaining about the degree of the Fed's regulation of the economy and such. "The Commerce Clause!" they scream, "Read the Commerce Clause! It was intended to LIMIT federal regulation of commerce! And today the federal government controls waaay more commerce than in the 18th century!" All true -- but you have to take into account how much commerce itself has changed since the 18th century.

When the Constitution was enacted, the US was a patchwork of small agrarian societies. There were no railroads, no interstate highways, and only rudimentary shipping routes. Most products were locally made. Almost everything from your clothing to your food to the timber and nails of your home to the medicines in your cupboard was grown, caught, butchered or manufactured within a short distance of your residence. The overwhelming majority of people were born, lived, bred and died in one place; most never even traveled farther than 50 miles of their birthplace. News media was in its infancy. Sure, there was some interstate and international trade, but it was a relatively small fraction of the economy. Today, however, the US is vastly different -- it is an urban, economically diversified, highly industrialized society. Complex economic changes and the evolution of transportation have led to the growth of interstate trade; today, it takes an effort to find locally made products, and the majority of manufactured goods seem to be from China. Quite simply, there is now a lot more interstate trade and a lot less intrastate trade than there were in the 18th century -- so it only makes sense that the federal government is a lot more involved in the economy than it once was. In fact, to keep the level of involvement the same as 215 years ago -- that would require amending the Constitution. Or junking our unconstitutionally modern economy, at which point we might as well start wearing powered wigs, writing with quills, and increasing our consumption of whiskey.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2008, 04:38 PM
 
Location: Nebraska
4,222 posts, read 7,005,270 times
Reputation: 6603
Default Standing Army

Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
No one's really addressed the issue about the Constitution being an antiquated document. Two people have admitted that society has changed since it was first written

Gunluvver...if they were frightened of a "standing army", then why do we have one?
************************************************** ****
ThTKramar
Do you not understand that their fear of a "standing Army" was one of the primary reasons for the Second Amendment?

Eventually a standing Army was instituted but only AFTER the right of the people to keep and bear arms was insured.

Read the history.

GL2
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