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.
Nobody is trying to destroy the Constitution.
The writers left it up to interpretation as we have evolved as a nation.
The issues we face today are not "trivial" compared to what life was like back when they wrote it.
I'm pretty sure when the framers thought of the 2A they were more concerned about a unarmed populace that couldn't defend itself against Britain versus today's some gun nut who shot a machine gun out of Las Vegas hotel room killing 50 people as if that was his Constitutional right.
Wow, your ignorance on the 2nd is breathtaking.
The 2nd was written in regards to a tryannical government, any tyrannical government. The idea that it was written specifically about the British just oozes a complete failure to grasp it.
The 2nd was written in regards to a tryannical government, any tyrannical government. The idea that it was written specifically about the British just oozes a complete failure to grasp it.
The "tyrannical government" at the time was the British government when the 2A was written.
Are you denying history?
Facts are facts.
So i am an unaffiliated voter. Curious what ammendments do you think would be added?
My ideal amendments:
A Citizens United reversing amendment. Corporations and 501(c)s should not be viewed as people with political swaying power in elections. This will remove effects by the Kochs, Soros-es, DeVoses, Bloombergs of the world.
Strengthening of the Emmulments Clause of the Constitution. A President and Vice-President must have sold their interest in businesses (mutual funds excluded) by September after getting nominated. The presidential candidate should they not follow this would be disqualified from ballots and not in the debates.
A no budget, no pay for Congress and the President. They would get backed pay at federal minimum wage during shutdowns. Also they would be locked down in the respective buildings in Washington. If they do try to leave, the armed forces can shoot to kill.
The Electoral College is split into Senate votes for the win of the state and a percentage rounded to the nearest whole of the remaining Representative votes for the state. Also 270 is gone as the winner has to have the higher electoral vote count. The Congress only can vote for the President if the votes are tied (This would open up for third parties).
The Supreme Court is an appointment of 20 years, and no longer a lifetime appointment (I mean most die around 20 years later anyway.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pogue Mahone
And just as important, which ones would be altered, neutered or taken away?
I mentioned a number of components in the Constitution, not amendments themselves that need removal (270-to-win) or strengthening (Emmulments Clause.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chowhound
****can the 14th for starters, it's outlived its purpose. Modify it at least
OK how exactly do we modify it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunD1987
Not too familiar with the Constitution. I assume 10 and 14 are important. With regards to 14 I know it applies to equal rights.
It also applies to citizenship which at the time was used to have former slaves become citizens. Many think it is being abused by anchor babies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chowhound
14 was created to deal with slaves born in the country to extend them citizenship. Now it's abused by pregnant women coming to the country to guarantee their kids will be a citizen.
And you mean to tell me that it didn't happen during the Ellis and Angel Island days? How did we survive the anchor babies during the 18 and 1900's?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreggT
This thread cannot be serious, maybe it belongs in the Great Debates section????
It isn't a great debate, it is a straw argument. The OP was trying to get us by saying oh we want to negate the racism by symbols or relics (Betsy Ross flag, Rebel flag, to an extent Join or Die/Don't Thread on Me flags) that are just that. I think that the slave ownership of the 1700/1800's is a hard issue to wade through. No man is perfect. I mean people point to LBJ being racist yet signing Civil Rights bills during the 1960's. Others point to Trump being racist yet black unemployment is low under him. I think the symbols are one thing, the rest is another.
A couple of congress creatures claimed that the Declaration of Independence was "racist", and now this?
I hope sane people are seeing what is going on here. You may "hate everyone on the right", but at some point, ask yourself how far you're willing to let these traitors destroy this country just so you can score some idiotic "point", as if this were a ball game.
Don't sit there, naively, and think "this is just a few people saying things" because that is exactly how everything gets started.
The "tyrannical government" at the time was the British government when the 2A was written.
Are you denying history?
Facts are facts.
Fallacious argument. You try to discredit the messenger as argument. And anyone who actually knows history, knows there were plenty of tyrannical governments in the world at that time. The French Monarchy was in the process of being overthrown at the same time the Constitution was written. You have no argument based on fact.
A couple of congress creatures claimed that the Declaration of Independence was "racist", and now this?
I hope sane people are seeing what is going on here. You may "hate everyone on the right", but at some point, ask yourself how far you're willing to let these traitors destroy this country just so you can score some idiotic "point", as if this were a ball game.
Don't sit there, naively, and think "this is just a few people saying things" because that is exactly how everything gets started.
Be proactive, not reactive.
Who exactly is saying this about the Constitution or the Declaration of independence? This thread proven to be a thread fail for the OP.
I'm in the yes crowd. The constitution has been a good guideline for 229 years. The problem isn't the constitution, the problem is presidents that don't respect co-equal branches of government and try to usurp it's power. Despot wanna be's need not apply. Nor should president's who have no respect for the rule of law. White men who were slave owners? A different time, a different mentality. It doesn't mean they didn't come up with a good plan for a new country. Trying to spin that into something else is just hyperbolic nonsense.
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.
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.
