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.
Most of the polarization in our country right now go back to division on these three issues. Until we settle these questions, I don't think there's any pathway back to civility in our politics. Would you support amending the constitution to clarify these issues and why or why not? What are your positions on them?
Religion: The left believes in absolute, two-way separation of church and state. The right believes in one-way separation, in which the government should stay out of the church but that the church can and should have a voice in how society is governed. Which is it? This question is the cornerstone of our culture war, which is the elephant in the room that impacts almost every political issue we currently face.
Speech: Both sides hold different standards for speech they agree with vs that they don't. There's no way to defend either party on this. That said, are there certain things that are over the line, especially when it comes to speech that could put others in danger? What about hate speech?
Right to bear arms: The right believes in an absolute right to bear arms no matter the cost to society or human life. The left believes that changing times require changing perspectives and what worked in the 18th century may not be the best for today. I personally can see the arguments for both, but we will never settle this issue with the Second Amendment as it's currently written.
Most of the polarization in our country right now go back to division on these three issues. Until we settle these questions, I don't think there's any pathway back to civility in our politics. Would you support amending the constitution to clarify these issues and why or why not? What are your positions on them?
You think we need to "amend the Constitution" to CLARIFY the meaning of the words SHALL, NO, ABRIDGING, PROHIBITING, FREEDOM
Quote:
Religion: The left believes in absolute, two-way separation of church and state. The right believes in one-way separation, in which the government should stay out of the church but that the church can and should have a voice in how society is governed. Which is it? This question is the cornerstone of our culture war, which is the elephant in the room that impacts almost every political issue we currently face.
Speech: Both sides hold different standards for speech they agree with vs that they don't. There's no way to defend either party on this. That said, are there certain things that are over the line, especially when it comes to speech that could put others in danger? What about hate speech?
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
How should we "amend these 45 words for "clarification"?
Religious Freedom doesn't mean that Religion runs Society - it just means that People have an ABSOLUTE RIGHT and FREEDOM to worship (or not) as they please. Those who worship and those who don't choose to worship have exactly the same Rights and Freedoms - including voting for their chosen representatives and to "petition the Government".
Quote:
Right to bear arms: The right believes in an absolute right to bear arms no matter the cost to society or human life. The left believes that changing times require changing perspectives and what worked in the 18th century may not be the best for today. I personally can see the arguments for both, but we will never settle this issue with the Second Amendment as it's currently written.
How do you think we should CLAiRIFY these words? Necessary, Security, Free, RIGHT, SHALL NOT, infringed. It's a total of 27 Words
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Notice it doesn't mention Cannons at all, it doesn't mention any type of "arms" or any restrictions on the Right to Bear (that means own/carry). It does mean that we have this Amendment because it is NECESSARY to a FREE STATE. Infringed means to VIOLATE as in "Shall not be violated"
Anyone at all who wants that removed is not interested in a FREE STATE ..... PERIOD
I think we have a couple of choices here -
1). Go with what we have and what has given us Freedoms that no other Nation has. It's stood the Test of Time due to it's simplicity and common sense.
Most of the polarization in our country right now go back to division on these three issues. Until we settle these questions, I don't think there's any pathway back to civility in our politics. Would you support amending the constitution to clarify these issues and why or why not? What are your positions on them?
You think we need to "amend the Constitution" to CLARIFY the meaning of the words SHALL, NO, ABRIDGING, PROHIBITING, FREEDOM
Quote:
Religion: The left believes in absolute, two-way separation of church and state. The right believes in one-way separation, in which the government should stay out of the church but that the church can and should have a voice in how society is governed. Which is it? This question is the cornerstone of our culture war, which is the elephant in the room that impacts almost every political issue we currently face.
Speech: Both sides hold different standards for speech they agree with vs that they don't. There's no way to defend either party on this. That said, are there certain things that are over the line, especially when it comes to speech that could put others in danger? What about hate speech?
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
How should we "amend these 45 words for "clarification"?
Religious Freedom doesn't mean that Religion runs Society - it just means that People have an ABSOLUTE RIGHT and FREEDOM to worship (or not) as they please. Those who worship and those who don't choose to worship have exactly the same Rights and Freedoms - including voting for their chosen representatives and to "petition the Government".
Quote:
Right to bear arms: The right believes in an absolute right to bear arms no matter the cost to society or human life. The left believes that changing times require changing perspectives and what worked in the 18th century may not be the best for today. I personally can see the arguments for both, but we will never settle this issue with the Second Amendment as it's currently written.
How do you think we should CLAiRIFY these words? Necessary, Security, Free, RIGHT, SHALL NOT, infringed. It's a total of 27 Words
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Notice it doesn't mention Cannons at all, it doesn't mention any type of "arms" or any restrictions on the Right to Bear (that means own/carry). It does mean that we have this Amendment because it is NECESSARY to a FREE STATE. Infringed means to VIOLATE as in "Shall not be violated"
Anyone at all who wants that removed is not interested in a FREE STATE ..... PERIOD
I think we have a couple of choices here -
1). Go with what we have and what has given us Freedoms that no other Nation has. It's stood the Test of Time due to it's simplicity and common sense.
2). Tear it all up and Re-Group. I Vote for Keep the Constitution, those that what to get rid of it OR "clarify" it to suit an Agenda should think long and hard about Reaping and Sowing.
Most of the polarization in our country right now go back to division on these three issues. Until we settle these questions, I don't think there's any pathway back to civility in our politics. Would you support amending the constitution to clarify these issues and why or why not? What are your positions on them?
Religion: The left believes in absolute, two-way separation of church and state. The right believes in one-way separation, in which the government should stay out of the church but that the church can and should have a voice in how society is governed. Which is it? This question is the cornerstone of our culture war, which is the elephant in the room that impacts almost every political issue we currently face.
Speech: Both sides hold different standards for speech they agree with vs that they don't. There's no way to defend either party on this. That said, are there certain things that are over the line, especially when it comes to speech that could put others in danger? What about hate speech?
Right to bear arms: The right believes in an absolute right to bear arms no matter the cost to society or human life. The left believes that changing times require changing perspectives and what worked in the 18th century may not be the best for today. I personally can see the arguments for both, but we will never settle this issue with the Second Amendment as it's currently written.
The only reason you feel the need to even bring this up, is because Democrats cannot and will not respect the Rights and Freedoms of American citizens. The Democrats have proven throughout history, that they refuse to read and comprehend the plain text of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
We had to pass the 13th, 14th, 15th amendments, and the 1960s CRA and VRA, all because the Democrats, then and now, refuse to respect the individual Rights and freedoms of Americans.
There is no polarization, there is only the freedom hating, racist, bigoted leftist Democrats, and the rest of the nation. It's Democrats, versus the US Constitution.
I fear we will need to once again write a new Constitutional Amendment, because the dems found a new way to side-step the Constitution so they can place their boots on our necks again.
You think we need to "amend the Constitution" to CLARIFY the meaning of the words SHALL, NO, ABRIDGING, PROHIBITING, FREEDOM
The left and the right cannot agree on what those words mean. With that in mind, I do think some clarification is necessary if we are to restore civility in our politics.
The only reason you feel the need to even bring this up, is because Democrats cannot and will not respect the Rights and Freedoms of American citizens. The Democrats have proven throughout history, that they refuse to read and comprehend the plain text of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
We had to pass the 13th, 14th, 15th amendments, and the 1960s CRA and VRA, all because the Democrats, then and now, refuse to respect the individual Rights and freedoms of Americans.
There is no polarization, there is only the freedom hating, racist, bigoted leftist Democrats, and the rest of the nation. It's Democrats, versus the US Constitution.
I fear we will need to once again write a new Constitutional Amendment, because the dems found a new way to place their boots on our necks again.
This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
From a conservative perspective, having a secular society is "placing the boots on the necks" of all of the good, God-fearing Christians. It's infringing on the conservative definition of "religious freedom" to say that churches can't have a say in public policy. Meanwhile to the left, separation of church and state is as absolute as the right to bear arms is to the right.
There’s no pathway to civility ? How long are you expecting these issues to be our main problems. Teens I talk to, that’s not what they are worried about. My almost 17 yr old will vote in the next election. Hmmm
Most of the polarization in our country right now go back to division on these three issues. Until we settle these questions, I don't think there's any pathway back to civility in our politics. Would you support amending the constitution to clarify these issues and why or why not? What are your positions on them?
Religion: The left believes in absolute, two-way separation of church and state. The right believes in one-way separation, in which the government should stay out of the church but that the church can and should have a voice in how society is governed. Which is it? This question is the cornerstone of our culture war, which is the elephant in the room that impacts almost every political issue we currently face.
Speech: Both sides hold different standards for speech they agree with vs that they don't. There's no way to defend either party on this. That said, are there certain things that are over the line, especially when it comes to speech that could put others in danger? What about hate speech?
Right to bear arms: The right believes in an absolute right to bear arms no matter the cost to society or human life. The left believes that changing times require changing perspectives and what worked in the 18th century may not be the best for today. I personally can see the arguments for both, but we will never settle this issue with the Second Amendment as it's currently written.
The way you phrased the question and presented "both" sides the answer should be obvious. Absolutely not. As what you are basically saying is that ideas that would be considered more "Conservative" no longer have a place and we need a more "Liberal" Constitution so that everyone can just get along.
Well, this document worked well for over 200 years, and other than perhaps having people getting a refresher in its meaning it doesn't need to be changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawac34618
The left and the right cannot agree on what those words mean. With that in mind, I do think some clarification is necessary if we are to restore civility in our politics.
I am sure in the "Oh can't we all just get along" world..it makes total sense to clarify something that doesn't really need clarification. But since you feel the left and right can't agree, how exactly do you think there would be any agreement on any sort of clarification? Perhaps you think it may take a neutral Country to help us clarify our Constitution...Canada? Mexico? How about Iran or China?
No. I think we should just stop trying to reinterpret what is quite clearly written. Stop letting something that clearly reads "green" get called "purple" by leftists.
There should be no free speech exceptions except those already in the amendment. I’d be okay with preventing violent criminals from owning guns but that’s the only exception.
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.
