# Bill of Rights



## vasuderatorrent (Jan 5, 2019)

Can the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment ever be changed without creating a new government?

The 2nd Amendment allows citizens to own nuclear bombs.

The 4th Amendment prohibits road blocks designed to catch drunk drivers.

The 5th Amendment allows people to ignore questions from cops.

Americans aren't the same in 2019 as they were in 1789.  There were no nuclear bombs to consider.  There were no intoxicated persons driving 2000 lb. hunks of metal at 60mph.  There were no police officers.  (Maybe a sheriff or two but not a police force like we know today)  I think all Americans agree that you shouldn't own nuclear weapons, cops should capture drunk drivers and people should answer cops questions.  However, aren't the Bill of Rights written in stone so to speak?  They can't ever be removed? or can they?  Most Americans in 2019 disagree with the objective if the 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendment.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 5, 2019)

vasuderatorrent said:


> Can the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment ever be changed without creating a new government?
> 
> The 2nd Amendment allows citizens to own nuclear bombs.
> 
> ...


If you can afford a mansion that can hold a nuclear weapon, you’re most probably never going to use it.


----------



## vasuderatorrent (Jan 5, 2019)

Indeependent said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> > Can the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment ever be changed without creating a new government?
> ...



Probably not. Other than testing, only two have ever been used in the history of the world.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 5, 2019)

vasuderatorrent said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > vasuderatorrent said:
> ...


That’s not even the point; they are ridiculously gigantic.


----------



## vasuderatorrent (Jan 5, 2019)

Indeependent said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



True. They are quite large in comparison to the average hand gun.


----------



## JamesTheDick (Jan 13, 2019)

vasuderatorrent said:


> Can the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment ever be changed without creating a new government?
> 
> The 2nd Amendment allows citizens to own nuclear bombs.
> 
> ...




Yeah man ... like, who knows what and when and why, but like ... umm ... I think like I umm ... I dunno man, but maybe I don't need anything like that ... I mean umm ... like ... life is like ... beautiful and perfectly safe n stuff, so maybe a no to 2, but for the 4, hell no man ... like who likes road blocks anyway ... people go to jail man .... and like when I plead the 5th, well umm ... I don't know man ... Umm ... Do you like jail?


----------



## harmonica (Jan 13, 2019)

Amendments can be repealed without changing anything


----------



## JamesTheDick (Jan 13, 2019)

HRG/Time to ... wait ... umm ... Have real good time ... that's an acronym Duh! Hansel and Gretel and Rolling stones man ... I love man ... Sympathize sometimes for some, but I love/evol ution ... like have babies n stuff.


----------



## boedicca (Jan 13, 2019)

vasuderatorrent said:


> Can the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment ever be changed without creating a new government?
> 
> The 2nd Amendment allows citizens to own nuclear bombs.
> 
> ...




I call Shenanigans.

Please provide a link to anyone other than a fringe kook who thinks individuals should have nuclear bombs.


----------



## vasuderatorrent (Jan 13, 2019)

boedicca said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> > Can the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment ever be changed without creating a new government?
> ...



It was our fringe kook forefathers who thought the people should be militarily capable of defeating the government if it ever stopped too far out of bounds.  We as Americans don't believe that any more. 

Second Amendment

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.


----------



## boedicca (Jan 13, 2019)

vasuderatorrent said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > vasuderatorrent said:
> ...




You're a blithering moron.

Keep and bear arms refers to personal weapons, not large ordnance such as cannons (or nuclear bombs).   Learn something about history, swampy.


----------



## vasuderatorrent (Jan 13, 2019)

boedicca said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



Did you see the part where I said we as Americans don't believe that any more?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 13, 2019)

vasuderatorrent said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > vasuderatorrent said:
> ...


It is Illegal for a citizen to own a nuke and it is perfectly legal to enforce that law Strategic weapons are not personal weapons.In the Constitution it is illegal for a State to own an armed Naval vessel which in 1789 was the only strategic weapon we had. So no stretch to include individuals in that ban. Be specific and list for us ANY Judge that disagrees? As for road blocks they also are perfectly legal nd YES cops can ask for and recieve ID if you don't provide it they can hold you till they establish your identity also perfectly legal.


----------



## vasuderatorrent (Jan 13, 2019)

harmonica said:


> Amendments can be repealed without changing anything



I thought the first 10 were off limits and are permanent.

That is kind of what I am asking.


----------



## boedicca (Jan 13, 2019)

vasuderatorrent said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > vasuderatorrent said:
> ...




You are full of excrement.


----------



## vasuderatorrent (Jan 13, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



Courts have disagreed with your finding.


----------



## boedicca (Jan 13, 2019)

vasuderatorrent said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > vasuderatorrent said:
> ...




Really?  Link to a court decision that says individuals have the right to own a nuclear bomb?


----------



## vasuderatorrent (Jan 13, 2019)

boedicca said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



You and me don't believe it.  That's two Americans.


----------



## boedicca (Jan 13, 2019)

vasuderatorrent said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > vasuderatorrent said:
> ...



Oh, I get it now.  You're a Reid Hoffman employee pretending to be a Russian Bot.

Adios.


----------



## vasuderatorrent (Jan 13, 2019)

boedicca said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Road blocks for the purpose of seizing drugs has been determined illegal.


----------



## vasuderatorrent (Jan 13, 2019)

boedicca said:


> Oh, I get it now.  You're a Reid Hoffman employee pretending to be a Russian Bot.



   BUSTED!! You got me.  I didn't think anybody would find out.  Boy is Reid going to be pissed at me for blowing my cover.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 13, 2019)

vasuderatorrent said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > vasuderatorrent said:
> ...


No they have not or perhaps you can link to the court case that allows me to own a nuke?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 13, 2019)

vasuderatorrent said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > vasuderatorrent said:
> ...


You said all roadblocks were illegal and they are not.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 13, 2019)

vasuderatorrent said:


> Can the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment ever be changed without creating a new government?
> 
> The 2nd Amendment allows citizens to own nuclear bombs.
> 
> ...


And the First Amendment allows everyone to post ignorant, ridiculous nonsense such as this.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 13, 2019)

vasuderatorrent said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > vasuderatorrent said:
> ...


Speak for yourself.
Oh wait!
You *are* speaking for yourself!


----------



## vasuderatorrent (Jan 13, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> > Can the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment ever be changed without creating a new government?
> ...



I think most Americans affirm the first amendment in its present form.  I just think there are more Americans that disagree with the 2nd, 4th and 5th.  Those are the ones that need to be rewritten to match the modern United States of America.


----------



## JamesTheDick (Jan 13, 2019)

The new modern America ... Overly politically correct, religiously fueled, fuck the ten commandments, ohh wait ... I mean the bill of rights.  Remember who's house you're in hotshot.


----------



## JamesTheDick (Jan 13, 2019)

So ... our founding fathers had a vision, were pioneers in establishing this republic.   Most were deists ... No personal God who mandates or or rather who pulls strings, with only occasional touch ups performed when needed ... They called that divine providence.  Many were "free" Masons and when developing the constitution and writing down the bill of rights ,  there were many deliberations, discussions on wording, the brevity, simplicity, and purpose for each.  Lets go through each one ...in written form original ... one by one and maybe then have a real discussion, given our current state of affairs and history.  Hind sight is said to be 20/20 or is it 20/22 ...  It could be ya know?  Better understood if people actually had dialogues instead of ... I'm right right you're wrong, lets get on with the  burning and churning, then get people so stirred up they don't if their coming or going.  Seriously,  It's ;like we've turned it all over to first year civic students still studying civics 101.  Is there room for discussion, or are the kids so hellbent on rebellion, or so damned stubborn and prideful that they're willing to let this great nation fall?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 14, 2019)

vasuderatorrent said:


> Can the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment ever be changed without creating a new government?
> The 2nd Amendment allows citizens to own nuclear bombs.


False.   2A jurisprudence very clearly says otherwise.


> The 4th Amendment prohibits road blocks designed to catch drunk drivers.


False.   DUI checkpoints are common.


> The 5th Amendment allows people to ignore questions from cops.


True.  So what?


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Mar 17, 2019)

harmonica said:


> Amendments can be repealed without changing anything



What???


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Mar 17, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



They should be.  They are clear violations of the Fourth Amendment.


----------



## regent (Mar 24, 2019)

Perhaps some amendments should come with an expiration date. Customs and traditions change as people change and some should go through a renewal process after a time period.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 24, 2019)

regent said:


> Perhaps some amendments should come with an expiration date. Customs and traditions change as people change and some should go through a renewal process after a time period.


Nonsense. 

That's what the courts are for.


----------



## regent (Mar 24, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps some amendments should come with an expiration date. Customs and traditions change as people change and some should go through a renewal process after a time period.
> ...


How many amendments have the court's declared expired because their time has run out?


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Mar 24, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps some amendments should come with an expiration date. Customs and traditions change as people change and some should go through a renewal process after a time period.
> ...



Actually, that is what the Amendment process is for.


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Mar 24, 2019)

regent said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Amendments do not expire.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 25, 2019)

regent said:


> Perhaps some amendments should come with an expiration date. Customs and traditions change as people change and some should go through a renewal process after a time period.


The Constitution has a provision for this - see Article V


----------



## dblack (Mar 25, 2019)

vasuderatorrent said:


> Can the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment ever be changed without creating a new government?



I sure hope not. I know a lot of nitwits are clamoring for it, but I'll fight them tooth and nail.


----------



## dblack (Mar 25, 2019)

vasuderatorrent said:


> I think most Americans affirm the first amendment in its present form.  I just think there are more Americans that disagree with the 2nd, 4th and 5th.  Those are the ones that need to be rewritten to match the modern United States of America.



Well, you'll have to go through the amendment process which is deliberately onerous. The founders knew the country would face trials that would tempt many people to give up fundamental freedoms in exchange for empty promises of security. And they wanted to make it hard for you to fuck things up. Good luck!


----------



## TNHarley (Mar 25, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...


Please cite the law that makes nuclear arms illegal in regards to citizenship ownership.


----------



## TNHarley (Mar 25, 2019)

boedicca said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


There isnt one. However there isnt a law that states citizens cant own one.
The problem, which would make it inpossible to own is, the govt owns all fissile materials


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Mar 25, 2019)

dblack said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> > Can the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment ever be changed without creating a new government?
> ...



I wish an easy answer existed.  The Constitution gives the United States Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution.  HOWEVER, what the United States Supreme Court did was to set itself above the other branches of government, declaring itself the final arbiter of what the law is.  That was unconstitutional.  We, the people, are the de jure arbiters of what the law is.

Then the High Court began *reinterpreting* their own decisions.  So, while the earliest court decisions interpreted the Constitution consistent with the intent of the founding fathers, the United States Supreme Court strays to the left with each subsequent* reinterpretation*.   Today, on many issues, especially the Second Amendment, the United States Supreme Court has changed the law 180 degrees opposite of what the founders intended.

REGARDLESS of how the courts rule or what statutes change, the real key is to know what your *unalienable* Rights are and to never surrender or compromise them.  It should not matter what kind of government the masses put into place.  *Unalienable *Rights are non-negotiable.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 25, 2019)

vasuderatorrent said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > vasuderatorrent said:
> ...


So you speak for all Americans

What if Americans believed in slavery again?

Segregation?

One of the major reasons of legal protection of rights is so the mob can't take them away


----------



## whoisit (Apr 5, 2019)

TNHarley said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > vasuderatorrent said:
> ...




I agree it DOES allow for us to be as armed as the government but in this salad bowl of fruits and nuts it is scary to even think of some loose nut with a nuke.


----------



## whoisit (Apr 5, 2019)

Porter Rockwell said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > vasuderatorrent said:
> ...



Ruling from the bench is par for the course now. Our judges have turned into dictators. They no longer use constitutional law.


----------



## anynameyouwish (Apr 5, 2019)

vasuderatorrent said:


> Can the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment ever be changed without creating a new government?
> 
> The 2nd Amendment allows citizens to own nuclear bombs.
> 
> ...



"I think all Americans agree that you shouldn't own nuclear weapons, cops should capture drunk drivers and people should answer cops questions"

Go ahead and tell any conservative that he can't have a nuclear bomb and he will pull out his copy of the constitution and DEMAND that you show him WHERE in the constitution it says that!


When it comes to rights and the constitution cons operate from 2 directions;

if they want to do something and the law says "no" they will say "where in the constitution does it say that I can NOT do that"

but when a sane and rational person wants to do something and a con is opposed to it he will say "where in the constitution does it say you CAN do that?"....

see the diff?

they can do what ever they want to because the constitution does NOT forbid it!

everyone else can't do what they want because the constitution doesn't ALLOW it!

pretty clever  of them.....

tobacco and pot might be good examples;

they can smoke tobacco because the constitution doesn't say they can't.
you can't smoke pot because the constitution doesn't say you can.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 5, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> "I think all Americans agree that you shouldn't own nuclear weapons, cops should capture drunk drivers and people should answer cops questions"
> Go ahead and tell any conservative that he can't have a nuclear bomb and he will pull out his copy of the constitution and DEMAND that you show him WHERE in the constitution it says that!


This is a statement of ignorance or dishonesty - the number of conservatives that think this approaches statistical zero.


> When it comes to rights and the constitution cons operate from 2 directions;
> if they want to do something and the law says "no" they will say "where in the constitution does it say that I can NOT do that"


Another absurd and unsupportable proposition.


> but when a sane and rational person wants to do something and a con is opposed to it he will say "where in the constitution does it say you CAN do that?"....


This is a perfectly reasonable question.  You disagree?


----------



## whoisit (Apr 6, 2019)

I'm sure no same person would want a nuke but the intentions at the time was to have a citizenry strong enough to stop the government from abusing their powers over the people.
   At the time guess they didn't realize just how dangerous weapons could become .


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Apr 7, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



They should be.  Clear cut violation of the Constitution since a fishing expedition without probable cause is not reasonable.


----------



## vasuderatorrent (Apr 12, 2019)

whoisit said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Lots of organizations own nukes.  They have only been used twice.  I am not sure why that is.  Nobody uses them.  I am not complaining.  I just think a product that has only been used twice would normally become obsolete but they keep making those things.  I don' think a loose nut with a nuke is a threat.  It does seems scary but history tells me that isn't a concern.


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 29, 2019)

Porter Rockwell said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > vasuderatorrent said:
> ...



Well article 3 sec 2 of the Constitution does say in all other cases (after talking about special situations with ambassadors and consuls) the supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction to both law and fact.

And yes that power of Judicial review came from a case presided over by the founding fathers (Washington and Adams) judges confirmed by the 1st-3rd congresses.   So to say that wasn't the intent of the founding fathers is tough to buy


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 29, 2019)

vasuderatorrent said:


> Can the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment ever be changed without creating a new government?
> 
> The 2nd Amendment allows citizens to own nuclear bombs.
> 
> ...




Times change...People never do





.


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Apr 29, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...




What you just said makes NO sense in this context.

Appellate review means the United States Supreme Court is to review the law and be the final arbiter. of what the law is.  That does not mean that once they listen to the arguments of 9th and 11 th Circuit Courts of Appeal, who may have opposite rulings, then the United States Supreme Court rules, they can't come back and then* RE-INTREPRET* their own decision.  They are co - equals with other branches of the government.

It is the job of the legislature (the legislative branch) to make new laws.  Today, when the United States Supreme Court reverses its own decisions, it is called legislating from the bench.

As to the special situations, that does not include the normal day to day ruling of what a particular statute means.


----------



## dblack (Apr 29, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


looks like you misquoted here.


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 30, 2019)

Porter Rockwell said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > Porter Rockwell said:
> ...






Porter Rockwell said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > Porter Rockwell said:
> ...



What you are talking about is horizontal stare decisis.  Many states have passed laws that it must be followed.  You are making the claim that it is federally enforced.  Can you show me the Constitutional or federal law for that where the Constitution or legislative branch passed a law to enforce stare decisis at the Supreme Court level?   Or are you just making it up?  Like the Constitution says, Supreme Court powers are held back by "Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Congressional regulation enforcing stare decisis?   Or are you making that up? 

I agree I would like the SC to follow stare decisis. but that needs to come from Congress, just like it does in many states who have passed laws to enforce that.  I would also like changes to the lobbying system used in politics, and term limits for Congress.   But me wanting that doesn't mean it's Unconstitutional.  It needs to be passed by Congress. 


The Supreme Court set itself above other branches in being the final arbiter of the law because the Constitution gave them jurisdiction to law and fact in those cases.   Complaining about that is like saying "well the Legislative Branch sets itself above all other branches when it comes to impeaching the President".   Or the President sets himself above all other branches


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 30, 2019)

dblack said:


> looks like you misquoted here.



In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.


----------



## dblack (Apr 30, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Well article 3 sec 2 of the Constitution does say in all other cases (after talking about special situations with ambassadors and consuls) the supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction to both law and fact.
> ...



You're still misquoting. I didn't say any of these things. Please edit.


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 30, 2019)

dblack said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



My quote was repeating what the Constitution said sorry it put my response at the top of yours.  Was using my phone and it messed it up.  My bad.


----------



## norwegen (Apr 30, 2019)

boedicca said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> > Can the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment ever be changed without creating a new government?
> ...


I should have one. My neighbors are way too freaking nosy.


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Apr 30, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...



Yes, in Marbury v. Madison the high Court did proclaim itself to be the final arbiter of what the law is.  OTOH, the Court DID NOT get that authority from the Constitution.  

George Washington warned against this practice:

"_If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed_."  Farewell Address 1796

When the United States Supreme Court settles a law and creates the precedent, if they can then come back and reverse settled law, there would be no way in Hell to obey the law since the high Court could say that you have an individual Right today and tomorrow they rule 180 degrees opposite.  This gets really murky when you have a dumb ass of a president willing to issue Executive Orders that violate the ex post facto prohibition on laws.  

Also see this:

Legislating from the Bench  |  Harvard Political Review

The founders made it plain that there were God given, inherent *unalienable*, natural, absolute Rights that government could never impose on.  The government still does it, but it is your Right, duty and obligation to ignore such laws.  The Second Amendment exists for a reason.


----------



## The Professor (Apr 30, 2019)

harmonica said:


> Amendments can be repealed without changing anything



You are wrong. I have a doctorate in law and I find what you say to be not merely uninformed but also funny as hell. If you want to learn more, you know how to Google.

“A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.”

Constitutional Amendment Process

*Preamble to the Bill of Rights*
**Congress of the United States*
begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

*THE* Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. *RESOLVED* by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz. *ARTICLES* in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg Speaker of the House of Representatives John Adams, Vice-President of the United States and President of the Senate.

Attest, John Beckley, Clerk of the House of Representatives. Sam. A. Otis Secretary of the Senate. *On September 25, 1789, Congress transmitted to the state legislatures twelve proposed amendments, two of which, having to do with Congressional representation and Congressional pay, were not adopted.  The remaining ten amendments became the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 - 10)

One last thing. The procedures by which a Constitutional Amendment is ratified should give even the most cerebrally-challenged among the populace some insight as to how, once ratified, these amendments can be changed/repealed. I have already shown you how difficult it is to amend the Constitution. How do you propose that such amendments are repealed? By an opinion poll on USMB?

CONCLUSION: Since the Amendments become part of the Constitution when ratified, common sense should tell you these amendments can only be changed the same way that other portions of the Constitution are changed. However, if I am wrong – and I am certainly not – would you please tell me the process by which amendments to the U.S. Constitution are repealed. If you respond, I won't even pressure you for a link, as I know there are none and you are merely expressing your personal, albeit uninformed, unenlightened and intellectually indefensible opinion.

You have the last word. I said what I had to say and I am too fucking old (79) to waste any more time telling fools what they should already know or would know if they had even a smidgen of common sense.

A personal note: I have enjoyed your many posts and I thought you were educated and on top of things. If you are merely pulling our legs, I understand; however, if you are serious I stand by everything I said



Have a good day..


----------



## harmonica (May 1, 2019)

The Professor said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Amendments can be repealed without changing anything
> ...


Prohibition repealed
sorry--have a nice day --hahahahhahahahaha


> ending the increasingly unpopular nationwide prohibition of alcohol.


Today's Document from the National Archives


----------



## norwegen (May 1, 2019)

harmonica said:


> The Professor said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...


The repeal of the that amendment resulted in considerable changes. The manufacture, distribution, and sale of alcohol resumed.

That amendment also imposed on the people. The Constitution was drafted to impose on the government.


----------



## Porter Rockwell (May 1, 2019)

The Professor said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Amendments can be repealed without changing anything
> ...



Being well trained in law and having worked two cases that went before the United States Supreme Court - and were WON, I stand by what I said.

I highly doubt your claims to any law degree because you have convoluted the amendment process with the process of legal interpretation.  Here's an overly simplified look at what happens (in theory):

Congress (the House and the Senate) pass a law.  Then someone breaks the law and is found guilty.  That guy is convicted and he challenges the constitutionality in the Ninth District.  I'm oversimplifying the whole thing for a reason.  Anyway the Ninth District says the law means that our man is not guilty.

Someone living in another state is arrested and ultimately found guilty and he appeals the case.  He ends up in the Fifth District.  Now, most of the time, courts follow the Ninth District's lead (they represent 20 percent of the country's population.)  But, this time, the Fifth District disagrees with the Ninth District...  the same statute, the same basic facts and two opposing rulings.  A challenge is made and the United States Supreme Court steps in and decides what that statute means.  That is the final say on what the law is.

So, you and I have read the law and understand what it means.  But lo and behold, while doing that which was perfectly legal gets us arrested and we start appealing the case.  The United States Supreme Court steps in and says the law means 180 degrees OPPOSITE of what they previously ruled!!!  Given that amount of latitude, how in the Hell do you propose that people follow the law, when at best, all they can do is guess???  What you're saying is unrealistic and has nothing to do with the amendment process. 

Where the amendment process comes into play is that, in the above analogy, if someone did not agree with the United States Supreme Court's ruling and they could not bring evidence to the table that changes the facts substantially, then the proper way to change the law is via an amendment to the Constitution. Anyone who studied civics in high school knows how the Constitution gets amended.  Case in point:

While I am pro-Life, the abortion issue is *SETTLED LAW*.  IF Trump's Court hears the issue again and changes the law based upon just the fact that pro-lifers are in the majority of the Court, I would OPPOSE the Court hearing the case.  OTOH, science and technology being what it is, if new evidence is introduced to show that a fetus is more "human" than previously thought, it might be proper to reopen the issue.  

Legislating from the bench, however, is NOT constitutional or proper.  Thomas Jefferson admonished us:

"_on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was past_ "(sic).  

Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 12 June 1823


----------



## dblack (May 1, 2019)

Constitutional arguments are interesting - to a point. Rehashing the decisions of the founders raises discussions our society badly needs to have. But in the end, what matters is the consensus of the people. If hardly anyone cares about limited government, government will grow unlimited. If no one care about individual rights, they will be pissed away. If people want to be "taken care of" more than they want liberty and independence, they will become serfs.


----------



## Porter Rockwell (May 1, 2019)

dblack said:


> Constitutional arguments are interesting - to a point. Rehashing the decisions of the founders raises discussions our society badly needs to have. But in the end, what matters is the consensus of the people. If hardly anyone cares about limited government, government will grow unlimited. If no one care about individual rights, they will be pissed away. If people want to be "taken care of" more than they want liberty and independence, they will become serfs.



While I agree that this is what happens in the cycles of history, bear in mind that there will always be there who do not believe in a government - God.

For that reason, I continue to exhaust all of my non-violent legal and political avenues of redress - which includes voting, lobbying, educating others, taking matters to court, and if necessary passive resistance, non-compliance, civil disobedience, etc.  There is a step by step process.  At the end of the day, you do NOT forfeit your Rights.


----------



## Dick Foster (May 1, 2019)

vasuderatorrent said:


> Can the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment ever be changed without creating a new government?
> 
> The 2nd Amendment allows citizens to own nuclear bombs.
> 
> ...



However there were indeed lots of drunks running around with loaded guns yet we're still here. Just saying.


----------



## teddyearp (May 2, 2019)

Out of those three, the second has the fewest words, yet is the most open to interpretation.  To bring it up to modern times, it should have been written like this:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear certain arms, after clearing the changing permissions to be enumerated by Congress from time to time, shall not be infringed.


----------



## emilynghiem (May 19, 2019)

vasuderatorrent said:


> The 2nd Amendment allows citizens to own nuclear bombs.



vasuderatorrent
Not necessarily. Nuclear Bombs involve materials that require safety
and hazardous materials laws to kick in.  So this is not necessarily legal
for any citizen by invoking the 2nd Amendment because other laws
have to be followed as well.

As for enforcing or changing laws, if we even educated, trained
and assisted people in invoking and enforcing the laws already on the books:
www.ethics-commission.net
then we could already check and correct any abuses before they escalated or 
developed into worse threats against law, order and equal protections.

The places where I would recommend reforming the system is
to separate taxes to defund the ability of parties to impose beliefs
through govt by funding their own policies for their own members,
and expanding on the party precinct and electoral districts to offer
proportional representation by party so that people can submit
grievances and complaints, and resolve conflicts to reform public policy.


----------

