Take our country back, from the Constitution

[dblack]

Yet, even today the second amendment is now being examined with great care as to what the founders intended. True

What really bothers me is we must ask what the founders intended? It's bad enough that we have to debate the meaning of the Constitution but we have to examine the intent of founders, not what they wrote but what meant to write.

The important thing is that we agree what the words mean. But when those meanings are called into question, given that words mean different things in different contexts, it's only natural to examine the intent of the original authors. I can't really think of any other way of settling on their meaning that makes any sense. Simply redefining the words out from under their original meanings renders the Constitution (as a sovereignty contract) null and void. Which I suppose is along the lines of what you proposing.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yet, even today the second amendment is now being examined with great care as to what the founders intended. True

What really bothers me is we must ask what the founders intended? It's bad enough that we have to debate the meaning of the Constitution but we have to examine the intent of founders, not what they wrote but what meant to write.

We already know what the Founders intended: due process in the context of the rule of law, where the fundamental principle of individual rights is protected from unwarranted governmental excess.

The majority of Americans may ban assault weapons if they see fit; such a ban would be Constitutional.

Should the minority perceive such a ban as a violation of their civil liberties, they may file suit in Federal court, and be afforded due process in the context of the rule of law – per the intent of the Framers.

The Framers of the Constitution did not presume to know the answer to every question that might arise concerning individual liberties and the authority of the state, save that of the government being limited and the people empowered “to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

 

[OODA_Loop]

The Framers of the Constitution did not presume to know the answer to every question that might arise concerning individual liberties and the authority of the state, save that of the government being limited and the people empowered “to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Nowadays we petition the government to build a DeathStar.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Framers of the Constitution did not presume to know the answer to every question that might arise concerning individual liberties and the authority of the state, save that of the government being limited and the people empowered “to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Nowadays we petition the government to build a DeathStar.

The Wisdom of the Crowd and Social Media

It's a brave new world and in it Ravi and LadyGumFlapper have an equal voice to reason and rationality

 

[Avorysuds]

The OP shows just how far the country has fallen. To flat out say "majority rule" is a good thing and then have other far left ultra progressives support that honest to God made me feel sad for the time period I am living under.

However, these are the same people that think Obama is a great President, in the top 5 in fact, and by that they mean like #2 maybe #3 because they think saying #1 would only make them look ignorant to history seeing as they know very little about history.

The question is, what's the fucking point of haveing a constitution when if you don't agree with it someone can just toss it in the fire and re-write a new, updated "Smartitution." Just call it the "Smartitution" from now on and anyone that calls it the heaping pile of dictatorial mass killing dog shit it is can be labeled as someone who hates education....

 

[Michelle420]

The OP shows just how far the country has fallen. To flat out say "majority rule" is a good thing and then have other far left ultra progressives support that honest to God made me feel sad for the time period I am living under.

However, these are the same people that think Obama is a great President, in the top 5 in fact, and by that they mean like #2 maybe #3 because they think saying #1 would only make them look ignorant to history seeing as they know very little about history.

The question is, what's the fucking point of haveing a constitution when if you don't agree with it someone can just toss it in the fire and re-write a new, updated "Smartitution." Just call it the "Smartitution" from now on and anyone that calls it the heaping pile of dictatorial mass killing dog shit it is can be labeled as someone who hates education....

I bet the brits felt the same way when their rule was thrown out.

 

[Flopper]

Yet, even today the second amendment is now being examined with great care as to what the founders intended. True

What really bothers me is we must ask what the founders intended? It's bad enough that we have to debate the meaning of the Constitution but we have to examine the intent of founders, not what they wrote but what meant to write.

The important thing is that we agree what the words mean. But when those meanings are called into question, given that words mean different things in different contexts, it's only natural to examine the intent of the original authors. I can't really think of any other way of settling on their meaning that makes any sense. Simply redefining the words out from under their original meanings renders the Constitution (as a sovereignty contract) null and void. Which I suppose is along the lines of what you proposing.

If we are to make any real progress in solving the nations problems, we should start by looking at the Constitution, with the goal of holding a new Constitutional Convention. I think the founders would be amazed and disappointed that after over 200 years, the inheritors of their Constitution had not tried to adapt to new developments that they could never have anticipated in Philadelphia in 1787.

Thomas Jefferson insisted that "no society can make a perpetual Constitution. ... The Earth belongs always to the living generation. ... Every Constitution ... naturally expires at the end of 19 years" (the length of a generation in Jefferson's time).

The Constitution is brilliant in its design and sound with respect to the Bill of Rights and the separation of powers. But there are numerous archaic provisions that inhibit constructive change and adaptation. For example, authority concerning matters of war-making between the president (commander in chief) and Congress (declaring war). The "welfare clause" is at best unclear and has been used to justify a great deal of expansion of the federal government. The electoral college is at best undemocratic. The structure of the Senate is outmoded and it doesn't represent the states nor the people.

It is far better, that we the people make changes and clarifications to the constitution rather than leave it to politically appointed judges.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Most people who are credible and who are speaking of amending or revamping the Constitution know history. The principles behind the Constitution are cherished, but that document is not the word of a god. Even crazy Tommy Jefferson was of the opinion that no generation should be tied to the whims of a previous one.

A document written over 200 years ago is inadequate to fully address the issues that pop up in the 21st century.

The Articles of Confederation gave way to our Constitution. It may be time for a new one. Is the amendment process adequate? Only narrowly.

There are straw man arguments running around in that -- when saying the US Constitution is not fully adequate for facing challenges we face in a changed world, and especially the world unfolding in this 21st century, some list how the government is set up. They argue people who are discussing and debating the obvious inadequacies of the Constitution to address the changes in a very much changed world from the 18th and 19th centuries are wrong to do so. They do not address any arguments head-on. They simply attack either personally, ideologically, or in such a partisan way as to kill discussion.

Dante gave one example: the War Powers Act. We still debate it because of an 18th and 19th century notion of 'no standing armies'


Like much in law, the meanings in the Constitution are debated with disagreements over the text, the meanings, the understandings of those who wrote and ratified...all gets to be judged in a court and we follow what the courts say. We all on some basic level agree with that...at least those of us who are reasonable and rational beings

The US constitution is a document written over 200 years ago and it is inadequate in many ways and that is why we debate it so fiercely now...even simple remedies run up against the meanings and understandings of a world much different.,...it is why I gave the War Powers Act as an example. {No standing armies became obsolete in the 20th century, yet that antiquated notion existed in the 18th and 19th centuries and made sense then...today we still argue over the constitutionality of the War Powers Act} -- again, history

Dante

dD

A Constitutional Convention is Needed

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Most people who are credible and who are speaking of amending or revamping the Constitution know history. I have never heard any of them make the points you have raised.

What about those who openly espouse taking up arms against the government? In effect, that means taking up arms against the Constitution.

No, it isn't. But, it IS the word of Law.


How so? What's inadequate about it?

The Articles of Confederation gave way to our Constitution. It may be time for a new one. Is the amendment process adequate? Only narrowly

What makes you think it may be time to trash the Constitution and replace it? Replace it with what?

The people who speak of taking up arms against the government are nuts and few. They may even have more weak kneed emotional followers than you think.

There have always been a few like that since day one...I thought you being a history major woud know that.

and like law, the meanings in the Constitution are debated with disagreements over the text, the meanings, the understandings of those who wrote and ratified...all gets to be judged in a court and we follow what the courts say.

The US constitution is a document written over 200 years ago and it is inadequate in many ways and that is why we debate it so fiercely now...even simple remedies run up against the meanings and understandings of a world much different.,...it is why I gave the War Powers Act as an example. {No standing armies became obsolete in the 20th century, yet that antiquated notion existed in the 18th and 19th centuries and made sense then...today we still argue over the constitutionality of the War Powers Act} -- again, history


Dante is not saying "it is time to trash the Constitution and replace it" in the same way the men who first met to consider the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation were not calling to trash them and replace them...you are jumping the gun, so to speak

you either agree or disagree the Constitution seems inadequate for the 21st century. If you disagree it is I point out how. What do you do then?

Okay, keep thread