Updating the bill of rights
Posted: 15 August 2012 01:15 PM   [ Ignore ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  17
Joined  2012-08-13

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.

As it was written back than, during our on-going wars with England and hostile Indians,  it makes no sense to apply it to our present situations where there is no such danger.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

We can only reason on actualities, but not on possibilities. Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 September 2012 04:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  37
Joined  2010-06-04
rickoshay86 - 15 August 2012 01:15 PM

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.

As it was written back than, during our on-going wars with England and hostile Indians,  it makes no sense to apply it to our present situations where there is no such danger.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

We can only reason on actualities, but not on possibilities. Thomas Paine

The arms were supposed to protect the people against all governments, foreign and domestic.

One could argue that the amendment is no longer appropriate. Fine. Try to get another amendment passed to change the constitution.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 September 2012 06:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  802
Joined  2010-11-12
rickoshay86 - 15 August 2012 01:15 PM

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.

As it was written back than, during our on-going wars with England and hostile Indians,  it makes no sense to apply it to our present situations where there is no such danger.

 

I don’t knowooo…..oooo….............there are still a whole lot of hostile Indians out there.
:-0

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 October 2012 07:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  12
Joined  2007-07-07

I’ve gone several steps further, and I leave the 2nd Amendment in tact, along with several others.
https://sites.google.com/site/slcconstitutions/home

0.110: simple reasoning for a new constitution

  The United States Constitution was drafted in 1787, and it has archaic and mispelled words.

  The United States Constitution is difficult to understand and it is vague relative to the evolution that the government has incurred since the establishment of the three branches and four auxiliary departments of the 1790’s. Most people with a decent education should be able to recognize that the Constitution is difficult to understand and should be able to recognize that people of lesser intellectual skills would have a more difficult time understanding it, and that there should be a better, more common sense, reincarnation of the Constitution to serve the modern sophisticated society of Pacifists and Republicans living in peace and harmony.

  Now, there are about twenty departments with hundreds of agency officers, who are probably corrupt, because we all know that they receive more than what they are worth, because it is easy to “pad” the government payroll with irrelevant jobs, exorbitant salaries, and abhorrent titles; and that is because the Constitution is inefficient relative to the sophistication of modern society.

  The legislators are corrupt, because most of their legislative activities are unnecessary, and they do not have a solution; and besides, the unnecessary activities maintain a level of commerce that keeps the system issuing paychecks and payments. The politicians engage in mud-slinging legislative political gridlock campaigns in between their mud-slinging election campaigns, and that generates jobs for people in various industries including work for news reporters, food caterers, stage construction, convention rentals, and over-time pay for the cops. We all, pretty much, know that there is something wrong about it – but what? It is inefficient – but why? Because, we now know, after two centuries of practice and development, how to organize large organizations, the problem is that the Constitution does not reflect that scientific paradigm in the organization of the government; and that deficiency is compounded by the errors of long past legislation that effects the logic of subsequent laws and regulations that eventually effects the individual citizen’s understanding of how the government and society work (trickle down psychosis).

  The goal of the United States Constitution is to guide society toward “domestic tranquility,” but our contentious “mud-slinging” political campaign strategies tend to indicate that that goal is being diverted – not to forgo mentioning that the people, themselves, carry-out acts of lethal consequences, because they are personally frustrated, which is probably, more often than not, rooted in the disorderliness of a secular-plural society, which is the consequence of a vague constitution that progressed technology faster than any society in the history of world economics.

  The current constitutions taught us to understand the concept of separation of political powers, but it fails us, in that, it places unrealistic expectations on the president instead of balancing the responsibilities among the governing entities, because the expansion of government has always been added to the president’s responsibility list – 20 department organizations, federal jurists, and prosecutors, are among the president’s appointments. It is the delusion of tradition to believe that a president has the ability to competently interview the hundreds of possible nominations for all of the offices, but for some reason we allow for the tradition to be continued, and it results in incompetence and corruption that most likely adversely effects the efficient governance of the society.

  Get this – the Constitution can be interpreted two ways. We recognize this problem when a Supreme Court Justice is retired and a replacement has to be appointed, and the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee ask questions that lead us to understand that the Constitution can be interpreted two ways – liberal, and conservative. And then we generate expectations of the decisions of Constitutional validity – since there are more conservatives on the court, we expect their rulings to favor the conservative view. And then we recognize the “swing vote,” obviously the wisest of the wise. The solution is that Constitutional validity can only be determined by a unanimous interpretation of the constitution. And we can probably do that now.

[ Edited: 03 October 2012 07:48 AM by sidewalkjester]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 October 2012 01:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  37
Joined  2010-06-04
sidewalkjester - 03 October 2012 07:40 AM

  Get this – the Constitution can be interpreted two ways. We recognize this problem when a Supreme Court Justice is retired and a replacement has to be appointed, and the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee ask questions that lead us to understand that the Constitution can be interpreted two ways – liberal, and conservative.

It could be interpreted in a zillion ways. Maybe it means don’t eat pumpernickel on Halloween night. But I don’t think that’s a fair reading.

And it’s not just the interpretation of the constitution that matters, it’s also your theory of government and the function of the constitution in it that matters.

The conservative view comes in various flavors of originalism. The constitution is the means whereby the people delegate certain powers to the government, and those powers are defined by the meaning of the language of the text at the time it is ratified.

The liberal view comes in various flavors of a “living constitution”, by which they mean that they are living and the constitution isn’t, so that it means whatever they damn well say it means, and the government can do whatever they say it can.

[ Edited: 03 October 2012 01:08 PM by buybuydandavis]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 October 2012 09:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Newbie
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  10
Joined  2012-10-02

Hi sidewalkjester,

You make some very interesting points about the obsolescence of the constition.  You are talking about a major up-dating and major revision.  How would we go about fixing all of the problems with it, while ensuring that what is good about it is not broken?

Moreover, I suspect that there would be tremendous opposion from both political parties since they would no longer be able to play free and loose with how they interpret it, and how they define and apply government.


Warren

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 October 2012 11:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  12
Joined  2007-07-07
Dubs - 03 October 2012 09:35 PM

You make some very interesting points about the obsolescence of the constition.

Thanks.

Dubs - 03 October 2012 09:35 PM

You are talking about a major up-dating and major revision.  How would we go about fixing all of the problems with it, while ensuring that what is good about it is not broken?

Peer review of the drafting. Please assure me that you have reviewed what I have developed thus far, and then you could begin questioning me and then perhaps we can develop it to the better.

Dubs - 03 October 2012 09:35 PM

Moreover, I suspect that there would be tremendous opposion from both political parties since they would no longer be able to play free and loose with how they interpret it, and how they define and apply government.

Possibly, I believe it is easier to describe the limits of the federal government, which is where the political parties maintain any consistency of “partisan organization.” But I believe that the description of the devlopment that I have will be acceptable to the political leaders, because they should recognize the obsolescence as you did, and recognize that finacial management is probably a more important qualification than a law degree.

Profile
 
 
   
 
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed