People on the left can dream of a rewrite but there is no way legally it could be done without 2/3rds of the states and that is not happening anytime soon.

I completely agree that nothing will happen anytime soon. However, it's not the left that would stand to benefit more from a rewrite -- it's the right.

I completely agree that nothing will happen anytime soon. However, it's not the left that would stand to benefit more from a rewrite -- it's the right.

 

Hilarious spin.

There has never been in the history of this world a better written document than our constitution. I would argue that it doesn't need changed, I would argue that we are to loose with our interpretation in this present era and drift to far away from our founding principles. Most people in this country don't even truly understand our Federal system and that we are a Democratic Republic. But even if you did want to change there is a process in place called the ammendment process and their is no short cuts to changing such a great document.

 

 

I would probably agree with you. However I wouldn't easily dismiss the "Magna Carta" and the "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen" by the French.

There has never been in the history of this world a better written document than our constitution.

 

I'll give you a chance to make a few qualifiers before I start picking it apart because this is hyperbole to an absurd degree.

 

The BEST document EVER written? Heck, we had to announce 10 changes to it before anyone would even sign the thing.

Edited May 17, 201313 yr by Getslow

I am woefully ignorant about various historical documents but would love to read a discussion on some of the greatest in history.

The high court, for the time being, has adopted your point of view. However, there are words before the semicolon, and they must be considered for the weight they carry in any analysis of the 2nd Amendment. In other words, I disagree with your statement that "the words before the semicolon could be anything." If that were true, then the 2nd would simply be 14 words long: "The right of the people to keep ... "

 

Of course, "militia" also has evolved over the years. Is there a present-day equivalent of "militia"?

 

Seems like the National Guard, which is state-based, would be the closest thing to what the founding fathers recognized as a militia.

I am woefully ignorant about various historical documents but would love to read a discussion on some of the greatest in history.

 

Upon further reflection, I may have jumped the gun. I'm now concerned about the definition of the word "document" for purposes of what we're talking about here. Well, nothing to do about it now.

The high court, for the time being, has adopted your point of view. However, there are words before the semicolon, and they must be considered for the weight they carry in any analysis of the 2nd Amendment. In other words, I disagree with your statement that "the words before the semicolon could be anything." If that were true, then the 2nd would simply be 14 words long: "The right of the people to keep ... "

 

Of course, "militia" also has evolved over the years. Is there a present-day equivalent of "militia"?

 

'Present day' militias are still defined in most states. And it was debated even in 1782. The co-author of the amendment stated the militia is the 'entire people'. Kentucky legally defines the militia. Its all males 18 to 45 years old.

 

I say the words can be anything because they do not modify the operational part in any manner. If this were a SCOTUS decision the words would fall into the category of 'dictum' vs 'ruling'. Dictum is background but not operational. Many read SCOTUS rulings and will cite dictum with equal weight with the actual ruling. But that is wrong.

 

From a 2-party contract view the words are non-operational. I view the Constitution as a legal contract between The People and the government. As with the vast majority of contracts, it consist of 2 parties. The opening (dependent) clause of the 2nd Amendment puts no requirements on either party and does not modify the core. So it is 'non-operational' in that regard.

 

But I agree that interpretations have been made at different times that fail to follow my view. I doubt I will ever be a SCOTUS nominee!

I would probably agree with you. However I wouldn't easily dismiss the "Magna Carta" and the "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen" by the French.

 

I would argue the Magna Carta is the most overrated. All it really did was give Lords rights with their king. It gave minimal rights to the common man at least not on the scale of our constitution.

I'll give you a chance to make a few qualifiers before I start picking it apart because this is hyperbole to an absurd degree.

 

The BEST document EVER written? Heck, we had to announce 10 changes to it before anyone would even sign the thing.

 

No hyberbole . There has never been a government created founded on one document that provided as much freedom or upward mobility as our nation. Period . End of discussion.

I would argue the Magna Carta is the most overrated. All it really did was give Lords rights with their king. It gave minimal rights to the common man at least not on the scale of our constitution.

 

It was the beginning. Not the end. Abdication of monarchial power came slowly, not swiftly. (Same could be said in our own history about certain powers within society.)

No hyberbole . There has never been a government created founded on one document that provided as much freedom or upward mobility as our nation. Period . End of discussion.

 

But the Constitution isn't one document. There were the Articles of Confederation. Then the Constitution. Then the Bill of Rights and finally Amendments over time. It was a process and I would say, still is a process.

For those who see the Constitution as outdated are in reality saying that this document is a hindrance in creating a "big government" system. Those who want change, want to create situations that are not allowed by our Constitution, some which have already happened. Such as overreaching powers of Homeland Security and Obama Care.

 

As far as changing to meet the "current culture", I believe that is something the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid. Our basic rights never should left to the whims of any generation. For example the attempts to reinterpret the 1st and 2nd Amendments. Then what happens when a generation or two passes and the current generation wants to go with the latest fads? And if there a need for a change the Founding Fathers gave us a way to do that, the amendment process. It is difficult, but it should be to protect our rights.

No hyberbole . There has never been a government created founded on one document that provided as much freedom or upward mobility as our nation. Period . End of discussion.

 

In agreement with you on this statement. It has provided the US with a high standard living. A standard that has them lining up to get in to the country, legally, and millions desperate enough to come illegally.

 

A professor at NKU once said that "while our system is not perfect, it is the best the world has to offer."

 

One problem that we have is that some dislike the idea that America is so prosperous, feel that we have taken from others and never did anything to help the less fortunate, whether they live here or in other countries. They also dislike that some through handwork have gained lots of wealth and feel that money should be taken and given to others. While we do have some misfortunate individuals that do need help, there are too many who think they just deserve part of some else's hardwork, because it is unfair those individuals have so much.

Personally don't think it should be changed.

But even if I did think it needed to be, given the choice of living with it's imperfections versus entrusting our current political system and those who comprise it, to make those changes, I

choose to live with it as is.

Heck, today's political leaders couldn't agree on what color of ink to use, oops, better update that, what brand of computer to type it on, much less any changes that needed to be made.

Dissappointedly, I simply have no faith that they could get it right or even improve it.