Poll of the Day > At what point is it reasonable for the Constitution to be re-evaluated???

(+) Yeah! (+)

I keep hearing people exclaim "That's Unconstitutional!" whenever certain propositions are given to tweak laws. If the Constitution was the end-all, be-all document people make it out to be, there wouldn't have ever been the need for "amendments" in the first place (and, ironically, it's often the "amendments" that are cited as absolute law that should never, EVER be modified).

Flawed people make flawed laws (remember, even slavery was "legal" at one point). Granted, I'm all for patriotism and "protecting our heritage," but this isn't patriotism at this point. It's blind traditionalism. Perhaps we're due for some more "Amendments."
---

So, you would rather be like any African country out there and draft new constitutions whenever it seems it?

Besides, this happened before. Back before 1789.

It should never happen without Icoyars express permission.
---

you definitely are due for more amendments, the problem is that congress are the ones who can make that change, but don't want to because money.

but you can go around congress with a constitutional convention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

TYT are morons, but one of the smart things they're doing is attempting to call a constitutional convention to get money out of politics. as they say, there have been bills proposed that say basically "keep money in politics, just make public who is getting money from whom", and even those don't pass. it's a pretty serious issue and arguably the source of a lot of the US's problems.

they have 5 out of 34 states agreeing to the convention, so they still have a long way to go.

http://www.wolf-pac.com/
---

The constitution, according to Thomas Jefferson (iirc), was to be regularly updated with the times lest it become totally worthless. So...
---

shipwreckers posted...

I keep hearing people exclaim "That's Unconstitutional!" whenever certain propositions are given to tweak laws. If the Constitution was the end-all, be-all document people make it out to be, there wouldn't have ever been the need for "amendments" in the first place (and, ironically, it's often the "amendments" that are cited as absolute law that should never, EVER be modified).

Flawed people make flawed laws (remember, even slavery was "legal" at one point). Granted, I'm all for patriotism and "protecting our heritage," but this isn't patriotism at this point. It's blind traditionalism. Perhaps we're due for some more "Amendments."

There is no such thing as a perfect society.

If we change too many of the rules we founded ourselves on then we would be living in a different country.
---

bulbinking posted...

If we change too many of the rules we founded ourselves on then we would be living in a different country.

and the US is in the shitter so maybe we should try to become a new US?
---

Boston Gun Party incoming.
---

When I saw that Icoyar was the first response, I absolutely knew for sure...

...that this topic was going nowhere.
---

bulbinking posted...

shipwreckers posted...

I keep hearing people exclaim "That's Unconstitutional!" whenever certain propositions are given to tweak laws. If the Constitution was the end-all, be-all document people make it out to be, there wouldn't have ever been the need for "amendments" in the first place (and, ironically, it's often the "amendments" that are cited as absolute law that should never, EVER be modified).

Flawed people make flawed laws (remember, even slavery was "legal" at one point). Granted, I'm all for patriotism and "protecting our heritage," but this isn't patriotism at this point. It's blind traditionalism. Perhaps we're due for some more "Amendments."

There is no such thing as a perfect society.

If we change too many of the rules we founded ourselves on then we would be living in a different country.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRKz82v5JQY
---

At what point is it reasonable for the Constitution to be re-evaluated???

At all times, with constant vigilance.
---

Lokarin posted...

At what point is it reasonable for the Constitution to be re-evaluated???

At all times, with constant vigilance.

When ur scurred and giving up silly things like protection from searches and detaining without probable cause because you don't have anything to hide make you feel all rosey inside and they told it's just for now, they'll give you those things back later.

Constitution is constantly being challenged and evaluated. It's just that people right now don't have a good enough reason to have it changed.
---

Amuseum posted...

Constitution is constantly being challenged and evaluated. It's just that people right now don't have a good enough reason to have it changed.

Quoted for truth.

Apart from a couple silly amendments like giving Senators pay raises, I don't see any that really need an immediate change.

kukukupo posted...

Amuseum posted...

Constitution is constantly being challenged and evaluated. It's just that people right now don't have a good enough reason to have it changed.

Quoted for truth.

Apart from a couple silly amendments like giving Senators pay raises, I don't see any that really need an immediate change.

The amendments I've seen proposed were for Senator term limits, not pay raises. That's not a silly thing to pursue. That's actually pretty damn important.

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2940
---

The right to bear arms was a modification to the Constitution by way of being an amendment. Repeal or revise it
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

The right to bear arms was a modification to the Constitution by way of being an amendment. Repeal or revise it

First of all, the Second Amendment does NOT grant anyone the right to bear arms. It forbids the role of government from infringing on the rights of the people to bear arms.

Want to repeal it? Prepare for a more larger government, who would use that as a precedent, where they would then proceed to repeal or revise the First Amendment, and criminalizing "hate speech" (in which they would define).

TheWorstPoster posted...

Doctor Foxx posted...

The right to bear arms was a modification to the Constitution by way of being an amendment. Repeal or revise it

First of all, the Second Amendment does NOT grant anyone the right to bear arms. It forbids the role of government from infringing on the rights of the people to bear arms.

Want to repeal it? Prepare for a more larger government, who would use that as a precedent, where they would then proceed to repeal or revise the First Amendment, and criminalizing "hate speech" (in which they would define).

Hey, he's right - the government can't infringe on your right to bear arms... a right you don't have. You don't have the right to guns, and the government can't infringe on that lack of a right - so the only time the government is in the wrong is if they manually hand you a gun and then complain about it
---

shipwreckers posted...

kukukupo posted...

Amuseum posted...

Constitution is constantly being challenged and evaluated. It's just that people right now don't have a good enough reason to have it changed.

Quoted for truth.

Apart from a couple silly amendments like giving Senators pay raises, I don't see any that really need an immediate change.

The amendments I've seen proposed were for Senator term limits, not pay raises. That's not a silly thing to pursue. That's actually pretty damn important.

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2940

Read up on the 27th amendment.

shipwreckers posted...

Granted, I'm all for patriotism and "protecting our heritage," but this isn't patriotism at this point. It's blind traditionalism. Perhaps we're due for some more "Amendments."

....what?

TheCyborgNinja posted...

The constitution, according to Thomas Jefferson (iirc), was to be regularly updated with the times lest it become totally worthless. So...

While Jefferson was a genius, his thoughts on the Constitution were less than enlightened. He basically proposed letting the whole thing expire every few decades and have a new one pass, a premise which is infeasible for countless reasons and more so within today's political climate.
---

Zeus posted...

While Jefferson was a genius, his thoughts on the Constitution were less than enlightened. He basically proposed letting the whole thing expire every few decades and have a new one pass, a premise which is infeasible for countless reasons and more so within today's political climate.

Also, Thomas Jefferson had nothing to do with the Constitution. He was in Paris at the time.

It was mostly James Madison who wrote it.

Zeus posted...

While Jefferson was a genius, his thoughts on the Constitution were less than enlightened. He basically proposed letting the whole thing expire every few decades and have a new one pass, a premise which is infeasible for countless reasons and more so within today's political climate.

lmao how is that less than enlightened? there's no reason not to update the constitution with the changing times. you still need majority vote to ratify any amendments.
---

TheWorstPoster posted...

Doctor Foxx posted...

The right to bear arms was a modification to the Constitution by way of being an amendment. Repeal or revise it

First of all, the Second Amendment does NOT grant anyone the right to bear arms. It forbids the role of government from infringing on the rights of the people to bear arms.

Want to repeal it? Prepare for a more larger government, who would use that as a precedent, where they would then proceed to repeal or revise the First Amendment, and criminalizing "hate speech" (in which they would define).

So doesn't that make firearm ownership restrictions of any kind unconstitutional? Such as not allowing felons or people with mental illness or minors to purchase guns, due to lawmakers
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

So doesn't that make firearm ownership restrictions of any kind unconstitutional? Such as not allowing felons or people with mental illness or minors to purchase guns, due to lawmakers

No, since individual people can lose their rights via legal process.

TheWorstPoster posted...

Doctor Foxx posted...

So doesn't that make firearm ownership restrictions of any kind unconstitutional? Such as not allowing felons or people with mental illness or minors to purchase guns, due to lawmakers

No, since individual people can lose their rights via legal process.

If you could lose it, it isn't a right - but a privilege.
---

TheWorstPoster posted...

Doctor Foxx posted...

So doesn't that make firearm ownership restrictions of any kind unconstitutional? Such as not allowing felons or people with mental illness or minors to purchase guns, due to lawmakers

No, since individual people can lose their rights via legal process.

Those laws and restrictions are put in place by the government. The government has infringed on the right to bear arms for many citizens

You can't lose rights. They apply to all individuals
---