[jolepp]

That sort of thing was done here ... which was good as it essentially codified the previous interpretations. Also, it was tweaked a bit so that not quite as much power is concentrated on the president. The finished work was printed and everyone got a copy . Changing it was a big deal and took a while though.

[GeneV]

I agree completely there, but the example I prefer to use is when liberals say, (and rightfully so) that the phrase "the right of the people" in the First Amendment applies to ALL of the people, but then claim that the exact same phrase in the Second Amendment only applies to a certain group of people.

The wording of the two amendments is very different. The first amendment begins "Congress shall make no law..." While the second begins "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...." If the second was meant to be treated the same as the first, it would have been very easy to word both of them "Congress shall make no law..." If I were writing, I wouldn't lead off with the militia unless it was important, but then I'm not James Madison.

Jolepp has a point about the Bill of Rights. You wouldn't know to look at them that they were all written by the same man.

[skyredoubt]

That sort of thing was done here ... which was good as it essentially codified the previous interpretations. Also, it was tweaked a bit so that not quite as much power is concentrated on the president. The finished work was printed and everyone got a copy . Changing it was a big deal and took a while though.

Finland doesn't have 50 states each of which needs to ratify any change to the Constitution . Besides, even if you rewrite it as clear as possible, it will still be subject to interpretation. There is simply no escaping it. Pretending that any document will magically have answers to all our problems is wishful thinking.

[Parallax]

Changing it was a big deal and took a while though.

The mechanism for changing ours would make "took a while" look like an eye blink.
We would either burn up from global warming, or freeze to death from the next ice age. (I keep forgetting which one of those the environmentalists say is is going to happen first)

[Parallax]

The wording of the two amendments is very different. The first amendment begins "Congress shall make no law..." While the second begins "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...." If the second was meant to be treated the same as the first, it would have been very easy to word both of them "Congress shall make no law..." If I were writing, I wouldn't lead off with the militia unless it was important, but then I'm not James Madison.

Agreed, Gene. It could have been worded more clearly, but change just a few key words, without changing sentence structure and see how it would be generally interpreted:
"A well informed electorate being necessary to the democratic process, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed"
Would anybody interpret that to mean that only registered voters were guaranteed the right to possess books?

[redrockcoulee]

I agree completely there, but the example I prefer to use is when liberals say, (and rightfully so) that the phrase "the right of the people" in the First Amendment applies to ALL of the people, but then claim that the exact same phrase in the Second Amendment only applies to a certain group of people.

Does not the Democrat or what you call the left or liberal (I would call more moderate conservatives) want to restrict rights to certain weapons and not rights by certain people? Do the pro gun people want everyone including convicted feons to have the rights to guns?

[jolepp]

It is hard to say exactly how long it took as it obviously took endless discussions and it is hard to say when exactly these moved from promoting the idea to the details of doing it ... 10 years or so. The mechanism is essentially that it goes through the process any law does, but additionally must be re-approved by the parliament after the next election by a 2/3 majority, so that we-the-people get a say.

[Parallax]

Does not the Democrat or what you call the left or liberal (I would call more moderate conservatives) want to restrict rights to certain weapons and not rights by certain people? Do the pro gun people want everyone including convicted feons to have the rights to guns?

The answer to both questions is no; sort of. The degree of desired restriction ranges from certain types of weapons to all weapons, and from certain people to nobody being allowed possession. Everyone (except the criminals, obviously) agrees that certain groups of people, e.g convicted felons, mentally ill, etc., should not be allowed to have guns.

[GeneV]

Agreed, Gene. It could have been worded more clearly, but change just a few key words, without changing sentence structure and see how it would be generally interpreted:
"A well informed electorate being necessary to the democratic process, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed"
Would anybody interpret that to mean that only registered voters were guaranteed the right to possess books?

Neither I nor the Supreme Court argues that the Second Amendment is limited to Militias. I see the Constitution as a living document. However, the intro colors the strength and scope with which the "infringement" is viewed. It is not absolute. And, yes, someone would argue that the absolute right to own books was limited to political books if the amendment were worded that way, and I think the vigor with which the amendment is enforced would be different. I was about to make an example like that myself.

Any "liberal" or other who takes the "militia" argument too far better be careful what they wish for. Will we be trying cases about whether the Bloods and the Crips are "militia?"

[GeneV]

Another interesting article on healthcare costs today. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/health/policy/05cost.html?_r=1&hp I will probably see my premiums almost double this year, and, until 2014, I will be handcuffed to this company because of preexisting injuries.

[Nesster]

same story here, with chronic illness in the family.

This has resulted in a market place skewing in my case: first, my work strategy is to remain employed with my current employer for as long as possible (which has consequences to both compensation policies and job competition between employers), second, my income has stagnated due to the health care bite, and in the final analysis, is a net negative to my industry: my talents and those in similar situations have become hidden and less impactful than if we had a free-er market for our services.

[GeneV]

My premium has gone to about $7,000 per year, and that is without any increase due to my injury. My employees are younger and somewhat cheaper, but more and more, I hear talk about them wanting to take their chances in the ER rather than see their raises go to the insurer.