[mikemike]

You have to wonder what they would make of the application of the second amendment, given the changes in society and weaponry which have taken place.

One need look no further than Syria or Libya to see that tyrannical governments are still despicable and can only be overthrown by force. The problems of colonialism that precipitated the original revolution are still felt to some degrees today and sometimes it sure feels like congress views anything west of the Potomac as though its some kind of backwater outpost.

People need to understand the one we've got before they think we need a new one, never mind are qualified to redo it.

I do think we need to look at maybe doing something to counter this two-party system that's had us hung up so long, but electoral reform could do that, or maybe making one of the houses of Congress more parliamentary with proportional representation of some kind could make all the difference.

Excellent point, but I think the place to start with a change like that is at the state level since that is where the voting laws are set and the election laws are set. This would probably be to the dismay of rural areas though because like with the senate, most of the representatives would come from a handful of big cities, even if you made representation proportional by state so that small states like Wyoming are not completely unrepresented. And if you didn't do it at the state level first, those states with only 1-3 representatives in the house would still be dominated by the two party system.

Most of the complaints about the constitution revolve around the belief that we have too much freedom. Be careful what you wish for.

If I could pass any amendment by waving my magic wand, it would be something to provide greater privacy rights.

It's too dated, I think it needs to be revised or make a new one.

Most of the dated parts have been revised with the 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 17th, and 19th amendments.

[jtkratzer]

Excellent point, but I think the place to start with a change like that is at the state level since that is where the voting laws are set and the election laws are set. This would probably be to the dismay of rural areas though because like with the senate, most of the representatives would come from a handful of big cities, even if you made representation proportional by state so that small states like Wyoming are not completely unrepresented. And if you didn't do it at the state level first, those states with only 1-3 representatives in the house would still be dominated by the two party system.

My problem with that is the number of idiots in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh tip PA to a blue state when the overwhelming majority of the areas outside of those two cities are red.

[jeffkrol]

If I could pass any amendment by waving my magic wand, it would be something to provide greater privacy rights.

Then you best get cracking to eliminate these "conservative activist" judges..........

He believes the court was similarly wrong in barring warrantless wiretapping.

"That's simply contrary to the text of the Fourth Amendment, which never protected privacy in some broad sense," he said. "It's very specific [in barring unreasonable searches only of] persons, houses, papers and effects."

Justice Scalia Disputes Accuracy Of 'Leak' : NPR

[ihasa]

One need look no further than Syria or Libya to see that tyrannical governments are still despicable and can only be overthrown by force.

Fantasy to imagine that will happen in the USA, or, even if it did, that private gun ownership would provide a solution. America's political system has checks and balances which have been proven effective, if flawed in terms of limiting corporate power. It's fine to say that possessing guns should be legal for self defense, if that's what people want and vote for. But to suggest that there is an almost sacred constitutional duty to, because of a threat from tyrranical government? C'mon!

[ihasa]

As far as your police comment goes, there are several concerns there. For example, during Katrina, the majority of the police in N.O. went awol and much of the remainder were unreliable. There were cases of rogue cops firing on unarmed citizens etc. Furthermore, while I am a strong supporter of LEO, the agencies are far from perfect.

Putting the second amendment to one side, if there are problems with LEOs - tackle them! It is essential that they serve the people they are employed to protect, and talk of private gun ownership as a solution to poor/corrupt police authorities simply diverts attention from addressing the real problem.

[Nesster]

So why is it that discussion always seems to turn to the second amendment? Surely the rest of the constitution matters too? At any rate there are plenty of avenues to amend or make laws around the 2nd, and the courts have proven to be slow but evolving aribters.

[jeffkrol]

so why is it that discussion always seems to turn to the second amendment?.

shiny things.............

[GeneV]

So why is it that discussion always seems to turn to the second amendment? Surely the rest of the constitution matters too? At any rate there are plenty of avenues to amend or make laws around the 2nd, and the courts have proven to be slow but evolving aribters.

I agree. This subject is taking over, and it seldom seems to be discussed in a very calm way, leading to similar tones in discussions about everything else.

[jeffkrol]

What are you talking about? I know it's difficult, but stay on track here, we're talking about the Constitution. My point was in reference to the government using federal funding as a means to control the states and manipulate them - drinking age is just one aspect where the feds threatened to withhold funding from the states if they did not change the age to 21.

you started on "extortion and racketeering ".................. like it never happens in the private sector...

as I said Do YOU favor legalization of all drugs and prostitution???

SIMPLE free market question.............(which I posed in a different thread)..........point is if the answer is no than any restriction on any free market right is extortion.. and the gov. province..
Extortion is everywhere, if you define it correctly...........

[GeneV]

I think we could probably use some tweaking which more accurately deals with the dominance of the multinational corporate form and the inherent differences between human and legal persons which are more like governments than individuals. We could also use some defining or redefining of the role of the federal government. I agree the state-based winner take all system is tearing this country apart. However, none of this requires a new constitution, just some amendments.

[reeftool]

My problem with that is the number of idiots in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh tip PA to a blue state when the overwhelming majority of the areas outside of those two cities are red.

You will find this problem in many states and also NY. The upstate people and rural down state residents are generally the opposite politically of the majority in the large population centers. Urban residents mostly live a lifestyle that is very dependent on government services and are quite comfortable of a lifestyle of rules and regulations while rural and small town residents tend to be very self reliant and resent being told what to do and how to do it.

[Blue]

So why is it that discussion always seems to turn to the second amendment? Surely the rest of the constitution matters too? At any rate there are plenty of avenues to amend or make laws around the 2nd, and the courts have proven to be slow but evolving aribters.

because he brought it up . .

[Blue]

Putting the second amendment to one side, if there are problems with LEOs - tackle them! It is essential that they serve the people they are employed to protect, and talk of private gun ownership as a solution to poor/corrupt police authorities simply diverts attention from addressing the real problem.

For the people that were gunned down by rogue police in a Katrina situation, the murder trial was a bit late. Battling corruption isn't a one time static fix. It is a dynamic situation. Again, think about it in the terms of tomorrow, next year, next century.

Fantasy to imagine that will happen in the USA, or, even if it did, that private gun ownership would provide a solution. America's political system has checks and balances which have been proven effective, if flawed in terms of limiting corporate power. It's fine to say that possessing guns should be legal for self defense, if that's what people want and vote for. But to suggest that there is an almost sacred constitutional duty to, because of a threat from tyrranical government? C'mon!

No more fantasy than someone lobbing bombs and rockets across the channel at London. Plus, you also forget that Partisan Fighters played key roles in WWII in several countries. That is there in the scenario the Regular army is routed and D.C. is burned with a government on the run and/or collapsed. Again, it isn't just about today, it is about next decade, next century etc.

[mikemike]

So why is it that discussion always seems to turn to the second amendment? Surely the rest of the constitution matters too? At any rate there are plenty of avenues to amend or make laws around the 2nd, and the courts have proven to be slow but evolving aribters.

Because that is the biggest obstacle to some people who feel very strongly about one subject, just as if there was an amendment that gave people a right to abort pregnancies, there would be a group that is always agitating to change the constitution because of that amendment.

I think we could probably use some tweaking which more accurately deals with the dominance of the multinational corporate form and the inherent differences between human and legal persons which are more like governments than individuals. We could also use some defining or redefining of the role of the federal government. I agree the state-based winner take all system is tearing this country apart. However, none of this requires a new constitution, just some amendments.

I don't know that it is just multinational corporations vs. people, it is just unpopular speech and some of the people/corporations which upset certain people the most are done by people/corporations which are owned by small groups of like minded, opinionated individuals such as Koch Industries, Chick-Fil-A, or Quantum Fund. If laws were changed that somehow prohibited them from using their companies' moneys to support their causes, I have no doubt that any not for profit dependent upon them would miss a beat on funding because they would just write the checks out of their personal bank account instead of their corporate bank account. If they wanted to test this, they could modify the tax code to eliminate deductibility of corporate donations to not for profits then corporations, especially public ones which would be accountable to wall street for giving away after tax profits to someone other than the shareholders, would have trouble justifying their use of money as speech.

[GeneV]

I don't know that it is just multinational corporations vs. people, it is just unpopular speech and some of the people/corporations which upset certain people the most are done by people/corporations which are owned by small groups of like minded, opinionated individuals such as Koch Industries, Chick-Fil-A, or Quantum Fund. If laws were changed that somehow prohibited them from using their companies' moneys to support their causes, I have no doubt that any not for profit dependent upon them would miss a beat on funding because they would just write the checks out of their personal bank account instead of their corporate bank account. If they wanted to test this, they could modify the tax code to eliminate deductibility of corporate donations to not for profits then corporations, especially public ones which would be accountable to wall street for giving away after tax profits to someone other than the shareholders, would have trouble justifying their use of money as speech.

I wasn't drafting the amendment with that suggestion, but just indicating the subject matter. There are many aspects of corporate personhood beyond speech which need to be examined and re-examined. The dominance of the large corporation is a legal development which did not exist in the 18th century. It is something which needs to be thought through with more of a clean slate for all of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.