Poll: How should the US Constitution be ammended

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Heh - welcome to the Internet - a vast wonderland of atheist libertarian IT workers who know exactly what needs to be done to save the poor ignorant souls around them from themselves.

The last part is contrary to libertarian thought.



:13:

 

[aerosolben]

The last part is contrary to libertarian thought.

Nonsense - they want to free them from the oppressive chains of government in which they have ignorantly bound themselves.

You can substitute "enable the strong to live to their full potential" or some such if you want to be Objectivist about it.

 

[gdnp]

The last part is contrary to libertarian thought.

Although amusing, it is also off topic.

Please stop trying to derail the thread. If you wish to discuss libertarian thought, go elsewhere.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Although amusing, it is also off topic.

Please stop trying to derail the thread. If you wish to discuss libertarian thought, go elsewhere.

Dude, are you on some kind of mission?

It seems every post you make to me is an accusation that I am off-topic despite the fact that I am responding directly to posts in the thread.

 

[gdnp]

Dude, are you on some kind of mission?

It seems every post you make to me is an accusation that I am off-topic despite the fact that I am responding directly to posts in the thread.

Yes: I am on a mission to keep this thread on topic. Your posts are not relevant to the topic of constitutional amendments, are not responsive, and as such are attempts to derail the thread.

Once again:
Proposal for constitutional amendment for public financing of elections: on topic
Comment that John McCain supports public financing of elections: on topic
Comment that John McCain is a commie: off topic, attempted thread derail, violation of rule 11.

 

[Darth Rotor]

While you, sir, are deadly serious about sexually pleasuring people with centuries-old pieces of parchment.


Do you really think the thread participants are under the impression that their congressional representatives are perusing this very thread looking for bold new political initiatives?

The woo being batted about in this thread begins with the assumption that the solution to problem a, b, c and or d begins with ammending the Constitution. That assumption ought to be examined before wandering off. This is part of why I cited the ERA. In the case of equal rights, it has taken considerable statutory action to even out the lumps in the American political oatmeal, when the basis is already in the Constitution: the Fourteenth Amendment.

The last Constitutional Crisis in the US happened in 1861. If you look at the variety of big hand, little map topics in the original post, someone seems to think that blithely pencil whipping change in the Document solves something.

I find that sort of woo disturbing.

This a thread for idle speculation on constitutional amendments. Should we delete all the threads in the politics forum that aren't directly concerned with planning protests, coordinating petitions of elected representatives, and other topics directly related to "doing something"? Or perhaps conscientiously object to participating in them?

So long as you recognize what is going on, play on. Don't forget to clean up afterwards.

DR

 

[aerosolben]

The woo being batted about in this thread begins with the assumption that the solution to problem a, b, c and or d begins with ammending the Constitution. That assumption ought to be examined before wandering off. This is part of why I cited the ERA. In the case of equal rights, it has taken considerable statutory action to even out the lumps in the American political oatmeal, when the basis is already in the Constitution: the Fourteenth Amendment.

This, frankly, is a much more reasoned response than your initial post (ERA being unnecessary due to the 14th vs. ERA was a masturbatory internet poll ), and a potentially interesting topic for discussion. Which of the proposed options do you think is particularly egregious and why?

Certainly, there must exist some class of problems for which you believe constitutional amendments are worthwhile. Are there no active problems that you believe merit a constitutional modification? Are there unnecessary amendments which you would like to see removed?

 

[Darth Rotor]

This, frankly, is a much more reasoned response than your initial post (ERA being unnecessary due to the 14th vs. ERA was a masturbatory internet poll ), and a potentially interesting topic for discussion. Which of the proposed options do you think is particularly egregious and why?

The poll's finger point at the second amendment. The woo basis typically behind this appeal is that a change in a generalized rule will solve a behaviorally based problem, gun violence. (We had an interesting thread recently pointing to a significant percentage of gun deaths being suicide. Any law that protects me from another might be a good law, a law protecting me from myself is usually a poor one. ) The vast majority of gun owners don't inflict gun violence on their fellow citizens, or much of anyone else. (For the nitpickers out there: hunting is a legally sanctioned form of slaying a class of food animal, as a general case. IMO, if you ain't gonna eat it, don't shoot it. ) The creeping statism, and paternalism, not to mention pure whinging, in the appeal to an amendment change ignores a considerable body of firearms regulations and statutes, and enforcement challenges, that are where IMO any improvement must start. Go bottom up, not top down, to take care of the behavioral problem and leave the vast majority of legal and non criminal gun owners the hell alone. The people reserve the right, the states reserve the right. The 9th and 10th amendment are in support of the 2d, in this case.

I really do not want this thread to derail into the standard gun argument thread, but I realize that the risk is there.

Certainly, there must exist some class of problems for which you believe constitutional amendments are worthwhile.

No. I don't. I disagree that a constitutional change will solve much of anything in the near future.

Are there no active problems that you believe merit a constitutional modification?

No. A recent move to ban flag burning by amendment was as stupid, at its root, as the basis for this thread: you can solve the problem by amending the Constitution. Any such change tends to raise another problem, or more than one. Given the austere guidance in the Constitution, I'd prefer more wiggle room, not a rolling avalanche of attempts to perfect society by some woo based belief that a perfect rule set will do so. "Good enough" we have. I see no reason to change the framework. The lower level issues, which are Code and Statue bases, can sometimes be improved with some fine tuning.

Are there unnecessary amendments which you would like to see removed?

Not any time soon. I could argue that the Sixteenth is a complete mess, but that IMO is more of a problem with the Code and Statutes involved than the general provision for a head/income tax.

Fix what needs fixing, which in this case is the tax code.

Frankly, that's damned hard work as well. Fine. We Americans ought to demand that our Congress work, and work damned hard.

DR

 

[Suddenly]

A line item veto gives the executive too much power.

The better way to get the same result is a "one object rule" where a bill can only address one issue and that issue must be clearly stated in the title.

No more riders where a crap provision setting aside ten billion dollars to study astrology is stapled to the "We Don't Hate Grandma" act so if a congressman votes against it based on the astrology part he can look forward to hearing how he hates his Grandma during the next election. Ugh.

 

[Suddenly]

The poll's finger point at the second amendment.

Which is silly considering the recent Heller decision was the best thing to happen to those supporting reasonable gun control since John Hinckley, Jr.

We can stop arguing about two hundred fifty year old grammatical issues and get to the point about reasonable restrictions on gun control. The NRA types have won a battle but in doing so lost their best tool as the vast majority will accept, and even expect, regulations on ownership....

So working to repeal the second only makes sense if you are an anti-gun control advocate who needs a monster under the bed to scare the rubes.

 

[Suddenly]

If we could get all levels of government to strictly obey the Constitution as it now stands, I solidly believe that this would be of far greater benefit to this nation and its people than any change that could be made to the Constitution itself.

In the fantasy world where there is only one reasonable conclusion that can be reached from the reading of a general statement this makes sense.

In the real world, this sort of thing betrays both a lack of understanding that reasonable people can differ as to the meaning of pretty much any text not dealing with every possible meaning written by lawyers with OCD, and the arrogance that one holds the True and Right Meaning of The Constitution.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Which is silly considering the recent Heller decision was the best thing to happen to those supporting reasonable gun control since John Hinckley, Jr.

We can stop arguing about two hundred fifty year old grammatical issues and get to the point about reasonable restrictions on gun control. The NRA types have won a battle but in doing so lost their best tool as the vast majority will accept, and even expect, regulations on ownership....

So working to repeal the second only makes sense if you are an anti-gun control advocate who needs a monster under the bed to scare the rubes.

FWIW, we already have extensive regulations on firearms, and thus have various forms of gun control already in place. The issue at hand is enforcement and the behavioral issues of what criminals, and the criminally inclined, do regardless of laws on the books.

No, I didn't speed on the way to work today.

DR

 

[dudalb]

I don't think Tsukasa Buddha needs my defense, but let's break this down

I would abolish the electoral college,
abolish the Senate,
include balanced budget,
include public financing of elections,
include public education,
include public healthcare,
include explicit right to privacy,
make the government unitary, not federal,
include proportional representation,
include instant run off voting,
include equal rights amendment,
include pacifist amendment (Military action must be defense of the nation or an ally and approved by Congress),
include the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
include environmental defense,
include rights of Native Americans and treaties to be recognized.

Jerome, dudalb: which of these provisions do you see as typical of a "Soviet style socialist state"? Public financing of elections (supported by that commie, John McCain), public education (which we already have), and public healthcare (which everyone but us already has) and making the government "unitary, not federal" are the only suggestions I see as remotely "soviet style." The other eleven are either anti-soviet or neutral.

The Unitary, not Federal ie, a supremly powerful central Government ,is enough to scare me.
Notice how those who advocate a radical rewrite of the constituion are people who have a extreme political agenda which they know they don't have a chance in hell of getting through under the US constituion.

 

[aerosolben]

I really do not want this thread to derail into the standard gun argument thread, but I realize that the risk is there.

I'll avoid the derail as well, but I will say that I don't read the same focus on guns in the poll as you do. Perhaps there is context from another thread I am missing.

No. I don't. I disagree that a constitutional change will solve much of anything in the near future.

I meant in principle. For example, there seem to be 26 or so amendments you have no problem with, and I suspect there's probably a few you would have passionately supported when they were introduced.

 

[YoPopa]

In the fantasy world where there is only one reasonable conclusion that can be reached from the reading of a general statement this makes sense.

In the real world, this sort of thing betrays both a lack of understanding that reasonable people can differ as to the meaning of pretty much any text not dealing with every possible meaning written by lawyers with OCD, and the arrogance that one holds the True and Right Meaning of The Constitution.

So you're the person who agreed with SCOTUS on Kelo v. New London!

 

[Suddenly]

So you're the person who agreed with SCOTUS on Kelo v. New London!

I'm curious as to the thought process that leads to this conclusion.

Although the implied assumption that nobody agrees with the majority opinion seems to back my point quite well.

I have read Kelo. I have read all four opinions. I have read many of the key cases on which both the majority and the main dissent rest. While I do not agree with the majority, I do see it as reasonably decided given how the public use doctrine has developed over the years.

What I haven't done is taken my opinion straight from a conservative source that attempts to paint the issue in such black and white terms so that I conclude that nobody, or at least nobody worth speaking of, agrees with the opinion.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'll avoid the derail as well, but I will say that I don't read the same focus on guns in the poll as you do. Perhaps there is context from another thread I am missing.


I meant in principle. For example, there seem to be 26 or so amendments you have no problem with, and I suspect there's probably a few you would have passionately supported when they were introduced.

Certainly the first ten, and in particular, the second, ninth and tenth, given how oppressive governments in general were at that time on the planet earth. We are playing counterfactual here, so it's not worth going much further on that score.

There were two amendments that, grouped together, are a textbook illustration of how stupid it can be to think that an amendment to the Constitution solves a problem.

Prohibition, 18th, and the amendment that eventually repealed it, 21st. The first I'd have fought tooth and nail against, the second I would have fought for.

I am still of mixed feelings on the 22d and 26th, the first since I am not sure it's a good idea, but it was a good tradition, and given how incumbents seem to anchor themselves into office in America, maybe the 22d is better than I think it is. Worth more thought.

The 26th is another I am not convinced was necessary. Since the Draft has not been in effect for over a generation, and since selective service is a discrimanatory practice aimed unfairly at males, this amendment violates the Fourteenth, and did when it was first implemented, though that point was hardly raised since no feminist's ox was gored on that score.

If only males can be drafted, then only males ought to have the age 18 voting right. Granted, I don't think that's worth dying in a ditch over.

DR

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

So you're the person who agreed with SCOTUS on Kelo v. New London!

I understand that the property taken has yet to be developed.


No advantage for the "whole" as of yet.

 

[aerosolben]

Certainly the first ten, and in particular, the second, ninth and tenth, given how oppressive governments in general were at that time on the planet earth. We are playing counterfactual here, so it's not worth going much further on that score.

Maybe a little further, if you don't mind.

Your justification is a little surprising to me; ordinarily, I would expect a defense along the lines of the rights enumerated in the first ten amendments are fundamental to a functioning free society or similar. Should I take your response to mean that having these constitutional rights is no longer necessary, given governments are less oppressive today?

The 26th is another I am not convinced was necessary. Since the Draft has not been in effect for over a generation, and since selective service is a discrimanatory practice aimed unfairly at males, this amendment violates the Fourteenth, and did when it was first implemented, though that point was hardly raised since no feminist's ox was gored on that score.

Are you referring to the Voting Right Act of 1970 in regards to constitutionality (rather than the 26th)? Ratified amendments, by their very nature, cannot be unconstitutional.

An interesting one for me is the 13th, which relates in some way to a privacy amendment. In both cases, the amendments seem to reinforce constitutional decisions the courts have already derived from the existing text. However, the since that interpretation is necessarily obvious (for example, both cases represent reversals of previous court findings), it may be worthwhile to explicitly enumerate these "derived" rights to protect them in the future if they can be considered fundamental.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The Unitary, not Federal ie, a supremly powerful central Government ,is enough to scare me.

Bwah ha ha, SUPREME POWAR!!!!!11


Ahem- I mean, what is the exact critique? Do you fear for the citizens of Finland, Ireland, Japan, the Netherlands, NZ, Sweden, and the UK?

They must suffer terribly under a government of SUPREME POWAR!!!111

Notice how those who advocate a radical rewrite of the constituion are people who have a extreme political agenda which they know they don't have a chance in hell of getting through under the US constituion.

Notice how you completely avoided substantiating your original accusation. If you consider a Unitary government to mean a Soviet socialist state, are NZ, Japan, etc. Soviet states?