The Constitutional Amendment Thread.

[DesEsseintes]

As called for by Ishmael.

It is not my place as a foreign devil to suggest constitutional amendments in the US, and I have not done so. This is a place to discuss those and make a case for amendments you think are necessary. Guns are, of course, the prime topic at the moment, in the light of yesterday's massacre, but rather than setting up yet another thread discussing specifics, I thought this might be a place for the Board's constitutional experts and its liberals to discuss and argue issues generally.

I will make a few, more or less random, observations, based on what I have read here over the last 24 hours or so.

1) The UK does have a written constitution, of course. This is a common misnomer. It is just that our constitution is not conveniently gathered into a single place. Magna Carta, The Act of Union, various Parliament Acts, various Electoral Reform Acts and many, many more - all these form our constitution, and are consulted by judges and politicians whenever important issues of law arise.

2) The 'rule of law' means that no individual, even a King of President, is above the law. It is a wonderful concept, even if more seen in the breach than th'observance. But it does NOT mean, or ought not to mean, that the law is above even the settled will of the people. Colonel Hogan and Eyer both talk about inalienable rights, and what 'cannot' be done to the Constitution. But the Constitution was created by, admittedly brilliant, men, at a particular time in history and for particular reasons. Not one of them would have been so arrogant as to assume that it ought to remain untouched in wildly different circumstances- hence the arrangements for amendments and 2/3 majorities and all the rest. So please, let us not speak of the Constitution as if it were the word of God or handed down on tablets from Sinai. It is a construct of its time. That does not mean we ought to tear it down on some kind of absurd principle, as some hard of thinking types think ought to be done with anything more than 50 years old. But it does mean it ought to be possible to discuss problems with it without incurring the wrath of those who see any criticism as tantamount to blasphemy.

Anyway - have at it. I am more than prepared to be shot down in flames as ignorant, socialist and all the rest. But please note, I am not suggesting a single change. That is not for me to do. I am merely suggesting that change is possible, as we see by the amendments, and that it is sometimes desirable. No constitution is perfect.

 

[Ishmael]

As called for by Ishmael.

It is not my place as a foreign devil to suggest constitutional amendments in the US, and I have not done so. This is a place to discuss those and make a case for amendments you think are necessary. Guns are, of course, the prime topic at the moment, in the light of yesterday's massacre, but rather than setting up yet another thread discussing specifics, I thought this might be a place for the Board's constitutional experts and its liberals to discuss and argue issues generally.

I will make a few, more or less random, observations, based on what I have read here over the last 24 hours or so.

1) The UK does have a written constitution, of course. This is a common misnomer. It is just that our constitution is not conveniently gathered into a single place. Magna Carta, The Act of Union, various Parliament Acts, various Electoral Reform Acts and many, many more - all these form our constitution, and are consulted by judges and politicians whenever important issues of law arise.

2) The 'rule of law' means that no individual, even a King of President, is above the law. It is a wonderful concept, even if more seen in the breach than th'observance. But it does NOT mean, or ought not to mean, that the law is above even the settled will of the people. Colonel Hogan and Eyer both talk about inalienable rights, and what 'cannot' be done to the Constitution. But the Constitution was created by, admittedly brilliant, men, at a particular time in history and for particular reasons. Not one of them would have been so arrogant as to assume that it ought to remain untouched in wildly different circumstances- hence the arrangements for amendments and 2/3 majorities and all the rest. So please, let us not speak of the Constitution as if it were the word of God or handed down on tablets from Sinai. It is a construct of its time. That does not mean we ought to tear it down on some kind of absurd principle, as some hard of thinking types think ought to be done with anything more than 50 years old. But it does mean it ought to be possible to discuss problems with it without incurring the wrath of those who see any criticism as tantamount to blasphemy.

Anyway - have at it. I am more than prepared to be shot down in flames as ignorant, socialist and all the rest. But please note, I am not suggesting a single change. That is not for me to do. I am merely suggesting that change is possible, as we see by the amendments, and that it is sometimes desirable. No constitution is perfect.

Regarding #1, your answer was more or less my point. You have no single document. I should have been more explicit there.

Re. #2. There is where you start to become misleading, or show a lack of understanding of the document. This is the second time you have inferred that we, US citizens, see the constitution as some sort of religious gospel. The problem with that analogy is that neither the Bible, the Qur'an, or any of the other religious texts contain within themselves an amendment process. The US Constitution specifies no less than two means by which the document can be amended, and we have done so no less than 27 times. It's not an easy process, it's not meant to be, but it exists and has been done. And that process quite clearly differentiates it from any of the religious texts.

As far as proposals go................repeal the 16th and 17th amendments and modify the 14th for clarification.

Ishmael

 

[EmpressJosephine]

Enough Said

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."


Whether or not you believe in a "Creator," the rest truly is "self-evident."

 

[DesEsseintes]

Regarding #1, your answer was more or less my point. You have no single document. I should have been more explicit there.

Re. #2. There is where you start to become misleading, or show a lack of understanding of the document. This is the second time you have inferred that we, US citizens, see the constitution as some sort of religious gospel. The problem with that analogy is that neither the Bible, the Qur'an, or any of the other religious texts contain within themselves an amendment process. The US Constitution specifies no less than two means by which the document can be amended, and we have done so no less than 27 times. It's not an easy process, it's not meant to be, but it exists and has been done. And that process quite clearly differentiates it from any of the religious texts.

As far as proposals go................repeal the 16th and 17th amendments and modify the 14th for clarification.

Ishmael

To clarify, Ishmael, I was not referring to you with my comments about the Constitution being seen as Gospel. But Colonel Hogan talked, with regard to a comparison with European gun laws, of things that 'cannot' be done constitutionally. And Eyer writes quite frankly of the rights being inalienable and that only God can take them away. I quite understand that the process has to be difficult and, with the 2/3 majority requirement and an increasingly partisan political climate, it would seem to be very difficult indeed to change the constitution. But fundamentally, it was written by human beings, and every word can be changed or deleted by human beings.

As for your suggestions: I am on my phone, and find it hard to search to read up on your references. I will do so soon.

 

[DesEsseintes]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."


Whether or not you believe in a "Creator," the rest truly is "self-evident."

Not to me. What is self-evident about them?
Please note that I am not disagreeing with them. But there is a profound philosophical difference between something being true, and it being 'self-evident'. For centuries it was 'self-evident' that women and Africans were less able than white men, and ought to have fewer rights. It was 'self-evident' that homosexuality was wrong.

The self is not always the best arbiter of evidence.

 

[Ishmael]

To clarify, Ishmael, I was not referring to you with my comments about the Constitution being seen as Gospel. But Colonel Hogan talked, with regard to a comparison with European gun laws, of things that 'cannot' be done constitutionally. And Eyer writes quite frankly of the rights being inalienable and that only God can take them away. I quite understand that the process has to be difficult and, with the 2/3 majority requirement and an increasingly partisan political climate, it would seem to be very difficult indeed to change the constitution. But fundamentally, it was written by human beings, and every word can be changed or deleted by human beings.

As for your suggestions: I am on my phone, and find it hard to search to read up on your references. I will do so soon.

What Hogan is referring to is that it cannot be done under the constitution as it exists today. only by the amendment process can that occur. I'm certain he'll clarify as well.

Even so there are those that would argue that even should the second amendment be repealed that repeal would be null and void. That that right exists extra-constitutionally. The same argument would apply equally to the first amendment along with most of the others in what we refer to as the "Bill of Rights." A careful reading of those amendments will make it clear that they are NOT rights granted to the citizenry, they are prohibitions against the government interfering with those rights.

Ishmael

 

[DesEsseintes]

Thank you. It was Hogan's 'we are not permitted' phrase that intrigued me. As for 'extra-constitutional rights': how does that concept sit with the concept of democratic government?

 

[Ishmael]

Thank you. It was Hogan's 'we are not permitted' phrase that intrigued me. As for 'extra-constitutional rights': how does that concept sit with the concept of democratic government?

First of all we, the US, are NOT a democratic government. We are a Republic with strong democratic leanings. Democracies are nothing more than mob rule organizations, or as Franklin put it, "Two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for lunch."

Or as another observer put it, "Monarchies rot from the top, democracies rot from the bottom." The formation of the Republic was/is an attempt to avoid the rot.

Ishmael

 

[DesEsseintes]

That is most illuminating, and chimes with what I had suspected. So when the US talks in public about bringing democracy to unenlightened states, and the vital importance of democracy...

 

[phrodeau]

Religious texts do get amended. See Mark 16:9-20.

 

[toubab]

That is most illuminating, and chimes with what I had suspected. So when the US talks in public about bringing democracy to unenlightened states, and the vital importance of democracy...

It's meaningless. Our politicians rarely mean anything they say.

 

[Ishmael]

That is most illuminating, and chimes with what I had suspected. So when the US talks in public about bringing democracy to unenlightened states, and the vital importance of democracy...

Sounds great in sound bites, doesn't it?

Ishmael

 

[Mr Noone]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Whether or not you believe in a "Creator," the rest truly is "self-evident."

This is not however part of the Constitution. It's from the Declaration of Independence. It does not have the force of law, per se. It is more a statement of principles.

 

[DesEsseintes]

Sounds great in sound bites, doesn't it?

Ishmael

I'm just chewing a mouthful of delicious hypocrisy. God knows Britain is hardly immune to the same disease.

Oh, and your proposed amendments, now that I have been able to look them up: 16 does seem an odd one, and I wonder what the history of it was. But as for 14 and 17 - how would you define a citizen for 14? And if Senators are not to be directly elected, what then - appointments, like our House of Lords?

 

[DesEsseintes]

Religious texts do get amended. See Mark 16:9-20.

Fascinating - I never knew that, though of course I knew about the Apocrypha and various Councils to decide what did and did not count.

Have you, by any chance, read 'Divide and Rule' by Jan Mark? The Holy Book in that novel is constantly being amended to take account of current events in a way that implies they were foretold, with a horrifying effect on those caught up in them.

 

[EmpressJosephine]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."


Whether or not you believe in a "Creator," the rest truly is "self-evident."

Not to me. What is self-evident about them?
Please note that I am not disagreeing with them. But there is a profound philosophical difference between something being true, and it being 'self-evident'. For centuries it was 'self-evident' that women and Africans were less able than white men, and ought to have fewer rights. It was 'self-evident' that homosexuality was wrong.

Alright, let's start with "life." If it is not "self-evident" that each person begins their existence (be that at conception, birth, or somewhere in between, but that's another debate) with a right to their life, then where is there any basis for any meaningful moral code?

The self is not always the best arbiter of evidence.

On the level that human perception is not always reliable, that's true, but we are not discussing evidence of that sort. When it comes to judging moral issues like "unalienable Rights," then human reason, which can only be judged through the "self," is ultimately the only meaningful arbiter.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Not to me. What is self-evident about them?
Please note that I am not disagreeing with them. But there is a profound philosophical difference between something being true, and it being 'self-evident'. For centuries it was 'self-evident' that women and Africans were less able than white men, and ought to have fewer rights. It was 'self-evident' that homosexuality was wrong.

The self is not always the best arbiter of evidence.

*fist bumps*

It's sweet that we have room to evolve and grow, but when the "Founders" or "Framers" or "Fathers" ("The Three F's" as I like to call it) are fetishistically invoked as some sort of "we need to take back OUR country" bullshit in a knee-jerk pushback against that very evolution and growth, never forget how it all started out and how that start out has shaped law and collective thought process of praxis to create schisms that fracture us all even to this day.

 

[DesEsseintes]

Alright, let's start with "life." If it is not "self-evident" that each person begins their existence (be that at conception, birth, or somewhere in between, but that's another debate) with a right to their life, then where is there any basis for any meaningful moral code?




On the level that human perception is not always reliable, that's true, but we are not discussing evidence of that sort. When it comes to judging moral issues like "unalienable Rights," then human reason, which can only be judged through the "self," is ultimately the only meaningful arbiter.

It isn't so much the rights themselves that I am questioning, though that is a gigantic philosophical issue in itself. It is the 'self-evident' bit.

In 10th century Europe it was self evident that there was a Hell, peopled with devils. In ISIS today it is self evident that non-believers must be forcibly converted or destroyed. I could go on. There are plenty of things which are self evident but not true.

The flipside is also the case. Quantum physics is the most obvious example of something which is measurably true to an astonishing degree, but by no means self-evident - quite the opposite.

You may say that this is just semantics. But the problem with saying something is 'self-evident' is like the problem with saying something is 'common sense'. It relies on shared assumptions which may not be there. What we ought to do is to make a case from as close to the ground up as possible.

I am not in any way criticising the Founding Fathers, as it happens. I think they did a remarkable job, and their task was not to be philosophically precise. But their descendents and others sometimes seem to take that phrase as meaning that there can be no arguing - case closed, forever and ever. I do not think that is healthy.

 

[Ishmael]

I'm just chewing a mouthful of delicious hypocrisy. God knows Britain is hardly immune to the same disease.

Oh, and your proposed amendments, now that I have been able to look them up: 16 does seem an odd one, and I wonder what the history of it was. But as for 14 and 17 - how would you define a citizen for 14? And if Senators are not to be directly elected, what then - appointments, like our House of Lords?

The citizenship clause of the 14th was inserted specifically so as to insure the former slaves held citizenship. Hence the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" phrase. It was never intended to apply to citizens of foreign nations. That needs to be made clear.

Re. the 17th amendment. You have to go back to the original text of the Constitution. Senators were appointed by the various states they represented. This produced a legislative balance. The House of Representatives being the "peoples house" while the senate looked after the interests of the states. With the passage of the 17th amendment the senate became just another House of Representatives leaving no representation for the states.

Re. the 16th amendment, it's an abomination. Purely arbitrary punitive assessments.

Ishmael

 

[DesEsseintes]

The citizenship clause of the 14th was inserted specifically so as to insure the former slaves held citizenship. Hence the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" phrase. It was never intended to apply to citizens of foreign nations. That needs to be made clear.

Re. the 17th amendment. You have to go back to the original text of the Constitution. Senators were appointed by the various states they represented. This produced a legislative balance. The House of Representatives being the "peoples house" while the senate looked after the interests of the states. With the passage of the 17th amendment the senate became just another House of Representatives leaving no representation for the states.

Re. the 16th amendment, it's an abomination. Purely arbitrary punitive assessments.

Ishmael

Thank you - that seems very clear, and so far the only suggested amendments!
So you would keep it identical except for an abolition of 16 and 17 (meaning Senators would be appointed by - State Governors? The State Senates?), and a clarification of 14 stating that one cannot be simultaneously a citizen of a foreign nation AND a US citizen. A fair summary?

Any other amendments from anyone?

 

[Wrong Element]

Amendments I think are necessary?

1. The affirmation of the right to vote.
2. Repeal of Citizens United.

 

[eyer]

I am not in any way criticising the Founding Fathers, as it happens. I think they did a remarkable job, and their task was not to be philosophically precise. But their descendents and others sometimes seem to take that phrase as meaning that there can be no arguing - case closed, forever and ever. I do not think that is healthy.

And the framers would consider you denouncing the Creator of Nature and Nature's Law as automatic disqualification from having any relevance at all in their debates to form the Constitution...

...what you champion is not what the Constitution dictates, thus, your true aim is to completely rewrite the Constitution itself in your own image, making America totally dismissive of the Creator's overwhelming influence on its founding and, quite obviously, the framers' political thinking.

Big surprise coming from a committed socialist who denounces any god, but celebrates the state...

...get in line with all the other heathens, wannabe.

 

[phrodeau]

What kind of obvious overwhelming influence did Jehovah have on the founding of the USA?

 

[Noor]

What kind of obvious overwhelming influence did Jehovah have on the founding of the USA?

Many of the founding fathers and thus the writers of the Constitution were Deists.

 

[eyer]

What kind of obvious overwhelming influence did Jehovah have on the founding of the USA?

Fuck yourself with you childish disingenuousness, playdeau.