U.S. now only 2 states away from rewriting Constitution

[foxpaws]

OK, if I were to 'right' the constitution. To start...

I would make sure that the first amendment would be more clear in the true separation of church and state. No 10 Commandments would ever appear in public buildings or prayer in public schools if I were to look at number 1...

“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion” John Adams

The second amendment needs to be very clear in allowing Americans the right to keep and bear arms - without the whole 'militia' issue muddy-ing it up. It is very clear that is what Jefferson wanted - and somehow this has gotten to be diluted over the centuries..

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson

Your turn sweetheart.... Or is it just perfect the way it is, and should be place on a pedestal, next to the Bible and declared to be a gift from God?

"To me, ladies and gentlemen, the Constitution is a gift from God." Rush Limbaugh

 

[Calabrio]

Your turn sweetheart.... Or is it just perfect the way it is, and should be place on a pedestal, next to the Bible and declared to be a gift from God?

I don't want to change the constitution.
...with perhaps the exception I've stated in the past, and that is, repealing the 17th Amendment. The 17th Amendment is a 20th century creation that superseded Article 1, section three of the original constitution.
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof"

And while I don't agree with your interpretation of the first amendment, I am surprised at the limited approach your stating. I'm inclined to think that if a constitutional convention were called, and you were able to craft and revise the constitution, you'd simply refrain yourself to limiting public expressions of faith and securing our gun rights. What other rights would you find? What other roles would the federal government then be responsible for?

And if those are the two most important issues, I'd expect you to be more supportive of Justices like Roberts and Scalia.

 

[fossten]

Repealing the 19th Amendment would be the best and only change that I would consider making, especially taking into account the damage done to this country by people like fox.

 

[foxpaws]

I have lots of issues - like term limits for justices... a great idea.

Mostly I wouldn't change the context of the constitution - the ideas you talked about before, Calabrio, housing, economics, etc. are written into law -not the constitution. The constitution should be a broad overview. I think mostly what I would be concerned with is the ambiguity of language.

So, Foss, have you told your wife about your idea of repealing the 19th... Or do you just tell her how to vote?

 

[cammerfe]

I luvya Fox---but ambiguity is constantly with us. Argument about the meaning of 'is' creates an example of reality. Let's leave things as they are. The Constitution is as close to sacred as any modern writing could be. Let's not tamper. One of the basics of legal thinking is that a law means what the framers of that law meant. There's really very little that isn't clear if you take into account the written comments from that time. Spend some time with The Federalist Papers. The so-called ambiguity regarding the Second Amendment is a creature of the 20th Century. Simply find out what the meanings of the words used, AT THE TIME THEY WERE WRITTEN, and the ambiguity vanishes. 'Well regulated' at the time, simply meant 'having had some training'.

Familiarity with your weapon is necessary in order to be capable with it. And, at the time, everyone was expected to have his own weapons, if necessity called for action. There are ample records of laws, at the time, spelling out the amount of ammunition that had to be kept ready so as to be prepared.

The idea of 'separation of church and state' is a towering edifice created by those with some agenda. We have a 'freedom OF religion'. 'Freedom FROM religion' isn't mentioned. Any reasonable, no agenda reading of the first will lead to the understanding that there was to be no 'STATE' religion possible here. The Church of England is an example of a state religion, although most recently a very benign one. Don't try to read more than there is there!

Let's keep it simple! There's a line halfway between you and me. I can do absolutely anything I please on my side of the line. That's freedom. But I can't cross into your space. To do so would be to trespass on your freedom. It's really very simple. And it doesn't take a whole lot of laws to make it work.
KS

 

[fossten]

The best way to do it is to find the fine line between anarchy and lawful liberty, and then just move one inch over to the side of liberty.