Poll Question:Do you support the Constitution in its entirety?

This is not a poll to try and figure out "WHO HATES THE CONSTITUTION!!!"...

I am looking for legitimate arguments against certain amendments or clauses.


FYI: I'm not really looking for people who want amendments added. But feel free to comment if you feel that it's really important.

n.t.

imo it's really crazy to think the founders meant for Americans to carry assault weapons. Muskets, okay.

So I shouldn't be to carry a pistol or own a shotgun? Why are muskets ok?

it's been defined down to meaninglessness. not-regulated is now = to well-regulated.

nothing in the second amendment REQUIRES the formulation of a well-regulated militia as a basis for keeping arms...it is saying that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed- because there WILL be times WHEN a well-regulated militia is called for.

...which is pretty well-documented.

would vote against the Constitution?

than I support the Bible qua Bible.

Each may provide a good framework, but the real test is do these ideas work? Are there better ideas out there?

I am positive that any form of government can be improved upon and the Constitution is no exception.

Constitutional shortcomings:

The Senate.
The whole idea of States as constituents or components of the national government.
Lack of an ERA.
Lack of an explicit right to privacy (including reproductive choice).
Lack of Justice Brandeis on the court.
Putting the power of the budget in the House of Representatives (I think it ought to be a popular referendum conducted via internet).

etc.

and pay for internet service are excluded from the governmental process. Sounds rather discriminatory to me.

changing it.

8th Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
- I think that the death penalty is the definition of CRUEL AND UNUSUAL

2nd A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.... A redneck wth a gun is not a well regulated militia. (this coming from a "gun nut" with umpteen handguns, rifles, and such. This is not what the founders meant by the 2nd. )

4th...... Hell the whole damn application of the thing

:rofl:

Wanted the citizenry to be able to own the same small arms as the military. 1776 it was muskets today it is "assault rifles". The founders did not allow for cannons to be owned then, thus no bazookas now. Whether or not someone supports the second amendment or not......"the right of the people" was not referring to government entities if it did then the "right of the people" in all the other amendments applies only to government.

"A redneck wth a gun is not a well regulated militia."

Was not what the founders were talking about unless of course freedom of speech etc. is limited to state government as well. No sense in arguing with me though, try these guy's- Patrick Henry "The militia sir, is our ultimate safety. We have no security without it...The great object is that every man be armed....everyone who is able may have a gun." Thomas Jefferson "no freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. what country can preserve it's liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that that their people preserve the spirit of Resistance" John Adams "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion ......in private self defense." George Washington "The militia sir ...is the people as a whole" George Mason "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." and I could go on...The point is the militia is not JUST rednecks with guns but also hippies with guns, old ladies with guns etc. ......like the man said, the people as a whole.

and you got your shilling. And maybe some free beer and a barbecue on the last day.

On a regular basis, just like they used to in those early days of our nation.

My significant other had to go in for surgery on short notice ....all is well now. Anyway "well regulated" in colonial vernacular meant "well functioning" and "well trained in the use of arms" -George Washington. "Being necessary to the security of a free state" That our security and personal safety, as well as our freedom, must come from ourselves, equipped with our own arms and ammunition, trained (OUR WELL REGULATED) by ourselves and organized by ourselves.-John Adams and of course "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" an individual right just as we posses in the first,fourth,sixth and seventh amendments; not the states collective right to form some select militia. The "well regulated" "being necessary to a free state" are motive reasons "the right of the people" however is an individual right not predicated on state government. There is an exhaustive collection of quotations and writings from the founders as to their intent on this amendment. Bottom line "shall not be infringed" were words not chosen to guarantee any kind of government authority. If you disagree with the amendment fine, but it says what it says. My passionate defense of this particular amendment is due to the fact the Nazis passed sweeping gun control laws and confiscation just before they rounded up Jew's, Homosexuals etc. and sent them to death camps. Our founders understood that in the end armed individuals provide an insurmountable obstacle to governments run amok. As an individual that the fascists would love to cremate I support their view. Think it cant happen here? We had 8 years of Bush/Cheney and look how far they got. Imagine Some far right @$$hole being elected with expanded government powers over you health and wellness etc!

... that at the time the constitution was written and ratified, the death penalty was anything but unusual. We may need another amendment to address that specifically. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

And if Thomas and Scalia weren't interpreting it.

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/

The Equal Rights Amendment, first proposed in 1923, is still not part of the U.S. Constitution.

The ERA has been ratified by 35 of the necessary 38 states. When three more states vote yes, the ERA might become the 28th Amendment.


The ERA in Congress

The Equal Rights Amendment was reintroduced in the House of Representatives on July 21, 2009, as H.J.Res. 61. Lead sponsors are Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Congresswoman Judy Biggert (R-IL). The Senate companion bill will be reintroduced shortly.

I think the President should be elected by popular vote.

after they leave office.

House to the Senate then to being a lobbyist or the executive branch for a while, rinse and repeat. Term limits keeps them on the move, but doesn't make them independent or allow them the chance to develop any expertise at governing.

The constitution was an incomplete document that legitimized slavery at its conception. It is an ever changing document that should not be viewed as gospel. If past generations had supported the constitution in its entirety, only white male land owners could vote and African Americans would be considered 3/5ths of a person.

currently in the constitution.

Is your answer yes or no?

I will never agree with everything in the constitution because of the reasons I gave above. Because I don't know what will put us on the wrong side of history next. I think agreeing to anything in its entirety is a bad idea. I think the second amendment could be a bit more specific. I have a hard time reconciling the ninth and tenth amendments. I'm not sure that the Senate should have the ability to invest so much power in the minority. I was giving my general reasons as to why I didn't support the Constitution in its entirety because I thought it made my point better than the details.

Also why on earth is the President Pro-Tempure(or however you spell it) fourth in the line of succession?

so I see the question as sort of odd.

Do you disagree with any current parts of the constitution?

This is not an abstract question of whether or not you support the concept of the constitution.

I have 3 Purple Hearts and some other stuff too. I mean it when I say I have sworn twice to defend the Constitution. I didn't get to say I will only defend it in part, or I will only defend it as it applies to white men, or straight men, or women, or not. I did not get to pick and chose this part and that to support, I would not pick and chose.

Or maybe you are just a bit extra mean.;-)

I'm surprised. Cuz I only know of two wars that were fought over constitutional issues--the Revolutionary War, before the actual document existed; and the Civil War.

Defending oil, defending "the homeland", defending his ego, those things I'd believe. But shot defending the Constitution? I don't see how.

And by the way, go fuck yourself.

and then you got shot. No logical connection between the two. Very different from saying you got shot defending the Constitution, especially if you were shot in Vietnam or Iraq--which were both unconstitutional wars.

It's a refreshing change from the overwhelming majority of DU Gun Obsessives, who yammer about believing in the whole Constitution and in civil rights, when in fact it's the 2nd that's the only thing they care about.....

There are many things wrong with it. One being that it's frequently trumped by the politicians and their masters.

That cost millions of lives. And, we still have 2 going on.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war, in the following wording:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Was it Granada or Granaada - I can't remember. The marines stormed in, took over a med school, released 20 hostages who didn't know they were hostages, and Reagan declaired a victory and said he had won the war.

Much like the Taliban are preparing their's to launch from...Kabul?

And I also support the process by which it is amended.

Also healthcare should be a fundemental right

Any specific limitations in mind?

country, but that should be statutory, so it could be changed as needed without the rigamarole of a Constitutional amendment. JMO.

I think that it's long past time that the Constitution were radically amended. The Constitution as it exists was written well over two centuries ago; in the intervening span of time, certain things have become abundantly clear. For one, that the US system of government is not especially democratic, and that the structure of the government tends to concentrate too much power in the hands of the executive. A parliamentary, rather than presidential, system of government, elected by proportional representation rather than winner-take-all election, would be far more democratic and representative of the collective will of the people. Most European countries have a system along these lines; I think it would be greatly preferable to the present system in the US.

Too bad you don't want responses re amendments ADDED, because that's what you've got.

the constitution, except for the electoral college. I think and have always thought that it should be bound to follow the popular vote or simply abolished.

When the founders created the electoral college they did so because they thought that the common people were too ignorant to choose their government all by themselves. They thought educated men who held property should be allowed to override bad decisions made by the people.

So we wind up with situations like Bush and Gore in Florida. Gore had the popular vote all over the country. Bush rigged Florida with a little help from friends and family and got the electoral votes. Not our first electoral college president, but he was certainly the worst president ever. That includes Richard Nixon.

tottering, doddering grandees little different than the House of Lords. they protect the interests of power and wealth, and disenfranchise millions and millions of those living in populous states. its hard to see what they do except water everything down.

Not so sure I want rednecks or republicans to have all of the rights.

my biggest beef has to do with the bastardization of the 14th amendment to create 'corporate personhood'. but that isn't really an issue with the document itself- so much as how it's been allowed to be applied.

there should have been some kind of provision for periodic constitutional conventions to review the document in light of keeping up with changing technologies and shifting world realities. as it stands, the amendment process has seemingly become almost impossible.

the electoral college, term limits/lengths, recall procedures, numerical size of congressional districts, career politicians, lobbyists, universal healthcare as a human right, etc...there are plenty of things i would like to see...refined for today's society.

Let me slip into my asbestos suit before I say that I don't think ownership of instruments of violence is a basic human right. I know this is not a popular opinion, and I won't be swayed, so you might want to just save the wear and tear on your typing fingers. In fact, I'm likely to not read any responses.

when it supports MY goals, and complain about it when it doesn't. I suspect there's a lot more people like me then are willing to admit it.

of posters who think the Electoral College is a bad idea.

large states in congress. It made sense when states were considered nation-states, but in modern America it leaves certain states massively under represented and allows fringe views to dominate the legislative process. It's time to think of the country as a whole when picking districts and not as state sized units.

you could argue there is some merit to having a more senior long term legislative body I guess.

Not a problem with the constitution per se, but with the way the interstate commerce clause has been mis-interpreted / turned into a catch-all.

for parts they like.

Generally speaking I like the thing, even as a foreigner living under another constitution which I also generally like.

The main thing, I think, is that a few extra sentences, a codicil or something (for lack of a better word) here and there would probably have helped clarity quite a bit in some places. Here is the law; here is what we mean by it, plonked down in the official document itself so the explanation has status as distinct from the correspondence and theoretical documents outside the constitution.

I wonder sometimes if something like that would have helped a little more. On the other hand, the only thing close to that in the current one is the opening words of the Second Amendment, and look at the crystalline clarity that resulted in. So I dunno if it's a good idea, a bad idea, or a good idea that was badly implemented in that particular case, etc.

Some of them could use some "this is what we mean, dumbass" clauses, though. Not speaking for the US constitution in particular, but I could live with any fundamental document talking about "persons" also defining the concept, so we avoid things like "gitmo inmates aren't persons" recently in the US, or "women aren't persons" in US or Canadian law up until the early twentieth century.

Of course, I also think a constitution that just said "don't be an asshole!" in 144 point font would be interesting to implement somewhere, too, so I should probably be ignored. ;)

A huge mistake.

Take the war powers clause:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Clause

Depending on interpretation the U.S. has declared war 4 or 5 times. Are we at war right now? Did we declare war? No... how did that happen?

It happened because the gov't doesn't play by the rules in the Constitution.

for one (or two), an amendment prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation.