ts-pulsar
Member
+54|6472
I happen to like the US constitution just the way it is.  And for those that don't know, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) can not be changed or repealed.

So for those wishing to get rid of the 2nd amendment, you would have to completely scrap the constitution and start over from scratch.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

jonsimon wrote:

Explicitly Ban Corporate Personage! Corporations Are Not People!
I totally agree.
blisteringsilence
I'd rather hunt with Cheney than ride with Kennedy
+83|6672|Little Rock, Arkansas

ts-pulsar wrote:

I happen to like the US constitution just the way it is.  And for those that don't know, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) can not be changed or repealed.

So for those wishing to get rid of the 2nd amendment, you would have to completely scrap the constitution and start over from scratch.
Dude, this isn't even close to right. You can change (amend) any part of the constitution, including amendments, with an amendment. It's one document. There are not "write-protected" sections.
ts-pulsar
Member
+54|6472
Hmmm, then I need to go back to my old college and have a talk with my US history instructor. 

I don't deny that I may have misheard, but I definitely remember him saying that the BOR is basically fixed. 

May have to do a bit of research.
konfusion
mostly afk
+480|6520|CH/BR - in UK

What would be very, very important, in my opinion, is that people don't bend not only the law, but language so far in court, that they can make it say anything. A good lawyer can take an obvious statement, and make 1'000'000 out of it - it sickens me (ie where a guy broke into someone's house, fell down the steps, and sued the person who owns the house for it).

-konfusion
UGADawgs
Member
+13|6291|South Carolina, US

blisteringsilence wrote:

ts-pulsar wrote:

I happen to like the US constitution just the way it is.  And for those that don't know, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) can not be changed or repealed.

So for those wishing to get rid of the 2nd amendment, you would have to completely scrap the constitution and start over from scratch.
Dude, this isn't even close to right. You can change (amend) any part of the constitution, including amendments, with an amendment. It's one document. There are not "write-protected" sections.
You can't take a state's Senate representation away, and between 1788 and 1808 the Constitution couldn't be amended to prohibit the slave trade, but otherwise you're right.
blisteringsilence
I'd rather hunt with Cheney than ride with Kennedy
+83|6672|Little Rock, Arkansas

UGADawgs wrote:

blisteringsilence wrote:

ts-pulsar wrote:

I happen to like the US constitution just the way it is.  And for those that don't know, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) can not be changed or repealed.

So for those wishing to get rid of the 2nd amendment, you would have to completely scrap the constitution and start over from scratch.
Dude, this isn't even close to right. You can change (amend) any part of the constitution, including amendments, with an amendment. It's one document. There are not "write-protected" sections.
You can't take a state's Senate representation away, and between 1788 and 1808 the Constitution couldn't be amended to prohibit the slave trade, but otherwise you're right.
Not sure where you're getting this. Theoretically, you could amend the Constitution to remove a state's senate delegation. It'd be tough to pass, but it is possible. And the slavery amendment wasn't something that was impossible to change, it was a gentlemen's agreement among the slave and free states. Remember, no law supersedes the Constitution. What it says goes. And as someone who has read it cover to cover a few thousand times, there are no restriction on what can and cannot be amended.
konfusion
mostly afk
+480|6520|CH/BR - in UK

ts-pulsar wrote:

I happen to like the US constitution just the way it is.  And for those that don't know, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) can not be changed or repealed.

So for those wishing to get rid of the 2nd amendment, you would have to completely scrap the constitution and start over from scratch.
Then do so. The right to bear arms is ridiculous.

-konfusion
UGADawgs
Member
+13|6291|South Carolina, US

blisteringsilence wrote:

UGADawgs wrote:

blisteringsilence wrote:

Dude, this isn't even close to right. You can change (amend) any part of the constitution, including amendments, with an amendment. It's one document. There are not "write-protected" sections.
You can't take a state's Senate representation away, and between 1788 and 1808 the Constitution couldn't be amended to prohibit the slave trade, but otherwise you're right.
Not sure where you're getting this. Theoretically, you could amend the Constitution to remove a state's senate delegation. It'd be tough to pass, but it is possible. And the slavery amendment wasn't something that was impossible to change, it was a gentlemen's agreement among the slave and free states. Remember, no law supersedes the Constitution. What it says goes. And as someone who has read it cover to cover a few thousand times, there are no restriction on what can and cannot be amended.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article [i.e., the clauses dealing with the slave trade, which I'm sure you know about since you've read it so many times...]; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Monkey Spanker
Show it to the nice monkey.
+284|6222|England

Konfusion0 wrote:

ts-pulsar wrote:

I happen to like the US constitution just the way it is.  And for those that don't know, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) can not be changed or repealed.

So for those wishing to get rid of the 2nd amendment, you would have to completely scrap the constitution and start over from scratch.
Then do so. The right to bear arms is ridiculous.

-konfusion
I have to agree in a small way, the right to bear arms was originaly there (as i was told by my old history teacher),to help deal with us pesky British when we were trying to stop you leaving the glorious commonwealth, is it not out dated now in 2007 as no one in there right mind would try to invade the US and please don't use the home defence argument or it stops crime etc etc. Here in the UK we have the tightest gun laws in the world and crime involving guns is  very low gun deaths each year in the UK. Firearms were used in 73 homicides in 2004/05 (under one in ten of all homicides), five more than the previous year. I bet the US wishes its gun based homicides were that low. I firmly believe that gun law world wide needs tightening.

Last edited by smuder201 (2007-03-25 19:39:56)

Quote of the year so far "Fifa 11 on the other hand... shiny things for mongos "-mtb0minime
https://bf3s.com/sigs/f30415b2d1cff840176cce816dc76d89a7929bb0.png
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6550|the dank(super) side of Oregon
Im a fairly liberal person, but no god damned european influence will ever change our US Constitution.
blisteringsilence
I'd rather hunt with Cheney than ride with Kennedy
+83|6672|Little Rock, Arkansas

UGADawgs wrote:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article [i.e., the clauses dealing with the slave trade, which I'm sure you know about since you've read it so many times...]; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Congrats, you can quote the constitution. What you're missing is that any amendment has the full power of the constitution itself. Therefore, if an amendment is proposed that repeals the line "...and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate..." in clause one, and then in clause two says that Alaska gets no senators, and is then ratified by 3/4 of the states, it is law. It's sketchy, but law nontheless.

The same, of course, goes for the provision of the fifth article relating to slaves. Of course, there weren't the votes before 1808 to amend the constitution in the way I proposed, but that doesn't mean it's not possible.

Constitutional Law is a fun series of classes. I suggest you take them, before you try to make others look like idiots.
JimmyBotswana
Member
+82|6555|Montreal
The U.S. constitution needs to be torn up and replaced by a dictatorship, but don't worry the Bush administration is working hard to make this a reality.
imortal
Member
+240|6635|Austin, TX

deeznutz1245 wrote:

The#1Spot wrote:

If a president is really good and helps improve the US why not let him serve for more than 2 terms.
Fuck professional politicians. They should be allowed two terms at any level, unless they advance in political rank and that would ensure they were worthy of advancement. If politicians knew they would be shit canned after their second term, they would not get so complacent. If they knew they had to work for the people, not their political party, they would be better politicians.
Vote YES for term limits at ALL levels of goverment!!!!!
iamangry
Member
+59|6615|The United States of America
Make it illegal for elected officials to lie intentionally.  Make politicians responsible for promises they make to get elected and then don't keep.  Educate people on how their political system is DESIGNED to work, and make the system actually work that way instead of the way it currently works.  In not so many words, force politicians to work for their constituents, not other countries' peoples (mexico and illegal immigration) or for corporations who live and die simply to make money.
UGADawgs
Member
+13|6291|South Carolina, US

blisteringsilence wrote:

UGADawgs wrote:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article [i.e., the clauses dealing with the slave trade, which I'm sure you know about since you've read it so many times...]; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Congrats, you can quote the constitution. What you're missing is that any amendment has the full power of the constitution itself. Therefore, if an amendment is proposed that repeals the line "...and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate..." in clause one, and then in clause two says that Alaska gets no senators, and is then ratified by 3/4 of the states, it is law. It's sketchy, but law nontheless.

The same, of course, goes for the provision of the fifth article relating to slaves. Of course, there weren't the votes before 1808 to amend the constitution in the way I proposed, but that doesn't mean it's not possible.

Constitutional Law is a fun series of classes. I suggest you take them, before you try to make others look like idiots.
Perhaps the writers of a Constitution should have specifically said that that whole section should be untouched, but I can see that what you're saying would certainly be a constitutional crisis.
.:XDR:.PureFodder
Member
+105|6799

imortal wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

The#1Spot wrote:

If a president is really good and helps improve the US why not let him serve for more than 2 terms.
Fuck professional politicians. They should be allowed two terms at any level, unless they advance in political rank and that would ensure they were worthy of advancement. If politicians knew they would be shit canned after their second term, they would not get so complacent. If they knew they had to work for the people, not their political party, they would be better politicians.
Vote YES for term limits at ALL levels of goverment!!!!!
The problem here is that everyone will be inclined to look at the short term solutions rather than the long term one. If you can make a crappy cheap solution to a problem, make yourself look good and get promoted then who cares if everything falls apart 10 years later, it's not your job now. You get the same thing with elections. a couple of years in power then a couple of years of trying to get yourself or someone else from your party elected. At this point the politicians aren't working for the people, they're working for their party. I'm against limited terms in office. Surely if your leader is crappy, people wouldn't vote for them anymore? If you've actually found a decent leader, you're limiting the amount of good they can achieve. What are the arguements for limited terms in office?

The most efficient form of government is a dictatorship, but as history prooves, it's damned hard to find a good dictator.

Last edited by .:XDR:.PureFodder (2007-03-27 03:40:57)

EVieira
Member
+105|6448|Lutenblaag, Molvania

smuder201 wrote:

for those that don't know what the 19th & 26th ammendment are

Amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage. Ratified 8/18/1920. History

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment 26 - Voting Age Set to 18 Years. Ratified 7/1/1971. History

1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

why do think they should be repealed?
Those are obviously the reason there are so many elected liberals in the US. They should be removed ASAP!
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard