It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Curious about something. It is ok to tweak the constitution sometimes?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 10:03 AM
link   
I just want to be sure.

In gun control debates the constitution is always cited.
Shall not be infringed

The constitution.

Ok. I get it.

In a current thread about voting age a member that is very active in those debates said voting should be based off a civics test and sometimes the constitution needs to be tweaked.

So do you all agree that it needs tweaked sometimes?

If so how come so many cite the constitution as gospel when we debate the gun issue?

Is it one of those deals where it needs to be tweaked if it fits your views and if not it is the gospel?

Just trying to understand.

This is not about should voting rights be changed.

This is about how come apparently it is ok to change the constitution sometimes but not others.

Thanks

Lets see if this conversation can happen without the usual party line crap
edit on 4-3-2019 by TinySickTears because: (no reason given)



+2 more 
posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Of course it can...through an amendment (not through feelings). The process is literally in the document itself. Want a tweak, get it through the wickets.



edit on 4-3-2019 by Halfswede because: edited for clarity



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

I think the constitution is outdated. However, I think tweaking it based on conversation topic sets a dangerous precedent.

Obviously, it is okay to tweak because we have amendments. However, I get that is not your point.



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

All of our constitutional rights have been infringed or tweaked as you say.

You cant buy a gun from a dealer without a background check but some states dont make a voter identify themselves.

Would asking for photo ID really be any different than a background check?
It is to some.

As for voting, I wouldn't have a problem with some sort of test being taken in order to vote.
For no other reason than to make sure the voter knows what they are voting on.

We have free speech supposedly but try yelling"fire!" In a crowded theatre.

It is funny which rights being poked stirs up the masses...



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Yeah, but it is not an easy thing to do (by design).

www.archives.gov...



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 10:21 AM
link   


Ok. I get it.


Not really.

Because there are more than one amendments in play.

The rights to due process and crimes being proven in courts of law.

No person shall be held answerable to a capitol or otherwise infamous crime. ( means if a person does something bad 330 million other americans have no dog in that hunt).

And the 14th.

No state shall make or enforce any laws that INFRINGES/DENIES/DISPARAGES/Cruel or unual punishment) the civil liberty of the individual.
edit on 4-3-2019 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

According to the 2nd Amendment state formed militias have the right to bare arms.

To answer your question, yes. We have the 13th Amendment. But many people think the 13th Amendment is social activism and is unconstitutional.



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: headorheart
a reply to: TinySickTears

I think the constitution is outdated. However, I think tweaking it based on conversation topic sets a dangerous precedent.

Obviously, it is okay to tweak because we have amendments. However, I get that is not your point.


If we had a Constitutional convention today we would have no Constitution. Unless the blue states formed their own government separate from Red States. I thought Texas was supposed to secede from the Union at some point. I guess all the tax dollar socialism they get from rich blue states is just to juicy to ween off that tit.


edit on 4-3-2019 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015




According to the 2nd Amendment state formed militias have the right to bare arms.


As well as 'the people.'



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: TinySickTears

According to the 2nd Amendment state formed militias have the right to bare arms.

To answer your question, yes. We have the 13th Amendment. But many people think the 13th Amendment is social activism and is unconstitutional.

😆 nice chop chop



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 10:26 AM
link   
The 2nd has been tweaked. 1934, 1968, 1986, 1994, to name a few times it's been "tweaked". Unconstitutionally i may add.



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: dfnj2015




According to the 2nd Amendment state formed militias have the right to bare arms.


As well as 'the people.'



Don't expect "everybody" to understand that part 😎



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
According to the 2nd Amendment state formed militias have the right to bare arms.


Think of all those dudes with bare arms, hopefully they're buff, it will help them bear arms.



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: caterpillage
The 2nd has been tweaked. 1934, 1968, 1986, 1994, to name a few times it's been "tweaked". Unconstitutionally i may add.


FDR's National Firearms Act.

Johnson's Gun Control Act.

Reagan got shot so of course ban us from buying new machines guns, but still kept the old ones.

Clinton's Assault Weapons ban and the Brady Act that create the first 'citizenship test' call the background check.



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: headorheart

My only point was was finding out if people feel it is ok to tweak.
How they feel about it personally.

No agenda.
Just curious as the title states



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears




So do you all agree that it needs tweaked sometimes?

Sure, if the prescribed process for such is followed.
The founders ensured it could be changed.



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 10:40 AM
link   
If you are wondering what people means, refer to the preamble. “We the People of the United States, in order to form a perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States.”

In other words, government does not grant us our rights, neither does the Constitution. The Constitution protects our right. It is Law.



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

Then as a very short answer, I would say yes, but not based on what topic you're debating.



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Pretty sure most Constitutionalists would fully support “tweaking” the US Constitution as long as it’s done in accordance with the rules as outlined in the US Constitution.

Seeing as some states are already trying an end around on the Electoral College, I’m sure there are folks out there trying to figure out how to illegally change the US Constitution.

Crossing my fingers I’ll be ashes before they figure out how.



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

Can the Constitution be tweaked here and there, sure. Most of the Amendments are indeed tweaks.

Can the first ten known as the Bill of Rights be tweaked. Dangerous, dangerous ground. The Bill of Rights were the compromise to have all thirteen original states unanimously agree to abandon The Articles of Confederation and adopt The Constitution. Voiding that agreement could revert us back to the Articles automatically and would require all 50 states to unanimously agree to revert to the tweaked Constitution. All because the Articles require unanimous votes to pass anything on the Federal level.

Could that unanimous vote happen? Sure. Is it going to be a complicated affair? Absolutely. Especially with some states engaged in civil war with gun owners defending their right to retain their property. And the Federal Government being unable to tax anything especially the income tax.

So in short, guns could be banned absolutely but at very extreme costs and other negotiating of other accumulated powers that the government currently has now. Especially the continued entrenchment of socialism underway.

Bottom line, an outright ban on firearms will equate to many deaths that are not firearm related. Can’t feed people with SNAP or cure the sick with no Medicare due to a lack of funds from being unable to collect taxes. Won’t someone think of the children before imposing their morality?
edit on 4-3-2019 by Ahabstar because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join