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: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: headorheart
a reply to: TinySickTears

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



The topic is do people think it could or should be tweaked from time to time.

Thats it




posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears




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


Personally, I feel the only time the constitution should be "tweaked" is to guarantee more rights or firm up the rights we already have, but unfortunately more times than not a bunch of treasonous bastards are trying and successfully at that to diminish our rights.



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

As the person you are talking about I will help you out.

The founders knew that as time goes by the world changes and included in the Constitution a mechanism to amend it if the need arose. They were also aware that the Constitution itself was not perfect, because it was the product of men.

If you really want an answer as to why and what they were thinking, simply read Federalist Paper #85.

They set the bar incredibly high though and for a reason as well... so a popular thought or idea itself could not just amend the Constitution. It had to be wildly popular.

Taking away the citizen's right to defend themselves, be it from an attacker or a tyrannical government, isn't wildly popular.

Some of the Amendments that we have passed so far were rather stupid in hindsight (Prohibition is the 18th Amendment, which took the 22nd Amendment to get rid of) but others have been quite helpful.

The 19th Amendment now allows me as a woman to vote.

Was that, in your opinion, a bad thing?

So yes, of course Amendments should be introduced as the need arises for them.

That's why the mechanism was put there.

Can't get more Constitutional than that...



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



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: TinySickTears




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


Personally, I feel the only time the constitution should be "tweaked" is to guarantee more rights or firm up the rights we already have, but unfortunately more times than not a bunch of treasonous bastards are trying and successfully at that to diminish our rights.


Totally agree.

The founders knew that power corrupts so one of the reasons the Amendment process was put in place was to ensure We the People could fix things that corrupt politicians found a way to work around.

If it got so bad that we could no longer force our representatives to do that for us, they gave us the 2nd Amendment as a way to address that.

A lot of people forget why the 2nd Amendment was placed there and why it is 2nd.

It's for when the 1st doesn't work anymore.




posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

Exactly!

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure,”



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 01:34 PM
link   
As others have pointed out, The Constitution has already been tweaked numerous times. What I read, is you asking if the Bill Of Rights section of The Constitution should be tweaked. Remember, these are rights that the Founders believed were inalienable, and granted by an authority much higher than any government. The original amendments all deal with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These amendments didn't grant rights. They restrained government from infringing upon these rights. It's a slippery slope messing with that. Where does it end? If the government can restrict without reason my right to own a firearm, then perhaps a warrant will no longer be required to kick in my door someday. Perhaps a warrant can be issued for fishing expeditions with no probable cause needed?



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 01:37 PM
link   
So that is something that the progressives want in making it a living document that is updated as society feels is best...

I can't see how anything would go wrong with that view point...lol



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

Yes, the Constitution can be changed. That's what the amendment process is for and is the appropriate means for a further revision of the 2nd amendment.

That being said, its not an easy process, nor should it be. You ultimately need three quarters of the state legislatures to vote in favor of ratification. Notably, the left would face a particularly difficult structural disadvantage in the electorate for pushing a more restrictive revision of 2A through the amendment process and the state legislatures, given that their voting base is more concentrated geographically in smaller areas and fewer states.



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
So do you all agree that it needs tweaked sometimes?


I don't agree with that at all, BUT aside from not agreeing with it, I do recognize that there is a distinct difference between the Bill of Rights and all the subsequent amendments. "Tweaking" the Second Amendment screws with the Bill of Rights. Those were the Founders' vision for this country while everything added since have constituted post-Founder-era politicians dicking around with the initial vision for the USA. Voting rights, for example, aren't even mentioned until Amendment 14. Interesting not, starting with the 15th Amendment, the Constitution incorporates and interesting addenda to each voting rights amendment:

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

Each voter rights amendment is very specific in it's wording, meaning that it probably is possible for Congress to pass a law requiring a civics test prior to being allowed to vote... depending on the bent of the court when such a law would be tested. Ultimately, it would end with a new amendment, banning the practice explicitly.



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: ausername
Yeah, but it is not an easy thing to do (by design).

www.archives.gov...


Of course, it's not easy.

They wanted to be sure that it wasn't something that could be done on a whim, and they wanted to be sure that if it was done, it was only done through very widespread support of a clear majority of the people -- not a "California" majority, but one across all the states and all the various differing views and cultures of the country.



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: headorheart
a reply to: TinySickTears

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



The topic is do people think it could or should be tweaked from time to time.

Thats it


First off, as has been mentioned, the first 10 Amendments outline our unalienable rights. Those are things the Founders felt we all had as intrinsic to ourselves regardless of what any agency of mankind on earth felt about it. You have the right to your property, the right to defend yourself and your property, the right to pursue happiness, the right to your personal liberty, etc., all the things in those 10 Amendments are natural, not allowed you only because some other human being or aggregate of human beings says you have them (i.e. a law was made bestowing them on you).

Sure, some will argue that you only enjoy them because society doesn't take them away, but society isn't taking them from you so much as oppressing you.

The difference between the proper American mindset and much of the rest of the world is that we own those rights; we aren't granted them through government, but that's because if you have a proper civics education, you know government is your employee *not* your boss. When your employee starts telling you what rights you can have or not, there's a problem.



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Just want to state as an aside for everyone here:

If the 1st amendment covers radio, TV, and the internet, then the 2nd covers modern weaponry.


An amendment should only be added if it benefits all, equally. And even then its not black and white.



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015


Unless the blue states formed their own government separate from Red States.


Please do. Form that "paradise" without any of our money or help, we aren't interested in it anyhow

This would be a God send to Red States.

With all of my heart, I pray this is the end result. We will be much, much stronger and better off for it. No more taxpayer welfare to the government, excessive government and regulation strangling our economy, whiny brats who actually think they have something we are interested in hearing, etc.

Would be even better if that new government relocated somewhere outside CONUS. But, beggars can't be choosers. Geographical boundaries are becoming less important than cohesive national culture these days.

Either that, or the left is going to have to learn to live with things as they are. I don't plan on changing one bit, and I really have no interest in compromising with baby killers and communists. So I say again, this is the least bad option.
edit on 3/4/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015




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

Anyone in the world has the right to bare arms (well , mostly)
I flash my guns on a regular basis
Got some nice ones even for an old man



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: headorheart
a reply to: TinySickTears

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



The topic is do people think it could or should be tweaked from time to time.

Thats it


If that's all you were interested in, then why did you include the following:

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


You knew that would steer the conversation in a particular direction.

You're not stupid.

Unless I'm giving you more credit than you deserve.



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

its called an example.




posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

Not really... you went trolling and used the wrong bait.




posted on Mar, 5 2019 @ 03:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: TinySickTears

Not really... you went trolling and used the wrong bait.



its amazing how you seem to know exactly what am doing.

i have not tried to debate or even discuss what anyone has said so how is that trolling?
i was curious about something so i asked. i got some answers

so it a worked out



posted on Mar, 5 2019 @ 05:06 AM
link   
Tweak is a semi-specific word in this context.
According to Merriam Webster it means to make small changes in or to something.
www.merriam-webster.com...
We don't change our Constitution per se, we can add amendments to it - that is all.
Though ending prohibition was the only exception.
A lot of stupid ideas were given free reign in the early 20th century:
Fascism, Communism, The Federal Reserve and oatmeal enemas to name a few.
edit on 5-3-2019 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join