I think the constitution should be updated every once in a while. A lot of things just don't apply and are outdated since the 18th century
Quote from: Septy on January 09, 2016, 03:35:33 AMI think the constitution should be updated every once in a while. A lot of things just don't apply and are outdated since the 18th centuryYeah like freedom of speech and that other garbage.
Quote from: Septy on January 09, 2016, 03:35:33 AMI think the constitution should be updated every once in a while. A lot of things just don't apply and are outdated since the 18th centuryLike wut?
Quote from: Luciana on January 09, 2016, 03:39:41 AMQuote from: Septy on January 09, 2016, 03:35:33 AMI think the constitution should be updated every once in a while. A lot of things just don't apply and are outdated since the 18th centuryLike wut?For starters the second amendment.It was a good idea to let states form their own militia if they needed to take down the government. However, if the government does become tyrannical it's not possible to fight the government with a militia of pistols and rifles. I'm out before this thread implodes
Quote from: Septy on January 09, 2016, 03:41:56 AMQuote from: Luciana on January 09, 2016, 03:39:41 AMQuote from: Septy on January 09, 2016, 03:35:33 AMI think the constitution should be updated every once in a while. A lot of things just don't apply and are outdated since the 18th centuryLike wut?For starters the second amendment.It was a good idea to let states form their own militia if they needed to take down the government. However, if the government does become tyrannical it's not possible to fight the government with a militia of pistols and rifles. I'm out before this thread implodesForming own militias seems more dangerous enough since they most likely would want to succeed if organized like that.And do you mean updating like... giving them real weapons like on par with military? No thank you.
Quote from: Luciana on January 09, 2016, 03:50:36 AMQuote from: Septy on January 09, 2016, 03:41:56 AMQuote from: Luciana on January 09, 2016, 03:39:41 AMQuote from: Septy on January 09, 2016, 03:35:33 AMI think the constitution should be updated every once in a while. A lot of things just don't apply and are outdated since the 18th centuryLike wut?For starters the second amendment.It was a good idea to let states form their own militia if they needed to take down the government. However, if the government does become tyrannical it's not possible to fight the government with a militia of pistols and rifles. I'm out before this thread implodesForming own militias seems more dangerous enough since they most likely would want to succeed if organized like that.And do you mean updating like... giving them real weapons like on par with military? No thank you.I meant doing away with the second amendment
Quote from: Septy on January 09, 2016, 03:53:37 AMQuote from: Luciana on January 09, 2016, 03:50:36 AMQuote from: Septy on January 09, 2016, 03:41:56 AMQuote from: Luciana on January 09, 2016, 03:39:41 AMQuote from: Septy on January 09, 2016, 03:35:33 AMI think the constitution should be updated every once in a while. A lot of things just don't apply and are outdated since the 18th centuryLike wut?For starters the second amendment.It was a good idea to let states form their own militia if they needed to take down the government. However, if the government does become tyrannical it's not possible to fight the government with a militia of pistols and rifles. I'm out before this thread implodesForming own militias seems more dangerous enough since they most likely would want to succeed if organized like that.And do you mean updating like... giving them real weapons like on par with military? No thank you.I meant doing away with the second amendmentOhwell that will never happen, but what are the other ones that are outdated? I can't think of any <_>
Quote from: Septy on January 09, 2016, 03:41:56 AMif the government does become tyrannical it's not possible to fight the government with a militia of pistols and rifles.Yeah it is.The point is, it's just not gonna happen. Tyrants are a lot smarter now.
if the government does become tyrannical it's not possible to fight the government with a militia of pistols and rifles.
But on the other, I can never fully shake the feeling that all these (usually Republican) calls for increased state autonomy and independence are really just reasons to avoid progress and cling to its backwards and usually pretty religious policies and traditions.I don't know, I guess I just rarely see this being used for actually solid purposes. Most of it seems to be motivated by goals of keeping God's creationism in schools and evolution out of them, not allowing gays to marry, fostering discrimination and alienation of minorities, breaking down the (in America already very thin) separation of church and state and so on.
QuoteRubio has suggested enacting term limits on federal legislators and Supreme Court justices
Rubio has suggested enacting term limits on federal legislators and Supreme Court justices
Quote from: Luciana on January 09, 2016, 04:07:58 AMQuote from: Septy on January 09, 2016, 03:53:37 AMQuote from: Luciana on January 09, 2016, 03:50:36 AMQuote from: Septy on January 09, 2016, 03:41:56 AMQuote from: Luciana on January 09, 2016, 03:39:41 AMQuote from: Septy on January 09, 2016, 03:35:33 AMI think the constitution should be updated every once in a while. A lot of things just don't apply and are outdated since the 18th centuryLike wut?For starters the second amendment.It was a good idea to let states form their own militia if they needed to take down the government. However, if the government does become tyrannical it's not possible to fight the government with a militia of pistols and rifles. I'm out before this thread implodesForming own militias seems more dangerous enough since they most likely would want to succeed if organized like that.And do you mean updating like... giving them real weapons like on par with military? No thank you.I meant doing away with the second amendmentOhwell that will never happen, but what are the other ones that are outdated? I can't think of any <_>17th amendment needs to be updated to prevent lobbying of Senators and to impose term limits.
22nd amendment should be repealed even though it's more recent. It can easily be abused by the president.
Quote from: Fagcicle on January 09, 2016, 08:14:34 AMQuote from: Flee on January 09, 2016, 05:17:57 AMQuoteRubio has suggested enacting term limits on federal legislators and Supreme Court justicesRegarding SCOTUS - the intent of no term limits was to attempt to keep political affiliation out of the job. If we had new justices every "x" years, it would simply become another majority for whichever party controlled the White House and Senate. Although you do have a much more political court system now, it is far less than what it would be in this scenario. By having a lifetime term, you do get cases like Roberts voting to keep the health care law in place.It's not the lifetime term that I find strange (it's the same over here), but that they're appointed by the president.
Quote from: Flee on January 09, 2016, 05:17:57 AMQuoteRubio has suggested enacting term limits on federal legislators and Supreme Court justicesRegarding SCOTUS - the intent of no term limits was to attempt to keep political affiliation out of the job. If we had new justices every "x" years, it would simply become another majority for whichever party controlled the White House and Senate. Although you do have a much more political court system now, it is far less than what it would be in this scenario. By having a lifetime term, you do get cases like Roberts voting to keep the health care law in place.
Quote from: Prime Megaten on January 09, 2016, 09:51:02 AMQuote from: Flee on January 09, 2016, 08:53:34 AMQuote from: Fagcicle on January 09, 2016, 08:14:34 AMQuote from: Flee on January 09, 2016, 05:17:57 AMQuoteRubio has suggested enacting term limits on federal legislators and Supreme Court justicesRegarding SCOTUS - the intent of no term limits was to attempt to keep political affiliation out of the job. If we had new justices every "x" years, it would simply become another majority for whichever party controlled the White House and Senate. Although you do have a much more political court system now, it is far less than what it would be in this scenario. By having a lifetime term, you do get cases like Roberts voting to keep the health care law in place.It's not the lifetime term that I find strange (it's the same over here), but that they're appointed by the president.With the Senate's approval.They don't exactly disapprove very often, though. Not saying it's a bad system, it's just strange to me.
Quote from: Flee on January 09, 2016, 08:53:34 AMQuote from: Fagcicle on January 09, 2016, 08:14:34 AMQuote from: Flee on January 09, 2016, 05:17:57 AMQuoteRubio has suggested enacting term limits on federal legislators and Supreme Court justicesRegarding SCOTUS - the intent of no term limits was to attempt to keep political affiliation out of the job. If we had new justices every "x" years, it would simply become another majority for whichever party controlled the White House and Senate. Although you do have a much more political court system now, it is far less than what it would be in this scenario. By having a lifetime term, you do get cases like Roberts voting to keep the health care law in place.It's not the lifetime term that I find strange (it's the same over here), but that they're appointed by the president.With the Senate's approval.
We rely so heavily these days on Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution that they've effectively become an always-running constitutional convention of their own.
Quote from: One Punch Turkey on January 09, 2016, 12:12:05 PMWe rely so heavily these days on Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution that they've effectively become an always-running constitutional convention of their own.We've... always relied on the Supreme Court for the interpretation of the Constitution. That's their job.
Quote from: Luciana on January 09, 2016, 01:07:53 PMQuote from: One Punch Turkey on January 09, 2016, 12:12:05 PMWe rely so heavily these days on Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution that they've effectively become an always-running constitutional convention of their own.We've... always relied on the Supreme Court for the interpretation of the Constitution. That's their job.That's the point. Codifying some of their landmark decisions as the law rather than an interpretation of existing edicts would be beneficial, especially given how politicized the Supreme Court is now.
QuoteRubio has suggested enacting term limits on federal legislators and Supreme Court justicesThat part sounds good, at least. I'm kind of on the fence on the whole "give power to the states" thing, though. On the one hand, it's necessary in a federal state and can be very beneficial on an economic level. It makes perfect sense that each already pretty independent area is in the best position to govern the people living there and to set forth the best policies that are adapted to that specific part of the country, having the best and most accurate knowledge on its state of affairs. But on the other, I can never fully shake the feeling that all these (usually Republican) calls for increased state autonomy and independence are really just reasons to avoid progress and cling to its backwards and usually pretty religious policies and traditions.I don't know, I guess I just rarely see this being used for actually solid purposes. Most of it seems to be motivated by goals of keeping God's creationism in schools and evolution out of them, not allowing gays to marry, fostering discrimination and alienation of minorities, breaking down the (in America already very thin) separation of church and state and so on.
Texas governor joins Marco Rubio in call for new constitutional convention
