If a Constitutional Convention were called today...

Grand Mal said:

Funny guy. If your constitution keeps unicorns off your lawn it's because fairys are protecting your garden.
If you hadn't already sanctified Thomas Jefferson you might be able to question whether a handful of 18th century liberals were so God-given wise that they knew what would be best for you today. Not being able to question what you've been taught since you could be taught has made you unable to even entertain the question- Is a constitution necessary, or is it baggage that could be left behind?

Click to expand...

For you it isn't necessary. For me it is. That is what the 2nd is for. It is here to stay.

Goshin said:

Protesting the Convention itself. No doubt the PTB would only screw it up.

Click to expand...

This.

FFS...these worthless bastards we have in congress cant so much as pass a budget. We dont exactly have the cream of the crop by way of representation. I dont even want to think about what it would look like and you KNOW nothing would ever be passed.

IF however there were a Constitutional convention and understanding the actual map and process...I think the people that would have the most to fear would be those in the large states. I think there would absolutely be greater protections built in for states rights. Due to the number of gun owners and majority of states, I think there would be major pushes to secure the 2nd Amendment. There would absolutely be a push to ban gay marriage. There would be some REALLY crazy talk about spending caps, taxation, etc. And at the end of the day...they would never get anything passed on a national level.

The document we currently have may not be perfect but it is pretty damn bulletproof.

Dittohead not! said:

Correct: The Constitution lists restrictions on government.

Incorrect: The Constitution uses the word "firearms." That word is a modern interpretation of the original document.

So, how can the government then infringe the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms by stating where, what types, and by whom arms may be born? If the original words really mean what they say, are not, as you said, ambiguous, then any and all arms can be born anywhere by anyone. The right shall not be infringed.

Click to expand...

There really is nothing vague or ambiguous about the terminology. The only battles that come up is when people that are bent on their cause attempt to try to make the words mean what they obviously do not mean. For example...there are people that are literally so intellectually dishonest and cause driven that they will claim that even though we KNOW the BoR was written to protect the rights of citizens...that REALLY what the second amendment is about is protecting government entities like the National Guard. See...its that kind of foolishness that causes people to claim it is ambiguous. It isnt. We even have the words of those that wrote it, explained it, and passed it AFFIRMING what they meant. Still not good enough. Because when all you care about is the cause and not the facts...well...you can make the words say whatever you want them to.

CriticalThought said:

...what would be the biggest things people would seek to change about the Constitution?

Click to expand...

To destroy it. Americans are not happy with any of the politicians in office right now (or at least they get low ratings) we cant trust the same people to do any good in a convention. But the liberals, the far left, the conservatives and the far right would love to have such a thing so they can dictate their ideologies onto the American public.

matchlight said:

A couple things come to mind, neither of them original with me. One would be to repeal the 17th Amendment, so that state legislatures would choose our Senators as they did before 1913. Another would be to cap total federal spending at some percentage of GDP.

Click to expand...

One thing I would want it to do (not that I think it would get done) would be to do away with the Senate. The notion that it is fair for the 3,000,000 American citizens of Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming to have 8 senators...while the 38,000,000 American citizens of California have only 2 senators...is an absurdity.

Frank Apisa said:

One thing I would want it to do (not that I think it would get done) would be to do away with the Senate. The notion that it is fair for the 3,000,000 American citizens of Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming to have 8 senators...while the 38,000,000 American citizens of California have only 2 senators...is an absurdity.

Click to expand...

If the country were governed how it is supposed to be governed, none of that would matter. In most cases, stronger state governments would solve what you are seeking.

Kal'Stang said:

Bold: Incorrect. The Constitution does not once mention "firearms". It simply states "arms".

2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

US Constitution

They simply stated "Arms" because at the time people used more than just firearms. As I stated earlier, muskets are not very good weapons for close quarters combat so they used swords also. Also it would not include weapons like RPG's, grenades, missiles etc etc because those are not "Arms", they're heavy ordinance and explosives.

Click to expand...

My bad. I meant to post the opposite: The Constitution does not mention the word "firearms."

matchlight said:

You are raising questions that have already been settled. In D.C. v. Heller seven years ago, the Court said this:

Click to expand...

Correct. So, if the second amendment is not ambiguous, why did the SC have to settle such questions?

matchlight said:

The 18th-century meaning [of "arms"] is no different from the meaning today . . . .

Click to expand...

Correct again

matchlight said:

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity . . . .

Click to expand...

The word "arms" refers to military arms as well as civilian ones.

matchlight said:

Some have made the argument . . . that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way . . . the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Click to expand...

Correct on both counts: They have made that argument, and it is a spurious one.

.....................

matchlight said:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited . . . [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms . . . the sorts of weapons protected were those in common use at the time. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons" . . . .

Click to expand...

and yet the words of the amendment would indicate that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

VanceMack said:

There really is nothing vague or ambiguous about the terminology. The only battles that come up is when people that are bent on their cause attempt to try to make the words mean what they obviously do not mean. For example...there are people that are literally so intellectually dishonest and cause driven that they will claim that even though we KNOW the BoR was written to protect the rights of citizens...that REALLY what the second amendment is about is protecting government entities like the National Guard. See...its that kind of foolishness that causes people to claim it is ambiguous. It isnt. We even have the words of those that wrote it, explained it, and passed it AFFIRMING what they meant. Still not good enough. Because when all you care about is the cause and not the facts...well...you can make the words say whatever you want them to.

Click to expand...

If it is unambiguous, then the phrase "A well regulated militia being necessary...." would have the same meaning to anyone reading it.

Dittohead not! said:

If it is unambiguous, then the phrase "A well regulated militia being necessary...." would have the same meaning to anyone reading it.

Click to expand...

Thats silly. You have a former president dissembling the meaning of the word 'is'. People will try to make it mean whatever fits their cause and you know it. There is zero ambiguity in the writers intent, in the verbiage, and in the intent of the Bill of Rights itself.

then there are historians who point out that at the time of composition of the Bill of Rights, the phrase "to bear arms" specifically meant carrying a weapon in a military unit.

Other historians have noted it was the slave-owning states who were the strongest supporters of the "well-regulated militia" concept as such units were primarily for runaway slave hunting and defense against slave rebellion.

Kal'Stang said:

Partially incorrect. The Founders were not just talking about firearms. You have to remember that at the time of the Founding Fathers people were still very much using swords also. After all, muskets weren't exactly very useful in close in combat.

Click to expand...

when i said arms....i meant flash in the pan arms because thats the subject of great discussion, not swords, but firearms.

Additional enumerated amendments to the bill of rights solidify the right to have an abortion and to marry.

Also, the removal of the militia cause, at it seems to be a vestigial organ of the second amendment that does more harm than good (mainly due to morons who dont understand its purpose).

Dittohead not! said:

Correct: The Constitution lists restrictions on government.

Incorrect: The Constitution uses the word "firearms." That word is a modern interpretation of the original document.

So, how can the government then infringe the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms by stating where, what types, and by whom arms may be born? If the original words really mean what they say, are not, as you said, ambiguous, then any and all arms can be born anywhere by anyone. The right shall not be infringed.

Click to expand...

when the bill of rights was written it did not apply to states, only the federal government, and the federal government could not make laws into the personal life's of the people.....federalist #45

laws concerning firearms, would be dealt with on a state level, never a federal level.

Luftwaffe said:

Additional enumerated amendments to the bill of rights solidify the right to have an abortion, to privacy, and to marry.

Also, the removal of the militia cause, at it seems to be a vestigial organ of the second amendment that does more harm than good (mainly due to morons who dont understand its purpose).

Click to expand...

where is the enumeration you stated? ........abortion, to privacy, and to marry.

Frank Apisa said:

One thing I would want it to do (not that I think it would get done) would be to do away with the Senate. The notion that it is fair for the 3,000,000 American citizens of Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming to have 8 senators...while the 38,000,000 American citizens of California have only 2 senators...is an absurdity.

Click to expand...

No.

That idea goes back to the ideals of John Locke.

Its important to have representation based on land and on population. This, historically, has been found as the ideal form of government when it comes to representation in government.

As such, sure, the senate representation is equal for all states, but the house of reps is not.

ernst barkmann said:

where is the enumeration you stated? ........abortion, to privacy, and to marry.

Click to expand...

I forgot the word "to" in my edit. i wanted these as new amendments.

Dittohead not! said:

If a constitutional convention were held by today's Congress, the result would be a document so big that no fork lift yet invented could lift it, and no one would know what it said. The discussion would result in pouting, temper tantrums, political gamesmanship, speech making, and in the end nothing would be accomplished.

Click to expand...

Yeah, we should revert back to the 1700s way of ending debates once and for all.

Lets give these bastards in washington a box of derringers and have them duel!

Luftwaffe said:

I forgot the word "to" in my edit. i wanted these as new amendments.

Click to expand...

its illogical to have a right to marry /perform a service......because to do so would give 1 citizen power ........over another citizen.

a person has right to be with another person and spend their lifes together, ...but you don't have a Right...[natural right] to a piece of paper from government or a church.

Somerville said:

then there are historians who point out that at the time of composition of the Bill of Rights, the phrase "to bear arms" specifically meant carrying a weapon in a military unit.

Click to expand...

And those historians are idiots that ignores the fact that hunting was a necessity back then. They also ignore that self defense is an inherent right to everyone and that an old person wouldn't really be able to defend themselves effectively without a gun. They also ignore the very real fact that the Founders had just come out of a war with a tyrannical government and they understood that by necessity the only ones that could stop a tyrannical government was The People and as such needed to have an equal footing when it came to the People vs the government. Otherwise the government would just become tyrannical again. They were trying to avoid that.

Somerville said:

Other historians have noted it was the slave-owning states who were the strongest supporters of the "well-regulated militia" concept as such units were primarily for runaway slave hunting and defense against slave rebellion.

Click to expand...

While this is almost true they also like to forget other aspects. Like the fact that at the time the Federal Government was not supposed to have the ability to rule by military force. In fact the federal government wasn't (and isn't) supposed to have a standing army at all except in times of war. They also ignore that at the time the States were actually sovereign entities, essentially mini-countries, kind of like how Europe is in that its a conglomeration of several countries acting together for mutual benefit. As such each state had the ability to have its own army in case of invasion. Something which they were very much afraid would happen considering how new their independence was. They were very much aware of just how weak they were. The part that isn't quite true about what those historians said is that the militia was not primarily about slaves. It was a concern yes, but not a primary concern. Possible invasion due to their new found independence was their primary concern.

ernst barkmann said:

its illogical to have a right to marry /perform a service......because to do so would give 1 citizen power ........over another citizen.

a person has right to be with another person and spend their lifes together, ...but you don't have a Right...[natural right] to a piece of paper from government or a church.

Click to expand...

This might be true if the government didn't recognize ANY marriages what so ever. But they do. As such there is a natural right to marry as far as the government is concerned. It goes along with that equal treatment under the law right that we have.

Kal'Stang said:

This might be true if the government didn't recognize ANY marriages what so ever. But they do. As such there is a natural right to marry as far as the government is concerned. It goes along with that equal treatment under the law right that we have.

Click to expand...

sorry no.

in constitutional law there is only 2 things......natural rights...and privileges, privledges have been RENAMED since the founders, and called civil rights/legal rights

civil rights /legal rights require an ACTION from government for them to be exercised.

natural rights do not require an ACTION by government or another person.

natural rights are not licensed......civil rights /legal rights are.

ernst barkmann said:

its illogical to have a right to marry /perform a service......because to do so would give 1 citizen power ........over another citizen.

a person has right to be with another person and spend their lifes together, ...but you don't have a Right...[natural right] to a piece of paper from government or a church.

Click to expand...

You dont have a natural right to a government paper saying youre married. But i do think you have a legal right. Perhaps my wording can change, but not the fundamentals behind it.

Luftwaffe said:

You dont have a natural right to a government paper saying youre married. But i do think you have a legal right. Perhaps my wording can change, but not the fundamentals behind it.

Click to expand...

thats correct.....you have a civil /legal right to be married....because the constitution states that if a state grants a privilege to a citizen, it must grant to to all citizens.

privileges in the constitution, are called civil /legals rights today

Frank Apisa said:

One thing I would want it to do (not that I think it would get done) would be to do away with the Senate. The notion that it is fair for the 3,000,000 American citizens of Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming to have 8 senators...while the 38,000,000 American citizens of California have only 2 senators...is an absurdity.

Click to expand...

The two Senators we have now in California are two too many.