• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If a Constitutional Convention were called today...

ernst barkmann said:
you will never be able to do what you say, as long a power in only in 1 entity the people, because people are self serving, and will work in their own interest, added to the fact that they are easily seduced beguiled and lured into going things in the moment of passion, they will regret later.
!
Click to expand...

oh, so you're going to appeal to chipmonks to repeal the 17th?? isn't thinking fun?
 
Captain Adverse said:
The way our social paradigm is changing? Looking at negative proposals, just about anything that protects an individual from government controls. So, in order of importance:

1. Eliminate the Second Amendment (or at least modify it to protect a non-existent government-sponsored militia only). That way we can disarm everyone "for their own protection."

2. Modify the Fourth Amendment to allow government monitoring, arrests, and property seizures without being tied so closely to warrants. That way we can put all those criminals and terrorist away without all this "civil rights" malarkey.

3. Modify the Fifth Amendment to get rid of any confusion about needing a free attorney or being informed of your right to remain silent until you get one. That way we can get criminals off the streets without wasting time on civil rights.

4. Modify the First Amendment to clarify that freedom of religion trumps all other rights (as long as that religion is Christianity); and that Free Expression means freedom from being offended by someone else's expression. (Self-explanatory)
Click to expand...

Well I just read the rules and although I do not know how to report nor do I think this is sufficient for a ban but it says something along the lines of no suggesting you want essential civil liberties taken away from another user of the forum and this would fit there I believe. Furthermore taking away second amendment rights only gives us more violence (70% less violent crime in Florida when more gun rights were introduced). Also the fourth amendment comment I believe made no sense. It makes no sense because if you live in America you must understand innocence until proven guilty which you would be disregarding because you would have to assume those "Criminals and terrorists" are already guilty and if they are not you have just killed what makes America so great. What you said about the first amendment offended me so by your logic wouldn't that make your expression illegal. On top of this as soon as you put government in charge of freedom of expression you can easily be slowly pushed to North Korea standards of freedom of expression and end up with none at all.
 
Constitutionguy said:
On top of this as soon as you put government in charge of freedom of expression you can easily be slowly pushed to North Korea standards of freedom of expression and end up with none at all.
Click to expand...

true, that is why Bill of Rights was not included in original Constitution. Such was the huge huge fear of liberal govt
 
Constitutionguy said:
Well I just read the rules and although I do not know how to report nor do I think this is sufficient for a ban but it says something along the lines of no suggesting you want essential civil liberties taken away from another user of the forum and this would fit there I believe. Furthermore taking away second amendment rights only gives us more violence (70% less violent crime in Florida when more gun rights were introduced). Also the fourth amendment comment I believe made no sense. It makes no sense because if you live in America you must understand innocence until proven guilty which you would be disregarding because you would have to assume those "Criminals and terrorists" are already guilty and if they are not you have just killed what makes America so great. What you said about the first amendment offended me so by your logic wouldn't that make your expression illegal. On top of this as soon as you put government in charge of freedom of expression you can easily be slowly pushed to North Korea standards of freedom of expression and end up with none at all.
Click to expand...


Hmm, had you perused the forum thread on gun rights you would know that this post was NOT in support of those listed changes. It was a parody parroting of efforts that I oppose.

Simply looking at the first line you would see I was speaking against the developing social paradigm which would propose and support such violations of individual rights.

Maybe sit back and get a feel for a forum before assuming the worst. :coffeepap:
 
Oh oops at least you agree with me that what I was assuming was the worst :)
 
CriticalThought said:
...what would be the biggest things people would seek to change about the Constitution?
Click to expand...
conservatives would change it to specify that it be read literally while liberals would change it to specify it be read figuratively so that that anything liberal, progressive, socialist, or communist could emanate from its penumbras.

Of course if during ratification battles our Founders and said, " don't worry it can mean anything" it never would have passed!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom