• 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!

The Bill of Rights Turns 230, and What Do We Have to Show for It? Nothing Good

Rich2018 said:
Certainly, when you explain how deeming all male citizens in it can be considered organised or well regulated

Where can I find an organisation chart ?

A group of armed, unorganized men is a mob....they used to carry out lynchings in the last century and before




Yes, all males are required to register for the Draft

You can't be an active member of the regular armed forces and the militia.
Click to expand...

Deeming all applicable men part of the militia is the first tier in organizing US citizens for national defense. "Well-regulated" means something with function correctly. Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" If you are called to service, it is expected you will function correctly under penalty of law.

So, according to the US government, if you fit the criteria laid out in 10 US Code 246 you are the militia. You may not believe it, but it's true.

The definition of militia, according to Wikipedia is, "A militia (/mɪˈlɪʃə/)[1] is generally an army or some other fighting organization of non-professional soldiers, citizens of a nation, or subjects of a state, who can be called upon for military service during a time of need, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel, or historically, members of a warrior nobility class (e.g., knights or samurai). Generally unable to hold ground against regular forces, it is common for militias to be used for aiding regular troops by skirmishing, holding fortifications, or irregular warfare, instead of being used in offensive campaigns by themselves. Militia are often limited by local civilian laws to serve only in their home region, and to serve only for a limited time; this further reduces their use in long military campaigns."

As members of the unorganized militia of the United States, you can be drafted or selected for whatever military service the federal government desires. You can be selected to serve actively in one of our military branches or you might be required to serve in National Guard units or given a choice. If we were fighting a civil war or invading army, you might be asked to serve in some other capacity such as Army Special Forces A-Teams training scattered bands of Americans to wage a guerilla war.

No, you can't be an active member of the regular armed forces and the militia. If you are in the National Guard you are militia. If you are in the regular army, you leave militia status and are regular army. If you are not selected for service, you are still in the militia. We haven't waged a war on our soil against another nation's regular army since 1812. Unless you also include territories, that would be WWII with Japan's invasion of the Aleutians. The purpose of the militia is that it can be organized to best meet the needs of national defense. Rear Admiral Draper Kaufmann, the godfather of the SEALs, wanted to take American scuba instructors and train them in underwater demolitions and recon because so many Americans who were young and fit were working worldwide. The idea was vetoed, not because the men couldn't be trusted with the work, but any leaks in the program would expose innocent Americans to the danger of being arrested for being spies even if they weren't in the program.

I think you have the official unorganized militia confused with militia groups. Some of them may or may not know they are also part of the official militia.
 
Hondo said:
..."Well-regulated" means something with function correctly. Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" If you are called to service, it is expected you will function correctly under penalty of law....
Click to expand...

That not what I understand as well regulated

Regulation are rules.

Sure, state who is eligible but it's up to them if they join unless legally conscripted to.


...so, according to the US government, if you fit the criteria laid out in 10 US Code 246 you are the militia. You may not believe it, but it's true...
Click to expand...

But it doesn't exist

Some "militias" are privately run and don't accept membership as a birthright.

The US military has, I believe, absorbed others.



Just re-write the Constitution and do away with this relic.
 
The only one of the Bill of Rights I have any use for is the First Amendment. I would like to reword so that it protects religious freedom, political discussion, and nothing else. I do not want it to be used to protect unlimited private campaign contributions. I do not want it to protect flag burning.

The Second Amendment is a dangerous anachronism. In civilized countries even conservatives ask, "Why would anyone want to own a gun?"

The Tenth Amendment is extremely dangerous. It could be used by a reactionary Supreme Court to find virtually all of the economic, environmental, and civil rights legislation passed during the twentieth century un Constitutional. Many reactionaries are talking about doing that. There is even a Tenth Amendment Center.
 
JohnnyDollar said:
I don't wish for them to change it. Just abide by it and to stop misinterpreting it.
Click to expand...
One person's "interpretation" is often another person's "misinterpretation."


Like the 5th Amendment, for example. It's all about the government authority over suspected criminals. But they misinterpret the last line as a means to rob people of the rights to their own land. They call it "eminent domain."
Click to expand...
Thank you for illustrating my point perfectly. :mrgreen:

The 5th Amendment is actually fairly clear on eminent domain:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (Emphasis added)

The 5th Amendment clearly empowers the government to seize private property for public use, as long as the property owner is properly compensated. This is known as the "Takings Clause," and it is not restricted to criminal proceedings.

In fact, for some reason the SCOTUS decided a few years ago that law enforcement could permanently seize property during an investigation, without compensating the suspect(s). Civil forfeiture sure seems like a violation of the 5th Amendment, but it's legal.


All men are created equal. There's no caveats in that.
Click to expand...
Actually, there are quite a few caveats.

That phrase comes from the Declaration of Independence. Not the Constitution.

The DoI is not actually legally binding. Rather, the courts later decided to use the DoI, Federalist Papers and other documents as interpretive guidelines.

No one -- including Jefferson -- expected the Declaration of Independence to form a legally binding principle for a new government. The purpose of the DoI was to justify a revolution.

Lastly, Jefferson didn't intend the concept of equality to extend to slaves. Good thing it isn't legally binding, huh?
 
SmartCat said:
The only one of the Bill of Rights I have any use for is the First Amendment. I would like to reword so that it protects religious freedom, political discussion, and nothing else. I do not want it to be used to protect unlimited private campaign contributions. I do not want it to protect flag burning.
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't you burn a flag

Women can burn their bras

You should be allowed to burn anything, be it a flag, Bible, an item of clothing, provided you own it and burning it does cause a health hazard

The Second Amendment is a dangerous anachronism. In civilized countries even conservatives ask, "Why would anyone want to own a gun?"
Click to expand...

Agree

The Tenth Amendment is extremely dangerous. It could be used by a reactionary Supreme Court to find virtually all of the economic, environmental, and civil rights legislation passed during the twentieth century un Constitutional. Many reactionaries are talking about doing that...
Click to expand...

Agree
 
Rich2018 said:
Why shouldn't you burn a flag

Women can burn their bras

You should be allowed to burn anything, be it a flag, Bible, an item of clothing, provided you own it and burning it does cause a health hazard



Agree



Agree
Click to expand...

Whether or not people should be allowed to desecrate the American flag should be left up to voters.
 
Rich2018 said:
That not what I understand as well regulated

Regulation are rules.

Sure, state who is eligible but it's up to them if they join unless legally conscripted to.




But it doesn't exist

Some "militias" are privately run and don't accept membership as a birthright.

The US military has, I believe, absorbed others.



Just re-write the Constitution and do away with this relic.
Click to expand...

Maybe this will explain it better than I am doing? Oxymoronic “Unorganized” Militia | Constitutional Militia

Also, here is an example of one of our organized militia groups few know about: New York Naval Militia
 
Rich2018 said:
Which was and is seen as the right thing to do

Do you support the right for an American not to have health insurance or are you for a socialized national medicare system ?
Click to expand...

You completely overlooked what I said. This has nothing to do with my beliefs. But the fact that the Supreme Court changed the words in the legislation from "penalty" to "tax" to make it constitutional. At least that were their excuse (or selling point) Hell, W's own SCJ did that.
They not only misinterpreted it, but they reworded and still got it wrong.


Rich2018 said:
How can you interpret "militia"
Click to expand...

Who are they ?

To ensure they are well regulated, who should regulate them and what weapons would an organised militia require today ?[/QUOTE]

In todays time, I'd say it was the military. As in "well regulated," which out military is. The right of the people would be who? "We the people?" or just those the government agree's with?
In Texas, you have to get a permit to open carry or conceal carry. So the 2nd be dayumed. And every other state thinks the 2nd Amendment doesn't matter. The 2nd has been infringed since the first gun permit came out.
So since the constitution doesn't say convicted felons, it doesn't even mention who can't have a gun. So since the supreme court won't even hear cases involving states rights over the 2nd, then they're misinterpreting it again.
 
SmartCat said:
Whether or not people should be allowed to desecrate the American flag should be left up to voters.
Click to expand...


People should let other be free. Be it burning themselves or a flag. As long as they don't burn someone else or others property.

That's what freedom is for. It's not so everyone is forced to be the same.
 
Rich2018 said:
Scrap the constitution and write a 21st century one in modern day English.
Click to expand...

yes, and the first amendment shall be as follows

Congress shall make no law that does not also apply to members of congress

Second one

No Private citizen shall be denied any arm that is available to any civilian law enforcement agency

Third One

All taxes shall be of a flat rate

Fourth

Congress-House and Senate shall be paid the national minimum wage rate

Fifth The Interstate commerce clause shall give congress no power to regulate the behavior of private citizens acting in their own state.
 
JohnnyDollar said:
People should let other be free. Be it burning themselves or a flag. As long as they don't burn someone else or others property.

That's what freedom is for. It's not so everyone is forced to be the same.
Click to expand...

yep, what makes our flag-and what is stands for-is that you can burn it without being harmed by the government
 
Gdjjr said:
“That was when they suspended the Constitution. They said it would be temporary. There wasn’t even any rioting in the streets. People stayed home at night, watching television, looking for some direction. There wasn’t even an enemy you could put your finger on.”—Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid’s Tale

It’s been 230 years since James Madison drafted the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments to the Constitution—as a means of protecting the people against government tyranny, and what do we have to show for it?

Nothing good.

In America today, the government does whatever it wants, freedom be damned.

We can pretend that the Constitution, which was written to hold the government accountable, is still our governing document, but the reality of life in the American police state tells a different story.

The Bill of Rights Turns 230, and What Do We Have to Show for It? Nothing Good – The Future of Freedom Foundation
Click to expand...



Despite all its flaws (nothing created by people will ever be perfect) the U.S. is the greatest most prosperous nation in all Human History.

The Left feels the need to discredit the US from its very Founding because their ideology played no real part in making it great.

The Rigid Individualism, the limited power Govt ideals of the Constitution and Bill of Right made the US the best. Those values are about as anti-Left as is possible.

Most of the Govt overreach you refer to seem to comes from the Left.

On this very thread, most of the comments from Leftists show a dislike for our founding documents.
 
Casca XV said:
Despite all its flaws (nothing created by people will ever be perfect) the U.S. is the greatest most prosperous nation in all Human History.

The Left feels the need to discredit the US from its very Founding because their ideology played no real part in making it great.

The Rigid Individualism, the limited power Govt ideals of the Constitution and Bill of Right made the US the best. Those values are about as anti-Left as is possible.

Most of the Govt overreach you refer to seem to comes from the Left.

On this very thread, most of the comments from Leftists show a dislike for our founding documents.
Click to expand...

there was a rather prevalent leftwing academic movement in the 70s that criticized the constitution and the bill of rights as being designed to protect private property. And I said-and so what. That is why it is good, among other things. The current scheme of the collectivists is either to dishonestly misinterpret the Constitution or to try to discredit it by attacking the founders as "white" "male" "Christian" "slave owners" "oppressors of native Americans" etc
 
TurtleDude said:
there was a rather prevalent leftwing academic movement in the 70s that criticized the constitution and the bill of rights as being designed to protect private property. And I said-and so what. That is why it is good, among other things. The current scheme of the collectivists is either to dishonestly misinterpret the Constitution or to try to discredit it by attacking the founders as "white" "male" "Christian" "slave owners" "oppressors of native Americans" etc
Click to expand...

Constantly bringing up slavery is a favorite Leftist tactic to try to discredit the U.S.

The problem with that is when you look at any specific time in US History regarding slavery and race relations not only does the US not stand out, like with everything else we are still better than most of the rest of the world.

1776: there were only a couple of Eastern European countries that had laws that absolutely banned slavery. But this is a crock of S**t because they had populations that were permanent castes of Serf’s who were “not slaves” in name only.

When the Founding Fathers are derided over slavery they are basically being criticized for not being the first to end slavery. Slavery had been in the Americas for 150 years by then. If they had tried to force an end to it, we would have lost the Revolutionary War.

For the time they lived the Founding Fathers were among the least racist most anti-slave people. There is no man who lived then or since who has written or spoken more about ending Slavery than Thomas Jefferson.
 
Casca XV said:
Constantly bringing up slavery is a favorite Leftist tactic to try to discredit the U.S.

The problem with that is when you look at any specific time in US History regarding slavery and race relations not only does the US not stand out, like with everything else we are still better than most of the rest of the world.

1776: there were only a couple of Eastern European countries that had laws that absolutely banned slavery. But this is a crock of S**t because they had populations that were permanent castes of Serf’s who were “not slaves” in name only.

When the Founding Fathers are derided over slavery they are basically being criticized for not being the first to end slavery. Slavery had been in the Americas for 150 years by then. If they had tried to force an end to it, we would have lost the Revolutionary War.

For the time they lived the Founding Fathers were among the least racist most anti-slave people. There is no man who lived then or since who has written or spoken more about ending Slavery than Thomas Jefferson.
Click to expand...

it is akin to Democrats now-after years, deciding to destroy monuments to Confederate "heroes" in an effort to pander to certain groups and pretend anyone who doesn't jump on that silly tactic is a "racist". The party that defended slavery and Jim Crow tries to pretend that Lee, and Davis, and Nathan Forrest were Republicans and Lincoln and Grant were Democrats
 
TurtleDude said:
yes, and the first amendment shall be as follows

Congress shall make no law that does not also apply to members of congress

Second one

No Private citizen shall be denied any arm that is available to any civilian law enforcement agency

Third One

All taxes shall be of a flat rate

Fourth

Congress-House and Senate shall be paid the national minimum wage rate

Fifth The Interstate commerce clause shall give congress no power to regulate the behavior of private citizens acting in their own state.
Click to expand...

Your first amendment might win in a national referendum. The rest would lose, especially the third one. The purpose of a constitution is to determine how laws should be made. It is not to write laws, especially laws as unpopular as what you propose.
 
I can't say that I'm surprised that those advocating for abolishing of the US Constitution have never actually read the document and completely ignorant about its history. They have no clue, for example, that the US Constitution was last updated with the 27th Amendment in 1992. They think it is some 230 year-old document that never changes with the times.

It is this utter lack of basic civics education that is the root of our problems in the US, not the US Constitution. We have morons that have no clue how their own government functions and don't know anything about the US Constitution. The truly scary part is that these morons vote, and typically they vote for the anti-American left.
 
Rich2018 said:
Scrap the constitution and write a 21st century one in modern day English.
Click to expand...

I propose a Constitution that is explicitly democratic. The Constitution would state clearly that the U.S. government is a democracy. That would end this foolishness that "The United States is a republic, not a democracy." The local governments would be subordinate to the state governments. The state governments would be subordinate to the federal government. There would be no Electoral College and no Senate. The vote of a Berkeley professor would count as much as the vote of someone living in Wyoming. I would like to outlaw private campaign contributions and have the government fund elections. That is done in other democracies. Nevertheless, I will leave that up to the voters.

I do not like the Supreme Court. My constitution would either not have a Supreme Court, or it would require a two thirds vote in the Supreme Court for any decision. Any Supreme Court decision could be overturned by a two thirds vote in Congress and a presidential signature. There would be recall elections for unpopular Supreme Court justices. Many states already have this. There would be referendums at the national level.

The president would have line item veto power. Many governors already have this.

There would be one amendment only in the Bill of Rights. It would protect religious freedom, open political debate and nothing else. Issues like flag desecration, censorship of pornography, private funding of political campaigns, prayer and Bible reading in public schools, manger scenes on the country court house, etc., would be decided by the voters.

My candidates often lose elections. Nevertheless, I have more confidence in the wisdom of 51% of the voters than in any elite, be it of money, intellect or birth.
 
TurtleDude said:
yep, what makes our flag-and what is stands for-is that you can burn it without being harmed by the government
Click to expand...


What make freedom so undesirable to people that they'd get upset over someone else destroying their own property? Especially something that's so mass produced, even the chinese are making millions of them for us.

The flag means different things to different people. In my book, it's meaningless. Just a government symbol that says "This is my badge, respect it or else." To others, it means something more. But not every flag has the same owner. You buy it, it's yours to do with as you please.

IMO, not that anyone cares, my loyalty doesn't lie on this country or our government. It lies in my kids, my family & friends. It lies in the people I know and respect. As far as politics go, it lies on people who have actually fought for and defended the constitution. People like Ron Paul and Justin Amash.

Justin Amash group
 
SmartCat said:
The only one of the Bill of Rights I have any use for is the First Amendment. I would like to reword so that it protects religious freedom, political discussion, and nothing else. I do not want it to be used to protect unlimited private campaign contributions. I do not want it to protect flag burning.

The Second Amendment is a dangerous anachronism. In civilized countries even conservatives ask, "Why would anyone want to own a gun?"

The Tenth Amendment is extremely dangerous. It could be used by a reactionary Supreme Court to find virtually all of the economic, environmental, and civil rights legislation passed during the twentieth century un Constitutional. Many reactionaries are talking about doing that. There is even a Tenth Amendment Center.
Click to expand...

Does this make you a Cafeteria Constitutionalist? You pick and choose what you want and reject the rest?
 
SmartCat said:
I propose a Constitution that is explicitly democratic. The Constitution would state clearly that the U.S. government is a democracy. That would end this foolishness that "The United States is a republic, not a democracy." The local governments would be subordinate to the state governments. The state governments would be subordinate to the federal government. There would be no Electoral College and no Senate. The vote of a Berkeley professor would count as much as the vote of someone living in Wyoming. I would like to outlaw private campaign contributions and have the government fund elections. That is done in other democracies. Nevertheless, I will leave that up to the voters.

I do not like the Supreme Court. My constitution would either not have a Supreme Court, or it would require a two thirds vote in the Supreme Court for any decision. Any Supreme Court decision could be overturned by a two thirds vote in Congress and a presidential signature. There would be recall elections for unpopular Supreme Court justices. Many states already have this. There would be referendums at the national level.

The president would have line item veto power. Many governors already have this.

There would be one amendment only in the Bill of Rights. It would protect religious freedom, open political debate and nothing else. Issues like flag desecration, censorship of pornography, private funding of political campaigns, prayer and Bible reading in public schools, manger scenes on the country court house, etc., would be decided by the voters.

My candidates often lose elections. Nevertheless, I have more confidence in the wisdom of 51% of the voters than in any elite, be it of money, intellect or birth.
Click to expand...

Some people call a democracy "mob rule." As if "we the people" were all stupid, uneducated and criminal. I have a different view. I see those in congress, state legislatures all the way down to city councils, as being the mob.
In terms of federal politicians, when you consider how and who actually gets legislation passed through committees and on the floor for a vote (mainly lobbyist) there's nothing "republic" about our republic.
According to a republic, those elected officials are supposed to represent us. But in the end, they're representing some of the most powerful lobbyist in the country, through their majority leaders. (Pelosi and McConnell)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom