Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Im just curious, for those who insist that it should never be changed and should be the original, are you aware that it has been changed over the years? Are you willing to give up the rights that women were given nearly a hundred years ago so we can go back to the 'original' constitution? What about civil rights? What about ownership of slaves? 

Honestly, do you really not know that the constitution has been changed?

by on Jan. 11, 2013 at 1:36 AM
Replies (11-16):
muslimahpj
by Ruby Member on Jan. 11, 2013 at 2:01 PM
1 mom liked this

So many also confuse us for a democracy when we are actually a republic. 

Quoting lga1965:

 It seems there is a lot of misunderstanding about the Constitution and related documents. And there are many who are afraid of change and refuse to believe that anything has changed.


stormcris
by Christy on Jan. 11, 2013 at 2:01 PM

But when you say change people think rewrite and that we do not do but it has been suggested and is often debated. 

However I stand by the second part that we should only amend in the case that legislation cannot handle the situation. What issue do you see that we currently have that cannot be handled by legislation?

Quoting muslimahpj:

Semantics. Amendments change the way the constitution is read. 

ETA: meaning we dont go by the 'original' anymore.  

Quoting stormcris:

It has been added to not changed. Once something is there it is there but then amended. Often people point to the disaster known as prohibition why it should not be amended. It is meant to be a living document to serve as protecting rights not prohibiting them. As such it is felt that when you mention change, especially in the view of prohibiting rights, that changes should not occur. In as much, most of the time it is mentioned changing the constitution it is done around an issue in which people want to prohibit rights.

In light of this discussion I want to bring forward a quote:

In voting against the Flag Desecration Amendment in 2006, Sen. Obama said: "I have never seen anyone burn a flag. And if I did, it would take every ounce of restraint I had not to haul off and hit them...the Constitution should only be amended to address our nation's most pressing problems that can't be solved with legislation."

Thus we have legislation not amendments to address issue.



blues_pagan
by on Jan. 11, 2013 at 2:04 PM
1 mom liked this

I always find it funny when people say this since our founding fathers gave us the option to amend it.  THat means they realized that later on down the road changes would have to be made.

muslimahpj
by Ruby Member on Jan. 11, 2013 at 2:04 PM
1 mom liked this

I think we need to tweak the second amendment. Not get rid of it or abolish it completely, but, I think some tweaks should be done. If they can be handled by legislation, great, if not, then it should be amended. 

I think that people have read it the way they want instead of the way it was originally intended. We are not a militia and a majority of gun owners are not a militia. 

That is the issue that is forefront in my head at the time.

Quoting stormcris:

But when you say change people think rewrite and that we do not do but it has been suggested and is often debated. 

However I stand by the second part that we should only amend in the case that legislation cannot handle the situation. What issue do you see that we currently have that cannot be handled by legislation?

Quoting muslimahpj:

Semantics. Amendments change the way the constitution is read. 

ETA: meaning we dont go by the 'original' anymore.  

Quoting stormcris:

It has been added to not changed. Once something is there it is there but then amended. Often people point to the disaster known as prohibition why it should not be amended. It is meant to be a living document to serve as protecting rights not prohibiting them. As such it is felt that when you mention change, especially in the view of prohibiting rights, that changes should not occur. In as much, most of the time it is mentioned changing the constitution it is done around an issue in which people want to prohibit rights.

In light of this discussion I want to bring forward a quote:

In voting against the Flag Desecration Amendment in 2006, Sen. Obama said: "I have never seen anyone burn a flag. And if I did, it would take every ounce of restraint I had not to haul off and hit them...the Constitution should only be amended to address our nation's most pressing problems that can't be solved with legislation."

Thus we have legislation not amendments to address issue.




stormcris
by Christy on Jan. 11, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Yet, that has already been done. The Supreme Court has ruled it does not give the individual right to have an assault weapon or even have a gun, it gives the right to the militia. You have a state militia which is the National Guard for your state so the clause needs to stand. The reason we still have debates over this is for the reason I previously gave about the Constitution being a living document. The ruling can change if the court sees fit but for now that is the ruling.

Quoting muslimahpj:

I think we need to tweak the second amendment. Not get rid of it or abolish it completely, but, I think some tweaks should be done. If they can be handled by legislation, great, if not, then it should be amended. 

I think that people have read it the way they want instead of the way it was originally intended. We are not a militia and a majority of gun owners are not a militia. 

That is the issue that is forefront in my head at the time.

Quoting stormcris:

But when you say change people think rewrite and that we do not do but it has been suggested and is often debated. 

However I stand by the second part that we should only amend in the case that legislation cannot handle the situation. What issue do you see that we currently have that cannot be handled by legislation?

Quoting muslimahpj:

Semantics. Amendments change the way the constitution is read. 

ETA: meaning we dont go by the 'original' anymore.  

Quoting stormcris:

It has been added to not changed. Once something is there it is there but then amended. Often people point to the disaster known as prohibition why it should not be amended. It is meant to be a living document to serve as protecting rights not prohibiting them. As such it is felt that when you mention change, especially in the view of prohibiting rights, that changes should not occur. In as much, most of the time it is mentioned changing the constitution it is done around an issue in which people want to prohibit rights.

In light of this discussion I want to bring forward a quote:

In voting against the Flag Desecration Amendment in 2006, Sen. Obama said: "I have never seen anyone burn a flag. And if I did, it would take every ounce of restraint I had not to haul off and hit them...the Constitution should only be amended to address our nation's most pressing problems that can't be solved with legislation."

Thus we have legislation not amendments to address issue.





stormcris
by Christy on Jan. 11, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Alright had to come back because I made a mistake.... I am going to post the following as food for thought:

Does the Second Amendment prevent Congress from passing gun-control laws? The question, which is suddenly pressing, in light of the reaction to the school massacre in Newtown, is rooted in politics as much as law.

For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “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.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup d’état at the group’s annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to power—as part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. (Jill Lepore recounted this history in a recent piece for The New Yorker.) The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”

But the N.R.A. kept pushing—and there’s a lesson here. Conservatives often embrace “originalism,” the idea that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when it was ratified, in 1787. They mock the so-called liberal idea of a “living” constitution, whose meaning changes with the values of the country at large. But there is no better example of the living Constitution than the conservative re-casting of the Second Amendment in the last few decades of the twentieth century. (Reva Siegel, of Yale Law School, elaborates on this point in a brilliant article.)

The re-interpretation of the Second Amendment was an elaborate and brilliantly executed political operation, inside and outside of government. Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980 brought a gun-rights enthusiast to the White House. At the same time, Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, became chairman of an important subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he commissioned a report that claimed to find “clear—and long lost—proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms.” The N.R.A. began commissioning academic studies aimed at proving the same conclusion. An outré constitutional theory, rejected even by the establishment of the Republican Party, evolved, through brute political force, into the conservative conventional wisdom.

And so, eventually, this theory became the law of the land. In District of Columbia v. Heller, decided in 2008, the Supreme Court embraced the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment. It was a triumph above all for Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of the opinion, but it required him to craft a thoroughly political compromise. In the eighteenth century, militias were proto-military operations, and their members had to obtain the best military hardware of the day. But Scalia could not create, in the twenty-first century, an individual right to contemporary military weapons—like tanks and Stinger missiles. In light of this, Scalia conjured a rule that said D.C. could not ban handguns because “handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”

So the government cannot ban handguns, but it can ban other weapons—like, say, an assault rifle—or so it appears. The full meaning of the court’s Heller opinion is still up for grabs. But it is clear that the scope of the Second Amendment will be determined as much by politics as by the law. The courts will respond to public pressure—as they did by moving to the right on gun control in the last thirty years. And if legislators, responding to their constituents, sense a mandate for new restrictions on guns, the courts will find a way to uphold them. The battle over gun control is not just one of individual votes in Congress, but of a continuing clash of ideas, backed by political power. In other words, the law of the Second Amendment is not settled; no law, not even the Constitution, ever is.



Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html#ixzz2HhIhPLfN
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN