A constitutional question - Page 5
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 65

Thread: A constitutional question

  1. #41
    You first must know the persons history to to know were he is coming from.Books have been written on the history of the Constitution.


    You are correct and I have read many of them. I find myself agreeing with Ishi however. No matter the intent, if it's not written into the Constitution how is it binding? It's much like a verbal contract, with no witnesses it's left up to a judge to determine validity.

  2.   
  3. Ok if it had been written that we should never exceed 8 mikes a hour because it is very dangerous in a buggy. They could only relate to what the knew. The things that were obvious to them then may not apply now. Just a thought.

  4. Heres another. If a eskimo says i'll do it the next day does that mean in 6 months?

  5. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by kwo51 View Post
    Ok if it had been written that we should never exceed 8 mikes a hour because it is very dangerous in a buggy. They could only relate to what the knew. The things that were obvious to them then may not apply now. Just a thought.
    Don't really know what your getting at, but if your referring to the forefathers not knowing about future changes your probably correct. However, they did know about criminals and could have written something into the Constitution concerning their rights or removal thereof. I believe the "intent" was there but if it's not written it's then left up to judges.

  6. #45
    Exactly, Ronwill. Criminals existed back then as well.

    But let's say for the sake of argument there's a case where a portion of the constitution is rendered obsolete or even harmful by the unforeseen advance of technology. The correct remedy would not be for the supreme court to rule that the section is invalid because of the lack of foresight of its' authors.

    Rather, the correct remedy is for our sluggish democracy to use the facilities given us to change the constitution so that it is in line with the current day. Every time any part of the constitution is ignored, shunted aside, or interpreted away, the entire document is weakened. That's something we can't allow to happen, because the Constitution is all that stands in the way between democracy and tyranny.
    Truth is mighty and will prevail. There is nothing the matter with this, except that it ain't so.

    -Mark Twain

  7. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by ishi View Post
    Exactly, Ronwill. Criminals existed back then as well.

    But let's say for the sake of argument there's a case where a portion of the constitution is rendered obsolete or even harmful by the unforeseen advance of technology. The correct remedy would not be for the supreme court to rule that the section is invalid because of the lack of foresight of its' authors.

    Rather, the correct remedy is for our sluggish democracy to use the facilities given us to change the constitution so that it is in line with the current day. Every time any part of the constitution is ignored, shunted aside, or interpreted away, the entire document is weakened. That's something we can't allow to happen, because the Constitution is all that stands in the way between democracy and tyranny.
    Agreed, but when you start messing with Constitutional changes great care must be taken. What if some group was succesful in getting it written that "assault" weapons were not covered and are banned?

  8. #47
    This is a good point, Ronwill, and not one I've seen yet brought up on a gun forum. First I'd like to point out that modifying the Constitution is hard enough so that no small special interest group would be able to modify it easily. It takes overwhelming support to make a new constitutional amendment, and I don't think that the 2nd Amendment will ever be modified in any legal way.

    That said, this hypothetical amendment brings us to a philosophical crossroads. The answer depends on whether you think the RKBA (or any right enjoyed by americans) is derived from a social contract (the Constitution) or are instead bequeathed by a divine entity ("god-given" rights).

    A person who adheres to the social contract (strict Constitutionalists) would probably accept that the principle of democracy had been upheld, and that even though he disagrees with the result, he'd probably accept it.

    A person who believes that the Bill of Rights is merely an imperfect restatement of rights given by God would probably reject the result as invalid.
    Last edited by ishi; 10-27-2007 at 10:36 AM.
    Truth is mighty and will prevail. There is nothing the matter with this, except that it ain't so.

    -Mark Twain

  9. I guess what I'm saying is, how long a reach is it to make all hand guns class 3 weapons?

  10. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by ishi View Post
    That said, this hypothetical amendment brings us to a philosophical crossroads. The answer depends on whether you think the RKBA (or any right enjoyed by americans) is derived from a social contract (the Constitution) or are instead bequeathed by a divine entity ("god-given" rights).

    A person who adheres to the social contract (strict Constitutionalists) would probably accept that the principle of democracy had been upheld, and that even though he disagrees with the result, he'd probably accept it.

    A person who believes that the Bill of Rights is merely an imperfect restatement of rights given by God would probably reject the result as invalid.
    Valid or not, should a change be made of that nature many would simply obey because they are law abiding citizens (California is a case in point with their vague list of illegal guns). Those that didn't would have the strong-arm of the law coming after them and most likely be forced to comply. While I honestly don't believe enough states would vote to make a change of that nature (at least not now), I do believe the possibility exists.

  11. Rights

    The truth of the matter is that while imprisoned, and until any set probationary period expires, a felon loses his/her rights. In effect they are subject to being slaves (per the constitution). Once the felon has been released and their mandated sentence is over, those rights are supposed to be restored. This was well understood up until the early 30's. When a prisoner was released from prison even their weapons were returned to them as it was well known that not doing so denied the individuals right to self defense.
    A person who has done their time is supposed to be reinstated as a member of the community in good standing, as they have fulfilled, or completed their sentencing. Denying this not only violates their freedom, which we would hope they would have by now earned, it also denies our constitution.
    Personally I am for the death penalty as far as certain felonies are concerned, such as rape and murder, and therefore there ought to never be a parole of these individuals. But alas, the way this country is set up even these malignant tumors of society are able to be released in many states, after serving time. I don't agree with it, but our laws say this is ok, therefore I must render obedience to that law and hope that these individuals really were "reformed' and don't get out just to repeat their reprehensible behavior of the past.
    If nothing else, this is a very good reason to always go armed. I would rather be able to defend myself and my family than to be assailed or lose my life to one of these individuals.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast