Should It Be So Difficult To Amend The Constitution?

[Revoltingest]

Well, I have one but what's the point? Your poll shows that you and others don't yet recognize that you have a problem so why should I waste my time offering you a solution?

The poll results don't say there are no problems.
Only that the amendment process is appropriately difficult.
It helps prevent rash changes.

 

[joe1776]

The poll results don't say there are no problems.
Only that the amendment process is appropriately difficult.

I understand what the poll shows.
The one vote for "relic" is mine.

 

[Kenny]

Where are you getting biased news from? And what confirms to you that they are biased?

Any time there are retractions, corrections, half truths and you can get that just about anywhere.

What source do you get yours from? I would love to try it out.

 

[suncowiam]

Any time there are retractions, corrections, half truths and you can get that just about anywhere.

What source do you get yours from? I would love to try it out.

I don't have one particular source. I read and view various, including cnn, fox and various websites.

 

[fantome profane]

I'd like to point out while some people believe that the Constitution grants them their rights, the premise of the Constitution is to declare and protect existing rights. So, for example, if the Constitution were amended to remove the First Amendment, then Freedom of Speech would not actually cease to be a right of the people. This is the difference between a document that claims to be the highest law and a document that acknowledges a law higher than itself.

The essential or spiritual principle surpasses the physical manifestation or form that it appears to take.

Yes, I have always seen it this way as well. There are certain basic rights that are intrinsic to the condition of being human. A government can either protect and defend these rights for its people or the government can violate those right. But the rights themselves are inherent in being human.

If anyone doubts this just think about the conditions in the most oppressive regime you can imagine. If rights come from government then people living under such a regime would have no rights, so therefore no rights to be violated. But we don’t consider people living under such conditions to be lucky in that their rights are never violated. No, we understand at a basic level these people have the same basic rights we do, even if those rights are denied.

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

I'd like to point out while some people believe that the Constitution grants them their rights, the premise of the Constitution is to declare and protect existing rights. So, for example, if the Constitution were amended to remove the First Amendment, then Freedom of Speech would not actually cease to be a right of the people. This is the difference between a document that claims to be the highest law and a document that acknowledges a law higher than itself.

The essential or spiritual principle surpasses the physical manifestation or form that it appears to take.

Until God decides to come down and start demanding human rights be met I think I'm going to stick to my constitution if you please.

 

[Shad]

For those of us who see rights as granted by consensus of humans
rather than handed to us by a divine creator, the Constitution is vital.
So if the First Amendment were repealed, & we were prohibited the
right to free speech, then we would've lost that right.

Natural rights viewpoints do not require divinity clauses. No government is required to grant me any right in order for me to say whatever I want. Government can only punish me after the fact but can not stop me saying what I want short of killing me. Government can only oppress rights.

 

[Revoltingest]

Natural rights viewpoints do not require divinity clauses. No government is required to grant me any right in order for me to say whatever I want. Government can only punish me after the fact but can not stop me saying what I want short of killing me. Government can only oppress rights.

What makes rights "natural"?
We might feel that something is a right, but it's highly dependent upon
culture & the individual's nature. Rights are free in some places, but
not in others, eg, speech, abortion, guns, religion, jury trials.

 

[BSM1]

Yes, I was trying to choose my words carefully, I am not sure I succeeded, but I deliberately chose the phrase “broad support” rather than “popular support”.

The amendment I am thinking about had already been ratified by several states.

No, sorry, that's not how it works. First you have to have the amendment spelled out and sponsored by x number of Congresspersons. Next you have to convene a Constitutional Convention in Washington where the amendment has to be ratified by a majority of Congress. Next the amendment is sent to all 50 state governing bodies where they also have to convene a Constitutional Convention to vote on ratification. Next the amendment has to be ratified by 2/3 of the states before it can be enacted. It is not an easy, nor overnight, process. Whatever you think has been ratified is not an Amendment to the US Constitution.

 

[esmith]

@BSM1 is correct, there has not been any amendment "ratified" by any states since the 27th Amendment (the last amendment).

There are only two ways to "propose" an amendment to the Constitution. (Emphasis on propose)
1. two-thirds of both houses of Congress can vote to propose an amendment
2. two-thirds of the state legislatures can ask Congress to call a National Convention to propose amendments (I think this is where the idea that several states have "ratified" an amendment has gone wrong).

In either case there is only one way an amendment can be ratified and that is by 3/4 of the State's Legislature after either 2/3 of both houses of Congress or 2/3 of the state legislatures have "proposed" an amendment.

In addition The Supreme Court has said that ratification must be within "some reasonable time after the proposal." In the case of the 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd it was 7 years, but there has been no determination as to just how long a "reasonable time" might be.

 

[Audie]

I recently disagreed with another poster about this. He thought we'd progress faster if the Constitution didn't stand in the way of so many great ideas. I was reminded of that discussion when this popped up in the news.....
New Poll: 43% of Republicans Want to Give Trump the Power to Shut Down Media
FREE DUMB
New Poll: 43% of Republicans Want to Give Trump the Power to Shut Down Media
The “enemy of the people” talk is working. A plurality of self-identified Republicans say they want Trump to have the power to take “bad” media outlets out.
SAM STEIN
08.07.18 11:53 AM ET

Freedom of the press may be guaranteed in the Constitution. But a plurality of Republicans want to give President Trump the authority to close down certain news outlets, according to a new public opinion survey conducted by Ipsosand provided exclusively to The Daily Beast.

The findings present a sobering picture for the fourth estate, with respondents showing diminished trust in the media and increased support for punitive measures against its members. They also illustrate the extent to which Trump’s anti-press drumbeat has shaped public opinion about the role the media plays in covering his administration.

Polls said hillary would win.

 

[joe1776]

What makes rights "natural"?
We might feel that something is a right, but it's highly dependent upon
culture & the individual's nature. Rights are free in some places, but
not in others, eg, speech, abortion, guns, religion, jury trials.

If you lived alone in the wild, you would have the natural right to do anything you want. You could poop anywhere you please, for example. But when you go into town, you enter a cooperative endeavor which demands that you trade in some rights, those that conflict with the welfare of the group, in exchange for greater benefits. You'd have to trade in your natural right to poop anywhere you please, for example.

 

[joe1776]

Until God decides to come down and start demanding human rights be met I think I'm going to stick to my constitution if you please.

Originally, only male, white, landowners had the right to vote in the USA. It took a very long time for others to be regarded as equal to the founders.

 

[tytlyf]

Polls said hillary would win.

Correct, even RW polls.

Therefore, we cannot trust any polls in life moving forward.....

 

[Audie]

Correct, even RW polls.

Therefore, we cannot trust any polls in life moving forward.....

That is how you do logic?

 

[tytlyf]

That is how you do logic?

That's how conservatives do logic. I hear them repeat what you said all the time. Give conservatives a poll that paints something they like in a positive light, they'll accept the poll. They're very hypocritical.

You made the comment "polls said Hillary would win." In response to another poll. Therefore, your logic is that the poll can't be trusted because "see how wrong the Hillary polls were?"

That's your logic, not mine.

 

[Audie]

That's how conservatives do logic. I hear them repeat what you said all the time. Give conservatives a poll that paints something they like in a positive light, they'll accept the poll. They're very hypocritical.

You made the comment "polls said Hillary would win." In response to another poll. Therefore, your logic is that the poll can't be trusted because "see how wrong the Hillary polls were?"

That's your logic, not mine.

You are under the impression that "cons" do that,
and 'libs" dont? Or that I am some sort of "con"
and therefore hypocritical? Not much truth of logic
in any of that, so most likely not.

Of course, it is a fact too well known to be worth
mentioning, that polls are not reliable. You
are somehow reading an awful lot into what
I said, things that actually are not there.

The "logic" that you think you found is
me presenting that if that poll was wrong
they all are?

If you really-really think I meant that, it
is just some of that reflexive bias knee jerk
conclusion- jumpin' so characteristic of (all) libs.

RTA-
I dont really care to continue this kind of half
serious banter. Maybe you are all the way serious,
which if so is too bad. If you want a Trumpie
to dispute with, I am not your gal.

Here is an article of some interest, hope you will
read it.
The Battle Over What It Means to Be American

 

[Revoltingest]

Polls said hillary would win.

I remember that.
But my October 2016 yard sign survey said otherwise.
And these days, my ears-in-stores survey says that
Trump isn't as hated as media would have us believe.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you lived alone in the wild, you would have the natural right to do anything you want. You could poop anywhere you please, for example. But when you go into town, you enter a cooperative endeavor which demands that you trade in some rights, those that conflict with the welfare of the group, in exchange for greater benefits. You'd have to trade in your natural right to poop anywhere you please, for example.

Even in the wild, one has no right to be inedible.

 

[Audie]

I remember that.
But my October 2016 yard sign survey said otherwise.
And these days, my ears-in-stores survey says that
Trump isn't as hated as media would have us believe.

Careful, the monk may get on your case for
using conlogic.


With regard to why Trump got elected, and some
about this lib/con thing seen in this thread among
other places..

You might find this to be very interesting.
I read the book have not read this NYT article
about it

The Battle Over What It Means to Be American