Should It Be So Difficult To Amend The Constitution?

[Revoltingest]

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

There's no logic to apply.
Just observe people who opine about Trump.
If these results conflict with polls, then it reduces confidence in the polls.

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

The NYT article makes the author appear to have a keen sense of the obvious.

 

[Woberts]

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

We appear to be in agreement, good sir.

 

[tytlyf]

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

I clearly pointed out YOUR logic. You're the one who thinks polls can't be trusted because they were all wrong on election day.

Repeated by all conservatives.

 

[allfoak]

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

It's kind of like asking if we should amend the Bible to suit our own needs.
While people violate the constitution all the time, there is a reason why it is the final word.
The first reason would be that we need a final word. If we continue to think that the document has no more meaning than our constantly changing culture then why have it at all?
People say it is out of date and that it doesn't fit the current way of thinking. This is a dangerous way to run a country.
Amendments to what guides the soul of this country should be made with great care.
Never should it be an easy thing to change something that will guide us perhaps for generations to come.

 

[Shad]

What makes rights "natural"?

As those rights are based on nature and humans are part of nature. Anyone can discover these rights regardless of location or religion thus found using reason instead of revelation.

We might feel that something is a right, but it's highly dependent upon
culture & the individual's nature.

Culture is not a basis for natural rights. Culture based rights are social contracts.

Rights are free in some places, but not in others, eg, speech, abortion, guns, religion, jury trials.

This only establishes some governments suppress rights and other governments do not. Lack of suppression does not equate to free. More so you have to look at the basis for suppression as often the foundation is a competing idea about what/who grants rights. Religion for example often contains competing foundation such as God given rights dependent upon revelation not reason.

 

[Willamena]

I choose "just right." Amendments are a fine and sufficient way to amend Constitutions.

 

[Audie]

I clearly pointed out YOUR logic. You're the one who thinks polls can't be trusted because they were all wrong on election day.

Repeated by all conservatives.

I was not doing "logic",having presented
no therefore. I simply stated a well
known fact. Falsehood number one for
your post.

All you have clarified is that you are
profoundly biased* with a great tendency to
jump to wholly unwarrented conclusions.

This below is something I neither stated
nor implied. It is simply your chosen fantasy,
you made it up and now state it as fact.
Falsehood number two.

You're the one who thinks polls can't be trusted because they were all wrong on election day.


* Repeated by all conservatives
Not merely an example of bias
but a falsehood, made up, by you.
Number three.
Maybe four, if you count "all wrong".

Withal a shabby performance.

Plz refrain from addressing me if you
are going to continue to make things up.
I will just employ ig,and you wont get
any further attention from me.

 

[Audie]

There's no logic to apply.
Just observe people who opine about Trump.
If these results conflict with polls, then it reduces confidence in the polls.

The NYT article makes the author appear to have a keen sense of the obvious.

I know you were not doing conlogic, but that
monk has an overly keen eye.

That polls are often problematic, to say the least,
is news of the obvious. If I knew it would
get someone so exercised to hear it, I'd
have not said anything.

As for the article, I did not as I said read it.
The Amy Chua book, I did read, and found
it to be very informative, for me at least.

Living in the East Coast lib belt, one does
not interact much with tho Trump voters.

 

[Audie]

As those rights are based on nature and humans are part of nature. Anyone can discover these rights regardless of location or religion thus found using reason instead of revelation.



Culture is not a basis for natural rights. Culture based rights are social contracts.




This only establishes some governments suppress rights and other governments do not. Lack of suppression does not equate to free. More so you have to look at the basis for suppression as often the foundation is a competing idea about what/who grants rights. Religion for example often contains competing foundation such as God given rights dependent upon revelation not reason.

What constitutes freedom and rights does vary
from place to place.

Americans think they are so free, tho well bound
with regulations and such constraints as, say,
pc requires.

Not to get into details, but other countries allow
far more freedom to do as you please.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's kind of like asking if we should amend the Bible to suit our own needs.

It does get amended regularly.

But if one assumes that the Bible is handed down from God,
then amending it is inappropriate. The Constitution is different
though, being a creation of humans.

While people violate the constitution all the time, there is a reason why it is the final word.
The first reason would be that we need a final word. If we continue to think that the document has no more meaning than our constantly changing culture then why have it at all?
People say it is out of date and that it doesn't fit the current way of thinking. This is a dangerous way to run a country.
Amendments to what guides the soul of this country should be made with great care.
Never should it be an easy thing to change something that will guide us perhaps for generations to come.

Aye.

 

[Revoltingest]

As those rights are based on nature and humans are part of nature. Anyone can discover these rights regardless of location or religion thus found using reason instead of revelation.

The diversity of nature & of human thought means that one
person's "natural rights" aren't always the same as another's

Culture is not a basis for natural rights. Culture based rights are social contracts.

But culture is where consensus on which ones become recognized rights.

This only establishes some governments suppress rights and other governments do not. Lack of suppression does not equate to free. More so you have to look at the basis for suppression as often the foundation is a competing idea about what/who grants rights. Religion for example often contains competing foundation such as God given rights dependent upon revelation not reason.

The variation in which are rights & which aren't points to great subjectivity.

 

[Revoltingest]

I know you were not doing conlogic, but that
monk has an overly keen eye.

Some posters know only one tune, eh.

Living in the East Coast lib belt, one does
not interact much with tho Trump voters.

I'm fortunate to know people who range from fire breathing
commies to knuckle walking fundamentalist Christian preppers.
I talk religion & politics with everyone.

 

[Audie]

It does get amended regularly.

But if one assumes that the Bible is handed down from God,
then amending it is inappropriate. The Constitution is different
though, being a creation of humans.

Aye.

Bible dont need no stinkin' amendments, it is there
for any divinely inspirated interpreter to read as it
suits him.

 

[Revoltingest]

Bible dont need no stinkin' amendments, it is there
for any divinely inspirated interpreter to read as it
suits him.

Well, there is that too.
Like the Koran, it means whatever the reader wants.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I don’t think you should change the process, but I do think Americans should be more active in using the mechanisms that already exist to change the constitution.

I think this is true in a broader and more general sense as well.

Americans complain about outcomes and systems, but we don't actively participate in the decision making process, or in the fixing of those systems, because it requires actual work and dedication.

From the Federal level, down the local, it's a real societal problem. We think complaining on the internet equates to actually doing something... It doesn't.

 

[BSM1]

I think this is true in a broader and more general sense as well.

Americans complain about outcomes and systems, but we don't actively participate in the decision making process, or in the fixing of those systems, because it requires actual work and dedication.

From the Federal level, down the local, it's a real societal problem. We think complaining on the internet equates to actually doing something... It doesn't.

The devil you say...!

 

[Shad]

The diversity of nature & of human thought means that one
person's "natural rights" aren't always the same as another's

This only demonstrates it is a natural right otherwise there would be no diversity of thought.

But culture is where consensus on which ones become recognized rights.

The basis can vary thus this is generalization which ignore why there is consensus in a culture. In a society with multiple cultures the consensus of individual cultures is largely ignored. Culture A could use God. Culture B doesn't.

The variation in which are rights & which aren't points to great subjectivity.

Natural rights are few in number compared to the various systems outside of the idea. These are not as subjective as the majority of rights which exist today. We would need to look at specific rights and the basis for each in order to figure out if the right is subjective. Disagreement over rights and basis does not mean a majority are subjective by default.

 

[Shad]

What constitutes freedom and rights does vary
from place to place.

Yes. I never said otherwise. This does not really acknowledge the basis for these differences.

Americans think they are so free, tho well bound
with regulations and such constraints as, say,
pc requires.

I agree. The rhetoric of patriotism often blinds one to this reality of freedom of predetermined options.

Not to get into details, but other countries allow
far more freedom to do as you please.

In specific cases sure. People can say things in America they can not in Canada. Specific people can says certain thing freely while others would be arrested like in the UK. It cuts both ways. However America uses a divine clause as per the DOI so it has a basis which may not be shared by other nations.

 

[suncowiam]

Bible dont need no stinkin' amendments, it is there
for any divinely inspirated interpreter to read as it
suits him.

The Bible did have a second revision.

Now, it just needs to move on to its third revision.

But since you and @Revoltingest brought this up, I think it's a good point to consider.

I actually think of the constitution and the Bible to be very similar. They are both created by men to guide men. The main flaws of each is that they do not account for the growth of each generation in terms of knowledge through science and technology.

The fundamental flaws of writings especially from generations ago is that the context has changed dramatically, and each new generation has to again translate or transpose it to the current context. This is why we have countless debates as to the meaning of the Bible and the constitution.

I'm just saying, we just need it to be better written and absolutely clear on its intent. I simply don't see it as good positive thing when our highest appointed judges in the legal system are passing laws based on 5-4 votes. This leaves doubt.

 

[Revoltingest]

This only demonstrates it is a natural right otherwise there would be no diversity of thought.

I don't see how that follows.
What I see is that "natural" doesn't really define rights.

The basis can vary thus this is generalization which ignore why there is consensus in a culture. In a society with multiple cultures the consensus of individual cultures is largely ignored. Culture A could use God. Culture B doesn't.
Natural rights are few in number compared to the various systems outside of the idea. These are not as subjective as the majority of rights which exist today. We would need to look at specific rights and the basis for each in order to figure out if the right is subjective. Disagreement over rights and basis does not mean a majority are subjective by default.

What objective basis is there for determining a right?