Should It Be So Difficult To Amend The Constitution?

[Revoltingest]

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.

The Constitution was designed to be changed, with the procedure spelled out.

 

[suncowiam]

The Constitution was designed to be changed, with the procedure spelled out.

Fair enough.

 

[joe1776]

The Constitution was designed to be changed, with the procedure spelled out.

Given the constitutional requirements how many centuries do you think it will take to upgrade the criminal justice system which has never worked effectively and never will except to create jobs for lawyers?

 

[Revoltingest]

How many centuries do you think it will take to upgrade the criminal justice system which has never worked effectively and never will except to create jobs for lawyers?

I've no idea.

 

[joe1776]

I've no idea.

You do realize that there's a problem. Don't you?

Would you agree that the primary purpose of a criminal justice system should be to protect innocent citizens from serious harm?

Would you also agree that the best decision-making system is the one which most consistently makes the correct decisions?

Well, that's never been the goal of the U.S. Criminal Justice System which is built on Blackstone's formulation, the principle that: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." That goal makes it difficult to convict the guilty as well as the innocent.

The Blackstone mistake creates these unintended, negative consequences for the USA's criminal justice system:

-- The difficulty in getting convictions for the guilty undermines a justice system's goal which should be to protect innocent citizens from serious harm;

-- when the law fails to convict people who threaten their lives, citizens are persuaded to take the law into their own hands;

-- police and prosecutors feel justified in cheating to get convictions against those they think are guilty;

-- career criminals become adept at taking advantage of the many rules that work in their favor;

-- by threatening severe punishment, prosecutors feel justified in coercing guilty pleas from those accused even when they are innocent; it is called "plea bargaining." Innocent people plead guilty because they can't trust the system to find them not guilty. So, a system that begins with trying to prevent innocent people from being convicted convicts more innocent people and fails to protect the public as well.

There are other major problems with it. The system was poorly designed. It never worked and never will.

Given the Constitutional restrictions, I wonder what lawyers would be willing and able to make a change in the criminal justice system their life's work?

 

[Ponder This]

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.

Most Amusing.

So if you had the opportunity to vote on whether or not to repeal Free Speech from the First Amendment and people were generally saying, "yes repeal it, free speech is not a right", would you:
A. Vote to repeal, because people generally agree it's not a right. Welcome to the Sheeple!
B. Vote to keep Free Speech, because it is a right regardless of what people generally agree.
C. Vote to repeal, not because people generally agree it's not a right, but rather because ... it simply is not a right.
D. None of the Above. You have some other basis upon which to decide such matters as to what ought or ought not be in the Constitution besides what is a 'right'... Such as... some guy in a Church telling you what the Divine Creator wants. Welcome back to the fold of the Sheeple!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I answered the poll before reading the OP. Just right is still good. But it is disgusting that you can't get unbiased news today. Or should I say difficult.

the us
Getting "unbiased news" would seem to require that it be written by other than human beings. I've never met one, including myself, whose mental processes are not influenced by deeply-held and sometimes incorrect opinions and beliefs. Welcome to the world of humans.

But if you really are interested in "unbiased news," perhaps you should make a real effort to read more broadly. When somebody presents news, along with what they may claim to be evidence for their news, look for the rebuttals...they'll be around, believe me. And read those, too, once again paying attention to the evidence presented in rebuttal. You may be surprised how often you discover that the "evidence" presented by one side tearing down the argument of the other comes to not much more than usual litany of ad hominems, innuendo, appeal to authority, and all the other logical fallacies.

Please note, I did not specify "which side" is likely to use fallacious arguments...I am perfectly well aware that they all do. As a result, I read 3 newspapers daily, one very conservative, one very liberal, and one in between. I do so with my own prejudices, of course, since I cannot really help that, but at the very least I try to do what I said above...read the news AND THE EVIDENCE presented to defend that news.

 

[Milton Platt]

I voted "just right".

I voted easier. But the devil is in the details. I don't know how much easier, in fact it's been way to long since my last Civics class and I don't even remember the details of the process.

 

[Kenny]

the us
Getting "unbiased news" would seem to require that it be written by other than human beings. I've never met one, including myself, whose mental processes are not influenced by deeply-held and sometimes incorrect opinions and beliefs. Welcome to the world of humans.

But if you really are interested in "unbiased news," perhaps you should make a real effort to read more broadly. When somebody presents news, along with what they may claim to be evidence for their news, look for the rebuttals...they'll be around, believe me. And read those, too, once again paying attention to the evidence presented in rebuttal. You may be surprised how often you discover that the "evidence" presented by one side tearing down the argument of the other comes to not much more than usual litany of ad hominems, innuendo, appeal to authority, and all the other logical fallacies.

Please note, I did not specify "which side" is likely to use fallacious arguments...I am perfectly well aware that they all do. As a result, I read 3 newspapers daily, one very conservative, one very liberal, and one in between. I do so with my own prejudices, of course, since I cannot really help that, but at the very least I try to do what I said above...read the news AND THE EVIDENCE presented to defend that news.

Then we are of the same mind

 

[Shad]

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

Natural isn't the method used to determine those rights. It is called natural as humans have these rights independent of existing systems. I have freedom of thought. It does not depend on government, consensus nor religion.

What objective basis is there for determining a right?

Observation and evaluation of basic human tenancies found regardless of culture, consensus or religion. See my freedom of though example above.

 

[Revoltingest]

You do realize that there's a problem. Don't you?

You're quite new, so you aren't yet aware that I carp about problems all the time....no single problem.
I even advocate for solutions.

Would you agree that the primary purpose of a criminal justice system should be to protect innocent citizens from serious harm?

I wouldn't phrase it that way, but I agree.

Would you also agree that the best decision-making system is the one which most consistently makes the correct decisions?

Sure.

Well, that's never been the goal of the U.S. Criminal Justice System which is built on Blackstone's formulation, the principle that: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." That goal makes it difficult to convict the guilty as well as the innocent.

It's better than the top cop's philosophy on The Simpsons....
I’d rather let a thousand guilty men go free than chase after them. -Chief Wiggum

The Blackstone mistake creates these unintended, negative consequences for the USA's criminal justice system:

The Blackstone approach is not taken literally.
But there are also negative consequences for mistakenly imprisoning
more innocent people in pursuit of imprisoning more guilty ones.
I like the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy. Where government
doesn't use that, eg, the IRS, civil forfeiture, abuse of citizens is rampant.

-- The difficulty in getting convictions for the guilty undermines a justice system's goal which should be to protect innocent citizens from serious harm;

-- when the law fails to convict people who threaten their lives, citizens are persuaded to take the law into their own hands;

-- police and prosecutors feel justified in cheating to get convictions against those they think are guilty;

Corrupt prosecutors, lawyers, & judges should be found, prosecuted, & severely punished.
But we've a problem where the foxes are in charge of the hen house.

-- career criminals become adept at taking advantage of the many rules that work in their favor;

-- by threatening severe punishment, prosecutors feel justified in coercing guilty pleas from those accused even when they are innocent; it is called "plea bargaining." Innocent people plead guilty because they can't trust the system to find them not guilty. So, a system that begins with trying to prevent innocent people from being convicted convicts more innocent people and fails to protect the public as well.

There are other major problems with it. The system was poorly designed. It never worked and never will.

Given the Constitutional restrictions, I wonder what lawyers would be willing and able to make a change in the criminal justice system their life's work?

I don't trust government with more power than they already have.

 

[Revoltingest]

Most Amusing.

So if you had the opportunity to vote on whether or not to repeal Free Speech from the First Amendment and people were generally saying, "yes repeal it, free speech is not a right", would you:
A. Vote to repeal, because people generally agree it's not a right. Welcome to the Sheeple!
B. Vote to keep Free Speech, because it is a right regardless of what people generally agree.
C. Vote to repeal, not because people generally agree it's not a right, but rather because ... it simply is not a right.
D. None of the Above. You have some other basis upon which to decide such matters as to what ought or ought not be in the Constitution besides what is a 'right'... Such as... some guy in a Church telling you what the Divine Creator wants. Welcome back to the fold of the Sheeple!

I'd vote to keep free speech simply because I favor that right.
But whatever consensus is reached, that will become law, my opinion notwithstanding.

 

[Revoltingest]

Observation and evaluation of basic human tenancies found regardless of culture, consensus or religion. See my freedom of though example above.

What basic tendencies are found in all cultures?

 

[Shad]

What basic tendencies are found in all cultures?

I said regardless of culture. At an individual level we all have freedom of thought.

 

[Revoltingest]

I said regardless of culture. At an individual level we all have freedom of thought.

What basic tendencies occur regardless of culture?

 

[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.

This easily can lead to tyranny of the majority.

 

[Revoltingest]

This easily can lead to tyranny of the majority.

It could.
Which is why a Constitution with a lengthy &
difficult process of amendment serves us well.

 

[Shad]

What basic tendencies occur regardless of culture?

Freedom of thought, expression and speech. These can only be suppressed. None require a government to create.

 

[Revoltingest]

Freedom of thought, expression and speech. These can only be suppressed. None require a government to create.

But these are not universally recognized as rights.
Consider Islamic & socialist countries.

 

[Shad]

But these are not universally recognized as rights.

Acceptance nor recognition are required.

Consider Islamic & socialist countries.

These are just competing systems. The Islamic one uses a divine clause. Socialist nations make it up as they go along.