The Constitution was written 234 years ago. There is no reason it cannot be modified to meet the demands of today.

[Razoo]

the only thing that I would absolutely change in the constitution is adding the unqualified right to vote for all citizens over the age of 18. Yes, that includes people formerly convicted of crimes.

There is a movement to allow young people at the age of 16 the right to vote.

That's why it has an amendment process.
But why would you want the Constitution to add more restricts to you and your ilk?

That was in response to the notion "it is against the constitution" as if the Constitution cannot be modified/amended to which I disagree.

 

[ClaraD]

...what do you think a constitutional amendment...is?

yes, it is a modification. What you are advocating is essentially throwing out the constitution and starting over, because it is old. That is nonsense.

 

[Razoo]

yes, it is a modification. What you are advocating is essentially throwing out the constitution and starting over, because it is old. That is nonsense.

There was no implication of such. Modifying and throwing out the constitution are two very different animals.

In my brain not many things are written in stone.

 

[Deuce]

yes, it is a modification. What you are advocating is essentially throwing out the constitution and starting over, because it is old. That is nonsense.

Where did I advocate that? Where did anybody advocate that?

 

[Firebrand]

porn, as much as it may bother some folks, is free speech. It isn't your right to dictate to others what their sex lives are. As long as both are consenting adults, mind your own business.

It hasn't been "free speech" until the radical movements of the 1960s, and we can easily remove such definitions, as well as enforce our existing obscenity laws a bit stricter.

(This wouldn't just cover what's currently defined as "porn", but also mass media content which is considered more or less to be entirely purulent, such as sexually explicit TV shows, music, films, and so forth).

 

[CLAX1911]

Right, a lot more than in the Crusades, Inquisitions, 9/11 attacks, and so forth.

The crusades were defensive against Islamic invasions into Europe, Europe fought 14 crusades in limited geographic locations and Islam fight 600 from China to Spain, down to Africa.

Islam's onslaught was the cause of the European dark ages.

So at least the crusades had a purpose. Communist extermination was largely over decent. It's happing right now because of decent. Nothing in this planet is as misanthropic as socialism/communism.

These people must be resisted at all costs.

 

[Craig234]

porn, as much as it may bother some folks, is free speech. It isn't your right to dictate to others what their sex lives are. As long as both are consenting adults, mind your own business.

Let's say that using some combination of drawing and/or photoshopping, someone creates explicit child pornography; how does that fit into "free speech"? It has great public opposition, but isn't that exactly the description of the speech the right is supposed to protect? This is how it's ultimately a political issue, picking judges who will find the 'right' meaning to the two words, "free speech".

 

[Firebrand]

wrong. The white folks that sailed over here did so, because they were being discriminated against based on their religious belief. It is nonsense to try to institute a theocracy and force people to believe what you do. If you want a theocracy, you should move to Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan.

If their beliefs were genuinely false, then who cares? The onus should've been on them to convert to the true faith, rather than force us to tolerate their erroneousness for the pretense of "diversity or equality".

Atheism is genuinely false, and there's no moral, intellectual, or aesthetic redeeming value in it at all, so any nation which bans and criminalizes atheism, Christian, Muslim, Hindu or otherwise is at least doing something right.

 

[Craig234]

It hasn't been "free speech" until the radical movements of the 1960s, and we can easily remove such definitions, as well as enforce our existing obscenity laws a bit stricter.

(This wouldn't just cover what's currently defined as "porn", but also mass media content which is considered more or less to be entirely purulent, such as sexually explicit TV shows, music, films, and so forth).

The Taliban view 'glamour' images and uncovered women in public the way you view porn.

Who's to say they aren't right, and the government shouldn't be able to pass Taliban laws banning all 'sexy' or 'attractive' pictures of women, and require women to wear burkhas the way they're required to cover some areas now, like the Taliban has in Afghanistan? What makes your definition of how pornography is defined by "free speech" correct?

 

[CLAX1911]

porn, as much as it may bother some folks, is free speech. It isn't your right to dictate to others what their sex lives are. As long as both are consenting adults, mind your own business.

No not at all if people want to **** up their lives with too much pornography, alcohol or cigarettes be my guest. I'd be okay we legalization of drugs so we don't have to pay the prosecute people who want to **** up their lives with that.

But I do think we should teach people the dangerous about addictions and obsessions that doesn't violate free speech.

You can still be a degenerate a drunk or whatever you want just as long as you know what you're getting yourself into

 

[Bum]

Well, since the 1st Amendment sadly gives the worst people in America (e.x. Hillary supporters, Rittenhouse protestors, and the like) a platform to espouse their bile), I'd say that's a good reason to see about Amending it. It would help homogenize the state and eliminate the type of dissent and repugnance that the radical left has made a name for itself out of.

For example, people who use terms like "Nazi", "fascist" in ironic ways which don't refer to the literal thing (but are just far-left rhetoric that means "anyone to the right of Saul Alinsky") could be immediately profiled by the state and put on governmental terrorism watchlists - just as how other types of speech associated with subversion, treason, or other problematic notions could pave the way for new types of criminal charges, rather than be "pwotecwed fwees peach" as they sadly currently are.

It also gives a platform to the best; the First Amendment has to flow both ways......though I can see why some would wish to amend or repeal freedom of speech; once you have weaponized free speech, you can use the law to attack anyone with a differing view, or ideas you do not like ( Think of all those folks that hate the Second Amendment), you can label anyone with beliefs that differ from yours as "hate speech, terroristic speech, or disinformation" and put them in jail of block their access to any platform to speak out.
All very efficient I suppose.....you criminalize all speech you disagree with and either block it or incarcerate the speakers.
Apparently its quite effective....its working in China.

 

[ClaraD]

No not at all if people want to **** up their lives with too much pornography, alcohol or cigarettes be my guest. I'd be okay we legalization of drugs so we don't have to pay the prosecute people who want to **** up their lives with that.

But I do think we should teach people the dangerous about addictions and obsessions that doesn't violate free speech.

You can still be a degenerate a drunk or whatever you want just as long as you know what you're getting yourself into

I have no problem with rehabilitation programs. I am all for them. I was commenting on the attitude of the poster that we should become a theocracy and autocracy.

 

[ClaraD]

If their beliefs were genuinely false, then who cares? The onus should've been on them to convert to the true faith, rather than force us to tolerate their erroneousness for the pretense of "diversity or equality".

Atheism is genuinely false, and there's no moral, intellectual, or aesthetic redeeming value in it at all, so any nation which bans and criminalizes atheism, Christian, Muslim, Hindu or otherwise is at least doing something right.

the true faith? Good lord, what tf do you think the true faith is? I am not an atheist btw.

 

[CLAX1911]

I have no problem with rehabilitation programs. I am all for them. I was commenting on the attitude of the poster that we should become a theocracy and autocracy.

I was speaking more about something being implemented so that we don't need rehab. It is something we could do we could teach in schools the difference between moderation and obsession and addiction. But we don't do that because we need people addicted to various things.

The most damaging one that we could repair in a generation was very little effort is addiction to debt.

I'm against any type of autocracy. Whether it's socialistic or theocratic or anything else. The antidote to that is meritocracy. Most people don't like that because you're not just given things you have to work and earn them on merit.

So any autocratic system is horrendous equally to a theocratic one.

 

[Deuce]

the true faith? Good lord, what tf do you think the true faith is? I am not an atheist btw.

It's best to stop operating on the pretense that a troll's posts are earnest.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

The Constitution was written 234 years ago. There is no reason it cannot be modified to meet the demands
of today.

Today we have anti americans working to take over the USA.

234 years ago this matter was not on the table.

Our Constitution is arguably the most brilliant guide on how to create and maintain a representative democracy in the history of the world.

From the beginning of it’s construction, the ability to adapt to inevitable, necessary changes that would allow for the continued growth and success of our country was understood. A living document in the truest sense.

It isn’t dumb luck that 233 years following it’s ratification, our Constitutional republic is the world’s oldest, continuous representative democracy.

Amendments repealed or added as needed? Sure. “Modify” the Constitution, itself? Never.

 

[CLAX1911]

The Constitution can be changed and modified. the framers gave us a way to do so. It's called the amendment process. The Constitution has been modified and or changed 26 times since its inception.

Actually it was only 16 times. The first 10 amendments were included in the first iteration. There was quite a bit of argument among the constitutional Congress of whether or not there should be a Bill of Rights listed in it. But in the end the yeas went out on that. They are amendments but they were ratified at the same time the Constitution was ratified as well.

After the implementation of it we had changed it more as recently as 1992

 

[CLAX1911]

Our Constitution is arguably the most brilliant guide on how to create and maintain a representative democracy in the history of the world.

From the beginning of it’s construction, the ability to adapt to inevitable, necessary changes that would allow for the continued growth and success of our country was understood. A living document in the truest sense.

It isn’t dumb luck that 233 years following it’s ratification, our Constitutional republic is the world’s oldest, continuous representative democracy.

Amendments repealed or added as needed? Sure. “Modify” the Constitution, itself? Never.

I think what he's complaining about is that a simple majority can't change it. He's upset that this isn't a dictatorship.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

...what do you think a constitutional amendment...is?

An amendment is a modification. Not the type of wholesale change that OP’s opening post implied though.

The Constitution was written 234 years ago. There is no reason it cannot be modified to meet the demands of today.

Today we have anti americans working to take over the USA.

234 years ago this matter was not on the table.

 

[CLAX1911]

It's best to stop operating on the pretense that a troll's posts are earnest.

Good point. And there is no need to further interact because that poster can no longer respond.

 

[craig]

Good point. And there is no need to further interact because that poster can no longer respond.

Did he die?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I think what he's complaining about is that a simple majority can't change it. He's upset that this isn't a dictatorship.

Naïve, wishful thinking on OP’s part.

 

[CLAX1911]

Did he die?

I don't really know how much I can say. Right next to his profile on his Avatar it says banned and suspended.

 

[CLAX1911]

Naïve, wishful thinking on OP’s part.

No I'm not sure I would go that far. It was set up so that a simple majority couldn't turn this into Nazi Germany like they did in Nazi Germany. The founding fathers knew this could happen so that's why they created the amendment process.

The denial of such a thing being able to happen, probably was what people were saying in the Weimar Republic or the Soviet Union before it was the Soviet Union, or Cambodia before chairman Mao.

Governments that have more power tends to wield it. Where it can be frustrating low and ineffective and broken the government seems at times that way on purpose. And it's not too oppress others by having a less oppressive government it's the opposite of that.

So I can understand people that want this and there are times I wish it was more efficient but it's the way it is so that we may stay free.

 

[danielpalos]

The Constitution was written 234 years ago. There is no reason it cannot be modified to meet the demands
of today.

Today we have anti americans working to take over the USA.

234 years ago this matter was not on the table.

This is what we are supposed to be doing with our Constitutional form of federal Government:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.