[W:87]A new Constitution.

[Bum]

Yes, you got me. But I dealt with the very real spectre gun violence in my part of the city. I don't have statistics on race and economic conditions of legal gun ownership but I'm quite sure it would turn out that most supporters of NRA in those who hunt or shoot for sport are white people who live in a stable neighborhoods and stable areas of their cities or rural and small urban areas. Besides the occasional mass shooting that doesn't happen in their neighborhood. Well it's all just a case of somebody else is suffering.

I wouldn't know; I'm not an NRA supporter.
I am, however, a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment.

 

[post]

What about redrafting the Constitution that's relevant for 2022 and not 1776. That takes into consideration the State of affairs of 2022 as opposed to 1776. The Constitution was written with the intention that our nation was to be governed by wealthy English descended landowners. A constitution which largely revolves around the fears of a monarchy which is something that I can comfortably say I'm not worried about anymore. What I am worried about is being shot when I go to the gas station.

Move to a different area, maybe one where RWE passed law revisions eliminating permit requirements for concealed carry.

Trump and members of his cultist party recently attempt to install him permanently, attempting nullification of certified election results.
74 million voted for Trump despite his "shortcomings".

The last thing we need is any of them participating in drafting your proposed, "new" constitution. The present one is a living document, originalist propaganda and revisionism, aside. RWE refused to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. They do not practice or support compromise. Their reaction to "winning" the white house in 2000 and in 2016, despite losing the popular vote, was to demonstrate their "commitment to unity," by supporting the corrupt Leonard Leo's effort for those two RWE POTUS to nominate for SCOTUS seats, Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. All five just happen to be RWE white Roman Catholics.

The rest of us certainly know by now who we are dealing with. The problems with the Constitution would not be addressed by discarding
it and starting anew, but by removing the money of the wealthiest political donors from our politics and attempting to teach the average
voter to vote in their own best interests instead of in the best interests of the wealthiest RWE political donors!

Dred Scott Raises Its Ugly Head Again

Justice Clarence Thomas, in his most recent concurring opinion, again raises the issue of whether “substantive due process” should be used in creating constitutionally protected “rights.”

www.yahoo.com

Sol Wachtler, a former chief judge of the New York State Court of Appeals, is a distinguished adjunct professor at Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center.
March 11, 2019
"...
Despite these expressed personal beliefs, Taney felt that he was duty bound to interpret the words of the Constitution, to use Justice Scalia’s words: “As to what those words meant to the people who ratified the Bill of Rights or who ratified the Constitution.” Or, as Justice Taney put it: “(The Founders) spoke and acted according to the then established doctrines and principles, and in the ordinary language of the day, no one misunderstood them. The unhappy black race were separated from the white by indelible marks, and the laws long before established, and were never thought of or spoken of except as property … .”

Taney, then, did exactly what Justice Thomas and the “originalist” five-member majority in our Supreme Court have said should be done: He explored the attitudes, state statutes, literature and history of the time to accurately ascertain “what the public at the time would have understood the words” of the Constitution to mean. In other words, to determine what was the original intent of the founders. He correctly noted that the states that condoned slavery would never have approved of a Constitution which would in any way diminish their right to own slaves. Taney then properly concluded that African-Americans were not among the “people” referred to in the Constitution. The Dred Scott decision was an unmitigated disaster for the country, the Supreme Court, and worst of all, for African Americans. It was proof that a too unbending adherence to strict constructionism can end up destroying or discrediting the very document the strict constructionists would hold inviolate.

Of course, the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments rendered the Dred Scott decision and its unconscionable results a nullity (although Governor Mike Huckabee recently proclaimed it is still good law); however, it should be remembered that it was written by a “strict constructionist” judge —just the kind of judge that Justice Thomas says he is and whom he admires. If Justice Taney and the majority of his colleagues had conferred certain protected rights on members of the black race, he would have done what the New York Court of Appeals did in 1860 in (Lemmon v. People) ruling that slaves brought temporarily into the state from slaveholding states were free. As it was written, however, the Dred Scott decision set the fuse for the Civil War by undoing the hard-fought compromises of 1850 and the Missouri Compromise, which had held the country together."

 

[Faramir777]

@Faramir777

You seem progressive and to have an interesting commenting style. Welcome to DP!

I heard a new-to-me progressive person on Pacifica Radio's UpFront, this morning: Elie Mystal said some great stuff about the Supreme Court and such. I might start a thread, this coming weekend.

You're getting and going to get more bogus pro-gun arguments.

Thanks for the welcome . I'm progressive, but I believe in finding common ground with a person first. We may disagree with each other on guns but we should be grateful we live in a nation that allows us to create our own forums and discuss an issue in the first place. We may disagree on the particulars of our government but we're fellow Americans first and two people disagreeing second.

 

[Faramir777]

About as juvenile as your fake fear of pumping gas

We all have a risk of being shot at a gas station. Haven't you been reading the newspaper for the last 20 years? These mass shootings are happening everywhere in America. Who are you to say my fears are fake?

 

[soylentgreen]

What about redrafting the Constitution that's relevant for 2022 and not 1776. That takes into consideration the State of affairs of 2022 as opposed to 1776. The Constitution was written with the intention that our nation was to be governed by wealthy English descended landowners. A constitution which largely revolves around the fears of a monarchy which is something that I can comfortably say I'm not worried about anymore. What I am worried about is being shot when I go to the gas station.

There are two other countries with a similar problem. England still recognises the magna carta and new zealand still recognises the treaty of waitangi. Both countries instead use an uncodified constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncodified_constitution

An uncodified constitution is a type of constitution where the fundamental rules often take the form of customs, usage, precedent and a variety of statutes and legal instruments.[1] An understanding of the constitution is obtained through reading commentary by the judiciary, government committees or legal experts. In such a constitutional system, all these elements may be (or may not be) recognized by courts, legislators and the bureaucracy as binding upon government and limiting its powers. Such a framework is sometimes imprecisely called an "unwritten constitution"; however, all the elements of an uncodified constitution are typically written down in a variety of official documents, though not codified in a single document.

 

[Crovax]

We all have a risk of being shot at a gas station. Haven't you been reading the newspaper for the last 20 years? These mass shootings are happening everywhere in America. Who are you to say my fears are fake?

Most murders are perpetrated by people the victim knew. If they want to kill you avoiding gas stations won't stop them.

On top of that most other murders are gang related. If you are gassing in gang territory, I already told you fill up somewhere else.

There are also murders in the commission of a crime. Do you work at a gas station?

So yes, your fears of getting shot at a gas station are fake.

 

[American]

What about redrafting the Constitution that's relevant for 2022 and not 1776. That takes into consideration the State of affairs of 2022 as opposed to 1776. The Constitution was written with the intention that our nation was to be governed by wealthy English descended landowners. A constitution which largely revolves around the fears of a monarchy which is something that I can comfortably say I'm not worried about anymore. What I am worried about is being shot when I go to the gas station.

You mean one that supports Marxism?

 

[Rich2018]

You mean one that supports Marxism?

Like you know what Marxism is.

 

[Glitch]

What about redrafting the Constitution that's relevant for 2022 and not 1776. That takes into consideration the State of affairs of 2022 as opposed to 1776. The Constitution was written with the intention that our nation was to be governed by wealthy English descended landowners. A constitution which largely revolves around the fears of a monarchy which is something that I can comfortably say I'm not worried about anymore. What I am worried about is being shot when I go to the gas station.

You might want to actually read the document before you decide to rewrite it. The US Constitution has been updated 27 times since it was ratified June 21, 1789. The last time the US Constitution was updated was in 1992 when the Twenty-Seventh Amendment was ratified.

The US Constitution came into being because the government asserted powers and privileges that they never should have had. Which is why the US Constitution was specifically created to limit the powers of the federal government. If you had read the document you would know this, so it is very obvious that you have never read the US Constitution and you are merely spewing nonsense based entirely on ignorance.

Keep in mind that the US would never have existed had England not tried to illegally seize the privately owned firearms at both Concord and Lexington. That was what started the American Revolution. Apparently leftist filth have not learned that lesson are are seeking way to ban privately owned firearms today. If history is any judge, that will not work out well for them in the end.

 

[Rich2018]

You might want to actually read the document before you decide to rewrite it. The US Constitution has been updated 27 times since it was ratified June 21, 1789. The last time the US Constitution was updated was in 1992 when the Twenty-Seventh Amendment was ratified.

The US Constitution came into being because the government asserted powers and privileges that they never should have had. Which is why the US Constitution was specifically created to limit the powers of the federal government. If you had read the document you would know this, so it is very obvious that you have never read the US Constitution and you are merely spewing nonsense based entirely on ignorance.

Keep in mind that the US would never have existed had England not tried to illegally seize the privately owned firearms at both Concord and Lexington. That was what started the American Revolution. Apparently leftist filth have not learned that lesson are are seeking way to ban privately owned firearms today. If history is any judge, that will not work out well for them in the end.

Well amendments 1-10 were adopted at the same time so just count as one up date really...

But do we really want a constitution of amendments and updates ?

At what point do we look for a new constitution ?

 

[Clothahump]

So we're going to tolerate a 45,000+ a year death rate from gun violence ...

There is no such thing as gun violence. There has never been a single incident of a gun attacking anyone. Blaming guns is like blaming spoons for making you fat.
However, there is human violence. And that is very real and is the true problem that needs to be addressed. But it won't be because it doesn't fit the liberal agenda.

In addition, your 45000 number is bogus.

 

[Gaius46]

So we're going to tolerate a 45,000+ a year death rate from gun violence just in case we need to overthrow a basically benevolent (domestically) government? And insurrection by who for what reason? Are these future guns going to topple a government that would probably just be replaced with something worse? I raise the issue of firearms because it's a glaring flaw in the Constitution. I don't care if people want 50 caliber guns for protection and automatic rifles for "hunting". I don't care if most of the firearms in the country are owned by responsible individuals legally. 45,000 people die a year so gun owners can have a hobby. Ridiculous.

So this isn't about redrafting the Constitution - which frankly will never happen - but about gun control. Why didn't you say so?

Oh and the 2nd can be repealed by the amendment process that's already in place but it'll thankfully never happen. And I say that not as a gun owner, although I am one, but as a person who recognizes that that the first 10 amendments, despite the holes that courts have drilled into them, are and should be sacrosanct in a free nation and the minute you throw one away you risk all of them.

 

[Rich2018]

There is no such thing as gun violence. There has never been a single incident of a gun attacking anyone. Blaming guns is like blaming spoons for making you fat.
However, there is human violence. And that is very real and is the true problem that needs to be addressed. But it won't be because it doesn't fit the liberal agenda.

In addition, your 45000 number is bogus.

"Gun violence" (or gun related violence) is violent crime involving a gun or guns

Surprised you didn't know that.

 

[Gaius46]

I'm fine with eliminating the second amendment. We don't have slaves to capture or native Americans to kill for land anymore, and we have National Guards.

That said, Larry Sabato set out a bunch of proposals to fix the constitution. Here are some that would be good to adopt:

"1. Expand the Senate to 136 members to be more representative: Grant the 10 most populous states 2 additional Senators, the 15 next most populous states 1 additional Senator, and the District of Columbia 1 Senator.
3. Mandate non-partisan redistricting for House elections to enhance electoral competition.
5. Expand the size of the House to approximately 1,000 members (from current 435), so House members can be closer to their constituents, and to level the playing field in House elections
9. Establish a new 6-year, 1-time Presidential term with the option for the President to seek 2 additional years in an up/down referendum of the American people.
12. Allow men and women not born in the U.S. to run for President or Vice President after having been a citizen for 20 years
13. Eliminate lifetime tenure for federal judges in favor of non-renewable 15-year terms for all federal judges
15. Expand the size of the Supreme Court from 9 to 12 to be more representative.
19. Mend the Electoral College by granting more populated states additional electors, to preserve the benefits of the College while minimizing the chances a President will win without a majority of the popular vote.
20. Reform campaign financing by preventing wealthy candidates from financing their campaigns, and by mandating partial public financing for House and Senate campaigns.
21. Adopt an automatic registration system for all qualified American citizens to guarantee their right to vote is not abridged by bureaucratic requirements."

Link

The Senate isn't supposed to be representative of the people. That's the House's job. The Supreme Court isn't supposed to be representative at all.

 

[Captain America]

What about redrafting the Constitution that's relevant for 2022 and not 1776. That takes into consideration the State of affairs of 2022 as opposed to 1776. The Constitution was written with the intention that our nation was to be governed by wealthy English descended landowners. A constitution which largely revolves around the fears of a monarchy which is something that I can comfortably say I'm not worried about anymore. What I am worried about is being shot when I go to the gas station.

I am just responding to say that I totally dig your PF Division Bell avatar.

Obviously, YOU ROCK!

Captain America

 

[MrNiceGuy]

What about redrafting the Constitution that's relevant for 2022 and not 1776. That takes into consideration the State of affairs of 2022 as opposed to 1776. The Constitution was written with the intention that our nation was to be governed by wealthy English descended landowners. A constitution which largely revolves around the fears of a monarchy which is something that I can comfortably say I'm not worried about anymore. What I am worried about is being shot when I go to the gas station.

Make a proposed revised constitution, then. What would you envision the constitution saying now?

 

[MrNiceGuy]

So we're going to tolerate a 45,000+ a year death rate from gun violence just in case we need to overthrow a basically benevolent (domestically) government? And insurrection by who for what reason? Are these future guns going to topple a government that would probably just be replaced with something worse? I raise the issue of firearms because it's a glaring flaw in the Constitution. I don't care if people want 50 caliber guns for protection and automatic rifles for "hunting". I don't care if most of the firearms in the country are owned by responsible individuals legally. 45,000 people die a year so gun owners can have a hobby. Ridiculous.

The 45,000 aren't killed by hobbyists. They're mostly killed by gangs and drug dealing organizations. So, given the "success" of the war on drugs keeping drugs out of the hands of people prohibited from having them, I would ask whether you thought that the government would be able to stop the people doing the killing from getting guns?

 

[Rich2018]

Make a proposed revised constitution, then. What would you envision the constitution saying now?

A hell of a lot more than the current one does.

 

[Clothahump]

"Gun violence" (or gun related violence) is violent crime involving a gun or guns

Surprised you didn't know that.

I know that. My point, if you read my response, is that the term is inaccurate. It puts the blame on the gun, an inanimate object, instead of on the person using the gun.

 

[AZRWinger]

Maybe go to a different gas station

Another option is to move to a state that allows open carry. Armed citizens are far less likely to be victims.

 

[Crovax]

Another option is to move to a state that allows open carry. Armed citizens are far less likely to be victims.

I prefer concealed carry to open carry

 

[Terryj]

The Senate isn't supposed to be representative of the people. That's the House's job. The Supreme Court isn't supposed to be representative at all.

Some people just don't understand this concept, they think that because the Senate is now elected by the people that the Senate represents the people, nothing could be farther from the truth. The Senate is suppose to be the voice of the States in the operation of federal government affairs, this is why the States have equal representation in the form of 2 Senators each regardless of population. The House is the Peoples voice in the operation of the federal government and this is why Representatives are chosen every 2 years and the number of Representatives is based on the States population.

 

[Rich2018]

Another option is to move to a state that allows open carry. Armed citizens are far less likely to be victims.

BS

Armed citizens are more likely to wind up dead.

 

[Somerville]

The Constitution was written to guarantee the rights of the people...not individuals. We dont alter foundations because society has shifted.

More correctly - "The Constitution was written to guarantee the rights of SOME of the people" - white, male property owners.

One of those old guys we call The Founders was one by the name of Thomas Jefferson. He was not a perfect person - slave owner, father of several children with one of his slaves and a few other issues. He did, however, understand that societies change, and documents like the Constitution needed to change or be replaced every 19 years. No idea why he chose 19 instead of 20 but that is what he wrote in a letter one day to James Madison while he was in Paris.

DEAR SIR

I sit down to write to you without knowing by what occasion I shall send my letter. I do it because a subject comes into my head which I would wish to develope a little more than is practicable in the hurry of the moment of making up general dispatches.

The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. . .

my emphasis

On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who[27] gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.—It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.

 

[Somerville]

Another option is to move to a state that allows open carry. Armed citizens are far less likely to be victims.

According to the CDC, your belief does not appear to be supported by the data.