• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which Ammedment Is The Most Important?

Z

zxc

Which of all the Constitutional Amendments do you find the most important of them all? Why is more important than all the others?

If you have something more to elaborate, list the most important amendments in order of importance and explain the reason for that order.


This subject of this thread is about your answer or anyone's answer, not necessarily just my answer to the thread question.

The Second Amendment is the most important, because without out it there is no way to defend the others.

The First Amendment is the second most important, because without it the best ideas could be threatened.

The third most important is the 4th Amendment, because it protects an environment we all need to compete with one another and without it a nation's security and innovation is at threat. The lawyer needs it with his client, businessman needs it with his proprietary conversations, the scientist and engineer need it in their development lab and the artist needs it in their study. Without privacy, our hardware and software are inferior, romantic conversations loose their intimacy, the list is endless. Privacy is not just high minded ideal, it's a scientific proof of protection for our business and economic security.
 
Which is the most important spoke in a wheel?
 
The sixteenth amendment because it is the only thing keeping this country out of complete corporate feudalism.
 
Which of all the Constitutional Amendments do you find the most important of them all? Why is more important than all the others?

All other amendments rest upon the first. Without the capacity for free speech, ideas and information can be controlled. Once you control the flow of information, you can control everything else.

"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master." - Commissioner Pravin Lal
 
All other amendments rest upon the first. Without the capacity for free speech, ideas and information can be controlled. Once you control the flow of information, you can control everything else.

"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master." - Commissioner Pravin Lal

Completely agree.
 
The first. It is the one that protects people from consequences for criticizing their government.
 
All other amendments rest upon the first. Without the capacity for free speech, ideas and information can be controlled. Once you control the flow of information, you can control everything else.

"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master." - Commissioner Pravin Lal

Exactly right
 
Which of all the Constitutional Amendments do you find the most important of them all? Why is more important than all the others?

If you have something more to elaborate, list the most important amendments in order of importance and explain the reason for that order.


This subject of this thread is about your answer or anyone's answer, not necessarily just my answer to the thread question.

The Second Amendment is the most important, because without out it there is no way to defend the others.

The First Amendment is the second most important, because without it the best ideas could be threatened.

The third most important is the 4th Amendment, because it protects an environment we all need to compete with one another and without it a nation's security and innovation is at threat. The lawyer needs it with his client, businessman needs it with his proprietary conversations, the scientist and engineer need it in their development lab and the artist needs it in their study. Without privacy, our hardware and software are inferior, romantic conversations loose their intimacy, the list is endless. Privacy is not just high minded ideal, it's a scientific proof of protection for our business and economic security.

They all go hand in hand I think.
 
The sixteenth amendment because it is the only thing keeping this country out of complete corporate feudalism.

You mean the amendment that destroyed the concept of equality under the law?
 
All other amendments rest upon the first. Without the capacity for free speech, ideas and information can be controlled. Once you control the flow of information, you can control everything else.

"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master." - Commissioner Pravin Lal
And the first rests on the second because you can speak freely without defense from tyranny just ask china.
 
It depends on which party is in power. During the prior administration, President Bush wanted to engage in warrantless wiretaps of known terrorists and we were called a police state.
Those same voices are somewhat dulled during the current NSA scandal.

But the answer is the criminally ignored 10th because the federal government is now too large and unresponsive to the individual. The states need more individual decision making.
 
All BOR protections are interdependent upon each other. To defend all rights requires the first, to defend the first requires the ability to do so, if only one side has the monopoly on force they can shut anyone up, to defend both requires courts of law should one side "deem" certain speech damaging. All of these are supposed to be protected by tenth amendment government seperations of power among federal and state governments. IOW, any one of those cogs removed makes the process of retaining rights more difficult. No one is more important than the other. Up to about the fourteenth amendment there is no seperation of importance.
 
It depends on which party is in power. During the prior administration, President Bush wanted to engage in warrantless wiretaps of known terrorists and we were called a police state.
Those same voices are somewhat dulled during the current NSA scandal.

But the answer is the criminally ignored 10th because the federal government is now too large and unresponsive to the individual. The states need more individual decision making.
Both parties tend to crap on most amendments dependent upon which rights they find unimportant. Privacy is no more important to Democrats then Republicans, they just have different areas of people's lives that they want to stick their noses into.
 
And the first rests on the second because you can speak freely without defense from tyranny just ask china.

Incorrect. Without the free flow of information, the right to bear arms becomes irrelevant because what people think and believe becomes controlled by those who control the information. The right to bear arms only matters when you have differences of beliefs. Once information is controlled, what you believe can be bent to what those in power want and in time, your beliefs resemble what they want you to believe.

Again, this quote comes to mind:

"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master." - Commissioner Pravin Lal

Violence is just a method. Information is real power.
 
Which is the most important spoke in a wheel?
Touche.

Though I have to say the 2nd - never forgetting what it takes to actually secure our liberty and keep it secure.
 
All other amendments rest upon the first. Without the capacity for free speech, ideas and information can be controlled. Once you control the flow of information, you can control everything else.

"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master." - Commissioner Pravin Lal
Without the Second, all others would fall in no time.
Its the part of the BoR with teeth.
 
Incorrect. The right to bear arms only matters when you have differences of beliefs.

How how many differences of beliefs are there in this country.
Without the 2A it would be a free for all.
An armed society is a more polite society.
 
The first ten amendments are far and away the most important. We ignore them at our peril.

After that, I'd have to say the nineteenth. Half of the nation would be disenfranchised without it.
 
Without the Second, all others would fall in no time.
Its the part of the BoR with teeth.

Haha. Silly, you think that small arms will stop the mightiest war machine the world has ever seen? It always amazes me how 2nd amendment zealots don't understand the same military many of them champion. Furthermore, I find it hilarious how ignorant many of them are about how militaries in the past have dealt with dissent. The Russians wouldn't even shoot their own civilian population during the attempted coup on Yeltsin.

If you have to fight for your rights with violence, you've already lost those rights.

Violence again is just a method. The real power is in information. Why do you think in every single instance of revolt in the past 10 years against a government, that government cuts all information access to the affected regions? Syria cut the internet ENTIRELY. Egypt cut telecoms. Libya cut telecoms. China routinely cuts information access in areas experiencing revolt. Why do you think that in COIN operations, we try to cut off all communication between militant groups? Without information and the free flow of ideas, groups crumble even when they are armed.

How how many differences of beliefs are there in this country.
Without the 2A it would be a free for all.
An armed society is a more polite society.

What is the point of a polite society when everyone is controlled by the government?
 
Haha. Silly, you think that small arms will stop the mightiest war machine the world has ever seen? It always amazes me how 2nd amendment zealots don't understand the same military many of them champion. Furthermore, I find it hilarious how ignorant many of them are about how militaries in the past have dealt with dissent. The Russians wouldn't even shoot their own civilian population during the attempted coup on Yeltsin.

If you have to fight for your rights with violence, you've already lost those rights.

Violence again is just a method. The real power is in information. Why do you think in every single instance of revolt in the past 10 years against a government, that government cuts all information access to the affected regions? Syria cut the internet ENTIRELY. Egypt cut telecoms. Libya cut telecoms. China routinely cuts information access in areas experiencing revolt. Why do you think that in COIN operations, we try to cut off all communication between militant groups? Without information and the free flow of ideas, groups crumble even when they are armed.



What is the point of a polite society when everyone is controlled by the government?
How are those small arms doing in Afghanistan?
Pretty well. Again.
Clearly we were the most powerful military in the world during Viet Nam.
How did that work out?
Russia had the strongest army in their region of the world second, hopefully to ours, and lost how many republics?
The US military being deployed here at home? OK, Iam down.
Bring it.
 
How are those small arms doing in Afghanistan?
Pretty well. Again.

IEDs are way more of a concern. Also, the problem in Afghanistan is that the military and police are too stretched and too under trained to cover the area they need to cover. Also, the major attacks in Kabul were started with heavy weapons. Major explosives, RPGs, that kind of stuff. The small arms stuff the guards do deal with quickly. It's the RPG salvos and massive truck bombs that are the problem.

Clearly we were the most powerful military in the world during Viet Nam.
How did that work out?

That's questionable. 1970s still have a very powerful Soviet military. Second, every conventional fight we fought we won. What killed Vietnam was our epic failure to actually do COIN. We lost Vietnam because we decided to cut our losses after Westmoreland totally screwed the pooch on turning the rural communities pro-South Vietnam and US. The Marines were doing good COIN operations until Stupid For Brains Westmoreland halted their operations and decided to burn villages to save them. Also, we totally fracked up the Briggs plan that worked for the British in Malaya. Small arms didn't win Vietnam. We screwed that conflict up on so many levels that had nothing to do with actual fighting.

Russia had the strongest army in their region of the world second, hopefully to ours, and lost how many republics?

You do realize you are going more and more off topic? The Soviet Union had its own internal rot problems unrelated to its military. It was only a matter of time before the balance of payments alone caused the collapse. The drop in oil prices that preceded the collapse was a major culprit in the fall of the Soviet Union. The USSR was importing wheat from us despite having the Ukraine as its bread basket. They couldn't afford to buy things like fertilizer. Also, coup against Yeltsin was after the fall of the Soviets. Russian soldiers refused to shoot protesting Russian civilians. A military that has a history of commissars executing soldiers on the field for refusing orders couldn't even shoot protestors. The idea that the US military which is way more diverse than the conscripts of the Russian military at the time could do what they couldn't? Ludicrous.

Again, in America, if you gotta resort to violence to fight for your rights, you've already lost them.

The US military being deployed here at home? OK, Iam down.
Bring it.

You do realize that we have laws against just that? The national guard can be deployed internally, but the army itself is extremely restricted from being deployed within the confines of the country.

Nothing you posted has any relevance to my point.

The first amendment is way more important than the second.
 
IEDs are way more of a concern. Also, the problem in Afghanistan is that the military and police are too stretched and too under trained to cover the area they need to cover. Also, the major attacks in Kabul were started with heavy weapons. Major explosives, RPGs, that kind of stuff. The small arms stuff the guards do deal with quickly. It's the RPG salvos and massive truck bombs that are the problem.



That's questionable. 1970s still have a very powerful Soviet military. Second, every conventional fight we fought we won. What killed Vietnam was our epic failure to actually do COIN. We lost Vietnam because we decided to cut our losses after Westmoreland totally screwed the pooch on turning the rural communities pro-South Vietnam and US. The Marines were doing good COIN operations until Stupid For Brains Westmoreland halted their operations and decided to burn villages to save them. Also, we totally fracked up the Briggs plan that worked for the British in Malaya. Small arms didn't win Vietnam. We screwed that conflict up on so many levels that had nothing to do with actual fighting.



You do realize you are going more and more off topic? The Soviet Union had its own internal rot problems unrelated to its military. It was only a matter of time before the balance of payments alone caused the collapse. The drop in oil prices that preceded the collapse was a major culprit in the fall of the Soviet Union. The USSR was importing wheat from us despite having the Ukraine as its bread basket. They couldn't afford to buy things like fertilizer. Also, coup against Yeltsin was after the fall of the Soviets. Russian soldiers refused to shoot protesting Russian civilians. A military that has a history of commissars executing soldiers on the field for refusing orders couldn't even shoot protestors. The idea that the US military which is way more diverse than the conscripts of the Russian military at the time could do what they couldn't? Ludicrous.

Again, in America, if you gotta resort to violence to fight for your rights, you've already lost them.



You do realize that we have laws against just that? The national guard can be deployed internally, but the army itself is extremely restricted from being deployed within the confines of the country.

Nothing you posted has any relevance to my point.

The first amendment is way more important than the second.
It is relevant. Small arms have pushed back and nearly defeated a larger more powerful force many times in history. Ours included.
Remember that Revolution we had? Beat back the British, twice.
Even the South was not soundly defeated in the civil war.
And its more than just guns that can be brought to bear against the US military, its also thousands of vets that will bring years if not decades of experience with them on top of defectors that will not fire on their countrymen.
 
Back
Top Bottom