Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignored?

[Beaudreaux]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

In case anyone is interested in what laws were passed by the first Congress and the ones that followed, here's a real cool link:

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

 

[Masterhawk]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

the 1st ammendment is easily the strongest one

 

[SocialD]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

Here's the primary problem with the 10th amendment. A strict interpretation doesn't allow for any evolution of cultural norms or even basic technology. For example, air planes and interstate highways are not mentioned in the Constitution - for obvious reasons (same goes for electricity, internet, etc.) and yet we need at least some level of federal regulation on those topics in order for the United States to maintain a cohesive and competent policy. A strict interpretation of the 10th amendment would dictate that those topics remain in the hands of the States since authority was not granted to the Federal Government through previous amendments - or at least not through strict, textualist interpretations of those previous amendments.

your missing the fact that a new amendment can, and has been quite a few times, created to cover new things when necessary.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

the third amendment can pretty much be ignored since its not relevant anymore. that's about it.

I think it's safe to say that the Third has been moot or irrelevant almost since the beginning. I doubt it has ever been cited by any court decision.

But it does provide insight regarding the popular sentiment against a standing army.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

It is less important than the rest of the Constitution because it is a short sighted and poorly worded amendment that has, thankfully, been degraded by the Supreme Court over the years such that it's only purpose now is to prevent the federal government from forcing the States to enact a federal program.

Might you expand/explain how it is short-sighted and poorly worded?

 

[SocialD]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

I think it's safe to say that the Third has been moot or irrelevant almost since the beginning. I doubt it has ever been cited by any court decision.

But it does provide insight regarding the popular sentiment against a standing army.

it has been in the lower courts a few times. There have been three cases that brought allegations of 3rd amendment violations in the last 50 years or so. 2 of them were thrown out and not even heard. one was heard but deemed not a violation of the 3rd amendment . so yea.

 

[Eric7216]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

Please read what this thread is about, and what it is not about. Thank you.

Don't overshoot your authority. When you post something that others find worthy of comment you will get responses on that, even if that wasn't your prime thread message. Comments that others find contrary should not stand un-opposed.

But, OK. I wonder about 3, 18 and 21 as being of lower importance and 9 and 10 perhaps being of higher importance although not worth getting into why-they are all important.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

I do not think the Constitution is that important; it is just a law, and laws are only the opinions of men with power.

On the other hand, the Constitution protects human rights, and the parts that protect human rights are more important than the other parts.

As far as human rights go, I think some are more important than others. I think the right to freedom of speech is the most important right, followed by the right to keep and bear arms and the right to bodily autonomy and the right to vote. I think the rest of the Constitutional rights fall in afterwards, and then near "rights" like the right to healthcare and education. They are all important, but some of them are more critical than others.

 

[SmartCat]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Ninth Amendment and the Tenth Amendment are ignored and should be.

 

[SmartCat]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

I do not think the Constitution is that important; it is just a law, and laws are only the opinions of men with power.

On the other hand, the Constitution protects human rights, and the parts that protect human rights are more important than the other parts.

As far as human rights go, I think some are more important than others. I think the right to freedom of speech is the most important right, followed by the right to keep and bear arms and the right to bodily autonomy and the right to vote. I think the rest of the Constitutional rights fall in afterwards, and then near "rights" like the right to healthcare and education. They are all important, but some of them are more critical than others.

I do not care about the Second Amendment. Guns are disgusting. People who love guns are disgusting. :mrgreen:

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Ninth Amendment and the Tenth Amendment are ignored and should be.

Are you able to offer a reason you feel that way?

 

[SmartCat]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

Are you able to offer a reason you feel that way?

I want a strong central government. The federalist system is out dated because corporations are national and even international, and because the United States has a mobile population. People move from state to state.

The Tenth Amendment, and perhaps the Ninth Amendment could be used by a reactionary Supreme Court to overturn most of the economic, environmental, and civil rights legislation passed during the twentieth century.

Allowing the states to have economic power allows corporations to play off one state against another for the lowest wages, the lowest taxes, the highest business subsidies, and the most lax environmental and employee safeguards.

 

[QuadpolarNutjob]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

the large cities are economically non-viable slums propped up by taxpayer funded handouts. cut off the welfare, and they all burn in riots, simple as that. small town america/medium sized urban areas, 90% of the country; would scarcely notice if New York, LA, Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, Etc. ceased to exist tomorrow.

my 2 cents; they made their bed, let them sleep in it.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

I want a strong central government. The federalist system is out dated because corporations are national and even international, and because the United States has a mobile population. People move from state to state.

The Tenth Amendment, and perhaps the Ninth Amendment could be used by a reactionary Supreme Court to overturn most of the economic, environmental, and civil rights legislation passed during the twentieth century.

Allowing the states to have economic power allows corporations to play off one state against another for the lowest wages, the lowest taxes, the highest business subsidies, and the most lax environmental and employee safeguards.

Thanks for an honest and civil response. However what you say is not persuasive to me.

Those who wish to trim the Constitution to suit their purposes should be quite happy that our own elected officials have been trimming it pretty severely, through legislation neutering both the Fourth Amendment and Habeas Corpus.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

I do not care about the Second Amendment. Guns are disgusting. People who love guns are disgusting. :mrgreen:

Personally, I find authoritarianism disgusting, and authoritarianism in the name of "liberalism" especially so.

 

[SmartCat]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

Thanks for an honest and civil response. However what you say is not persuasive to me.

Those who wish to trim the Constitution to suit their purposes should be quite happy that our own elected officials have been trimming it pretty severely, through legislation neutering both the Fourth Amendment and Habeas Corpus.

I lack reverence for the United States Constitution. However, as long as the electorate is as polarized as it is, I think it would be unwise to call a Second Constitutional Convention now. Polls indicate that a growing percentage of Americans prefer socialism to capitalism. As soon as that percentage becomes a clear majority I think a Second Constitutional Convention would be a good idea.

 

[Tigerace117]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

I lack reverence for the United States Constitution. However, as long as the electorate is as polarized as it is, I think it would be unwise to call a Second Constitutional Convention now. Polls indicate that a growing percentage of Americans prefer socialism to capitalism. As soon as that percentage becomes a clear majority I think a Second Constitutional Convention would be a good idea.

Why? Why should they call a new one then? Hypothetically, seeing as it's not happening.

 

[apdst]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

I've never done this before - take a post from another member and make a thread from it. I hope this isn't against the rules.

This thread is not to discuss Gun Control, or Muslim Banning, or any political act in and of itself, but rather the implications that one part of the US Constitution is more important or less important than another part, and why you feel that way.

I feel that the issue brought up within another thread, in the post below, is worth in-depth discussion, deep examination, and its own thread:



In that post, he is (correct me if I'm wrong) referring to the proposal to infringe on the 1st Amendment Right of Muslims (as Trump has called for) without the benefit of the protection of Due Process as guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendment, yet protecting the 2nd Amendment Right by one party, while at the same time, the other party is calling for the 1st Amendment Rights Muslims to be respected, while openly arguing to ban certain guns and refuse to allow certain people to buy a gun without the benefit of Due Process under the 5th and 14th Amendment (as Hillary Clinton did today in her speech from Cleveland) in an open attack on 2nd Amendment Rights. For instance, another example is the erosion of 4th Amendment by our government intercepting our emails, and other electronic communications.

So let's talk about this.

Which rights matter to you, and which ones do not? Are there any rights that are more important than others?

Please don't go into the "Your rights end where mine begin" because we all know that although there are limitations such as public accommodations. If you want to have a conversation about public accommodations and how that may impose on your religious beliefs and rights, feel free to open a new thread about that, but this isn't the thread for that discussion.

Here's my take in a nutshell - ALL of the US Constitution matters, equally. The separation of powers. The limitations placed on the governments power, and the recognition of the inalienable rights of the people and the powers reserved to the states, all are important.

In my opinion, it matters not for what purpose an erosion of a Constitutional right or protection is undertaken, the potential damage is unacceptable and must be stopped.

I have read post after post of why one group or another has to relinquish its rights for the greater good. Please, tell why I should agree with that. Pick your right that you believe must be curtailed for the greater good and why it's less important than the other rights. Not the stuff you can talk about in the Gun Control forum (like you disagree with the language interpretation), or the Religion forum (like one religion is a religion of peace and one isn't therefore the one that isn't shouldn't be allowed in the country), but why the right itself is less important than the other rights.

Please proceed under the assumption that the rights laid out in the US Constitution apply to all people within the boundaries of the United States and its possessions, not just US Citizens (pretty much because that's the truth).

Zyphlin, If I've unintentionally broken a rule by doing this, please delete or move this thread as you see fit.

None......

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

I do not care about the Second Amendment. Guns are disgusting. People who love guns are disgusting. :mrgreen:

I would urge you to read The Rifle on the Wall before you so smugly dismiss the rights of millions of Americans.

 

[SmartCat]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

I would urge you to read The Rifle on the Wall before you so smugly dismiss the rights of millions of Americans.

If you understand that essay, present its arguments in your own words on a single computer screen.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

If you understand that essay, present its arguments in your own words on a single computer screen.

Fine, if you're too lazy to read an article online, I suppose I can summarize it for you.

It's an essay in seven parts:

Part One: The right to keep and bear arms is an important political right because it prevents the agents of the corporate state from having a monopoly on force. The right to keep and bear arms empowers the citizens by distributing the power of armed force among them, instead of concentrating it in the hands of the elite.

Part Two: The liberal faux pacifism is not a morally virtuous position, but is instead a form of moral cowardice. If we are going to hold our police and military morally responsible for their use and misuse of force-- which, as liberals, we should-- we should also assume the moral responsibility of our own use of force in defending our rights. We should not hide behind the skirts of the State and pretend that keeping our hands clean absolves us of our responsibility for the use of violence by our government.

Part Three: Attempting to ban guns is a symptom of the same authoritarian impulse that gave us Prohibition and the War on Drugs, and the effects will be similar. It will empower violent criminals and encourage the State to engage in greater violations of our rights in the name of law enforcement: violations of our right to privacy, our rights to the sanctity of our homes, and our rights to due process. Far from reducing gun crime, gun prohibition will create an entire whole class of new criminals, millions large, that our corrupt law enforcement system will have to expand to handle.

Part Four: Anti-gun liberals, besides not being real pacifists, are not actually proposing that we eliminate guns at all. They are not making a single proposal that would take guns away from a single policeman or soldier; they are effectively further reducing the power of the citizen relative to the State, similar in both intent and effect to Republicans' efforts to disenfranchise liberal voters. This campaign is elitist and authoritarian; it is effectively the total betrayal of the liberal value of democracy. It denies that the State is an agent of class warfare and, as such, is hostile to the people.

Part Five: The extension of gun rights to American blacks by the Fourteenth Amendment was fundamental to the civil rights movement, from the 1860s to the 1960s. The original gun control laws were written by plantation owners, and enforced by the KKK's lynch mobs, for the purpose of prolonging the subjugation of American blacks. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was a direct response to the race riots of 1967. The success of Martin Luther King Jr's nonviolent protests was, in large part, due to the fear of the violence that would follow if they were not effective.

Part Six: Reactionary and authoritarian forces within our government will not hesitate to use armed force to prevent the achievement of progressive goals, and to roll back progressive victories. The only check on their willingness and their ability to use violence against the people is the willingness and the ability of the progressive movement to retaliate. The State's capacity for violence will always outpace the peoples' capacity for violence, but the peoples' capacity for armed force is, again, fundamental to the success of any progressive political movement.

Part Seven: Gun control proposals targeting specific features and functions of weapons are useless for either preventing or mitigating the damage of mass shooters, and would have even less effect on the vast majority of homicides. These are distractions from the necessary, effective, and very very difficult changes we need to make to our culture to prevent the cultivation of the destructive urges that drive people to terrorist acts. They are an attempt to be seen "doing something" with no concern whatsoever for doing the right thing.

In summary, either guns nor gun control are the easy answer to society's problems. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental human right and one of our society's greatest historical accomplishments, and we should approach reasonable gun regulations with that understanding in mind. We should manage our responses to violent crimes and acts of terrorism with our sense of reason and our love of liberty, not with the mindless reflexive fear that drives arbitrary, irrational, and draconian gun laws.

 

[DA60]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

Which parts?

Those parts.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

I lack reverence for the United States Constitution. However, as long as the electorate is as polarized as it is, I think it would be unwise to call a Second Constitutional Convention now. Polls indicate that a growing percentage of Americans prefer socialism to capitalism. As soon as that percentage becomes a clear majority I think a Second Constitutional Convention would be a good idea.

I suppose it depends upon how those 2 terms are defined, socialism and capitalism.

I understand you have no reverence for the document, but I'm curious as to whether you support the document at all?

 

[SmartCat]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

Fine, if you're too lazy to read an article online, I suppose I can summarize it for you.

It's an essay in seven parts:

Part One: The right to keep and bear arms is an important political right because it prevents the agents of the corporate state from having a monopoly on force. The right to keep and bear arms empowers the citizens by distributing the power of armed force among them, instead of concentrating it in the hands of the elite...

Blah blah blah. In civilized countries even conservatives ask, "Why would anyone want to own a gun?" The American love affair with the gun is a very ugly aspect of the national character. :vomit:

 

[SmartCat]

Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor

I suppose it depends upon how those 2 terms are defined, socialism and capitalism.

I understand you have no reverence for the document, but I'm curious as to whether you support the document at all?

I support the U.S. Constitution only to the extent that it establishes a democratic government. At the time it was signed it was an important step forward.