Is the US Constitution right?

[wmw999 2,447]

I kind of think that it is only by definition -- i.e., since it's the foundation of our governmental system, it's by definition right.

Does that make it perfect, and a valid document for all other countries or people? I'm not nearly as sure of that.

Kind of how in spades, a spade can take other cards. Spades aren't inherently more powerful, it's just that the rules decree they are in that game. Not everyone likes the game of spades best.

Maybe, just maybe, it's a pretty good approximation at trying to identify rights that are inherent to being human beings, and trying to recognize them.

Have those rights changed in the last couple hundred years? The world sure has changed. I'm not for banning guns (which seems to be the biggest bone of contention when it comes to rights), but, in fact, countries with ready availability of guns seem to have more gun violence. The US has ready availability of guns -- that genie is well out of the bottle.

Just thinkin'

OK, how about if we use freedom of speech instead of guns.
Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I kind of think that it is only by definition -- i.e., since it's the foundation of our governmental system, it's by definition right.

Does that make it perfect, and a valid document for all other countries or people? I'm not nearly as sure of that.

Kind of how in spades, a spade can take other cards. Spades aren't inherently more powerful, it's just that the rules decree they are in that game. Not everyone likes the game of spades best.

Maybe, just maybe, it's a pretty good approximation at trying to identify rights that are inherent to being human beings, and trying to recognize them.

Have those rights changed in the last couple hundred years? The world sure has changed. I'm not for banning guns (which seems to be the biggest bone of contention when it comes to rights), but, in fact, countries with ready availability of guns seem to have more gun violence. The US has ready availability of guns -- that genie is well out of the bottle.

Just thinkin'

Wendy P.

The Rwandan massacre was with machetes, not guns. Guns make a convenient boogeyman, that's it.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

I kind of think that it is only by definition -- i.e., since it's the foundation of our governmental system, it's by definition right.

Does that make it perfect, and a valid document for all other countries or people? I'm not nearly as sure of that.

Kind of how in spades, a spade can take other cards. Spades aren't inherently more powerful, it's just that the rules decree they are in that game. Not everyone likes the game of spades best.

Maybe, just maybe, it's a pretty good approximation at trying to identify rights that are inherent to being human beings, and trying to recognize them.

Have those rights changed in the last couple hundred years? The world sure has changed. I'm not for banning guns (which seems to be the biggest bone of contention when it comes to rights), but, in fact, countries with ready availability of guns seem to have more gun violence. The US has ready availability of guns -- that genie is well out of the bottle.

Just thinkin'

Wendy P.

Since guns are a relatively recent human invention, it is hard to claim that gun ownership is an inherent human right.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 4]

Quote

Guns make a convenient boogeyman . . .

Guns also make it more convenient to BE a boogeyman.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I kind of think that it is only by definition -- i.e., since it's the foundation of our governmental system, it's by definition right.

Does that make it perfect, and a valid document for all other countries or people? I'm not nearly as sure of that.

Kind of how in spades, a spade can take other cards. Spades aren't inherently more powerful, it's just that the rules decree they are in that game. Not everyone likes the game of spades best.

Maybe, just maybe, it's a pretty good approximation at trying to identify rights that are inherent to being human beings, and trying to recognize them.

Have those rights changed in the last couple hundred years? The world sure has changed. I'm not for banning guns (which seems to be the biggest bone of contention when it comes to rights), but, in fact, countries with ready availability of guns seem to have more gun violence. The US has ready availability of guns -- that genie is well out of the bottle.

Just thinkin'

Wendy P.

Since guns are a relatively recent human invention, it is hard to claim that gun ownership is an inherent human right.

So's healthcare.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Guns make a convenient boogeyman . . .

Guns also make it more convenient to BE a boogeyman.

So do swords when the victims are unarmed. So do clubs when the victim is unarmed. So does a gallon of gas and book of matches, when the victim is unarmed. etc etc etc...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I kind of think that it is only by definition -- i.e., since it's the foundation of our governmental system, it's by definition right.

Does that make it perfect, and a valid document for all other countries or people? I'm not nearly as sure of that.

Kind of how in spades, a spade can take other cards. Spades aren't inherently more powerful, it's just that the rules decree they are in that game. Not everyone likes the game of spades best.

Maybe, just maybe, it's a pretty good approximation at trying to identify rights that are inherent to being human beings, and trying to recognize them.

Have those rights changed in the last couple hundred years? The world sure has changed. I'm not for banning guns (which seems to be the biggest bone of contention when it comes to rights), but, in fact, countries with ready availability of guns seem to have more gun violence. The US has ready availability of guns -- that genie is well out of the bottle.

Just thinkin'

Wendy P.

Since guns are a relatively recent human invention, it is hard to claim that gun ownership is an inherent human right.

So's healthcare.

There is archeological evidence of healthcare going back millennia. Certainly pre-Biblical.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I kind of think that it is only by definition -- i.e., since it's the foundation of our governmental system, it's by definition right.

Does that make it perfect, and a valid document for all other countries or people? I'm not nearly as sure of that.

Kind of how in spades, a spade can take other cards. Spades aren't inherently more powerful, it's just that the rules decree they are in that game. Not everyone likes the game of spades best.

Maybe, just maybe, it's a pretty good approximation at trying to identify rights that are inherent to being human beings, and trying to recognize them.

Have those rights changed in the last couple hundred years? The world sure has changed. I'm not for banning guns (which seems to be the biggest bone of contention when it comes to rights), but, in fact, countries with ready availability of guns seem to have more gun violence. The US has ready availability of guns -- that genie is well out of the bottle.

Just thinkin'

Wendy P.

Since guns are a relatively recent human invention, it is hard to claim that gun ownership is an inherent human right.

So's healthcare.

There is archeological evidence of healthcare going back millennia. Certainly pre-Biblical.

Archaeological evidence of tools suitable for self-defense going back millenia, too.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Southern_Man 0]

Let's not all derail Wendy's thread with the usual squabbling. It is an interesting philosophical question.

I think your analogy to spades is pretty accurate--it just defines this particular playing field and the rules of our game. There are other ways those same 52 cards can be put to use (i.e. other ways to effectively and humanely govern ourselves).

With that said, there are huge differences in what the Constitution meant when it was written and what it means today--look at voting rights for an obvious example--no longer based on 3/5 of a person for "persons not free" and nearly universal sufferage today.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[lawrocket 3]

The Constitution is not inherently “right.” That’s why we have the Amendments. The bill of Rights itself came about after the Constitution was ratified. WE have further Amendments to the Constitution that have done no less than strike other language in the Constitution and replace it. We’ve even had an Amendment stricken.

But still, it is the Constitution that provides not all rights but the fundamental FLOOR of rights to use against the interests of the government. The Constitution, for example, states that there is a right against self-incrimination. It doesn’t mean that you HAVE to exercise the right, but merely that you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself.

It’s also important to note that most of the population seems to think that the Constitution governs private conduct. For example, does Uncle Bob have the right to bear arms in my house if I don’t want him to? Does the right to free speech mean that the neighbors can loudly party all night long? No. It doesn’t govern private conduct. It means that the government can’t censor speech on the basis of its content.

The People may one day conclude that there are certain things that should not be said. There is a system set up to allow that to occur. We could eventually pass, say, a Fortieth Amendment that bans all guns from the US, except for the purposes of military and law enforcement. Once that happens, the argument that the Constitution gives people a right to firearms would be without merit.

Then the argument would be about whether or not people SHOULD have the right to guns – which is what the gun control argument is really about, anyway. People who wish the Constitution did not give the right to guns argue that the right shouldn’t exist. Meanwhile, I’ve got the US Government Owner’s Manual that says right there in Amendment 2 that we do.

People may argue that the mentally ill should not have the right to due process of law. I look at the US Government Owner’s Manual and say, “Right there in Amendment 5 it says ‘No person…shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.’ Heck, it says it again in the Fourteenth Amendment.” And unless the Owner’s Manual is Amended, then that’s the way it runs.

The Constitution is what it is. It may differ from what it was or has been. It may even differ from what it will be. But it is what it is now, right or wrong. I myself would like to see some changes to it, such as eliminating the 16th Amendment and the 17th Amendment, but I do not dispute that the Income Tax is Constitutional. I do not dispute that popular election of senators is Constitutional. It is what it is.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DesertAttorney 0]

Quote

Quote

I kind of think that it is only by definition -- i.e., since it's the foundation of our governmental system, it's by definition right.

Does that make it perfect, and a valid document for all other countries or people? I'm not nearly as sure of that.

Kind of how in spades, a spade can take other cards. Spades aren't inherently more powerful, it's just that the rules decree they are in that game. Not everyone likes the game of spades best.

Maybe, just maybe, it's a pretty good approximation at trying to identify rights that are inherent to being human beings, and trying to recognize them.

Have those rights changed in the last couple hundred years? The world sure has changed. I'm not for banning guns (which seems to be the biggest bone of contention when it comes to rights), but, in fact, countries with ready availability of guns seem to have more gun violence. The US has ready availability of guns -- that genie is well out of the bottle.

Just thinkin'

Wendy P.

Since guns are a relatively recent human invention, it is hard to claim that gun ownership is an inherent human right.

No, but self defense (and access to the tools therof) is.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Is the US Constitution right?

Actually, most of it may be considered "left". Except for, you know, that one thing.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I kind of think that it is only by definition -- i.e., since it's the foundation of our governmental system, it's by definition right.

Does that make it perfect, and a valid document for all other countries or people? I'm not nearly as sure of that.

Kind of how in spades, a spade can take other cards. Spades aren't inherently more powerful, it's just that the rules decree they are in that game. Not everyone likes the game of spades best.

Maybe, just maybe, it's a pretty good approximation at trying to identify rights that are inherent to being human beings, and trying to recognize them.

Have those rights changed in the last couple hundred years? The world sure has changed. I'm not for banning guns (which seems to be the biggest bone of contention when it comes to rights), but, in fact, countries with ready availability of guns seem to have more gun violence. The US has ready availability of guns -- that genie is well out of the bottle.

Just thinkin'

Wendy P.

Since guns are a relatively recent human invention, it is hard to claim that gun ownership is an inherent human right.

So's healthcare.

There is archeological evidence of healthcare going back millennia. Certainly pre-Biblical.

Archaeological evidence of tools suitable for self-defense going back millenia, too.

Wendy, to whom I responded, specifically wrote "guns", not self defense.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I kind of think that it is only by definition -- i.e., since it's the foundation of our governmental system, it's by definition right.

Does that make it perfect, and a valid document for all other countries or people? I'm not nearly as sure of that.

Kind of how in spades, a spade can take other cards. Spades aren't inherently more powerful, it's just that the rules decree they are in that game. Not everyone likes the game of spades best.

Maybe, just maybe, it's a pretty good approximation at trying to identify rights that are inherent to being human beings, and trying to recognize them.

Have those rights changed in the last couple hundred years? The world sure has changed. I'm not for banning guns (which seems to be the biggest bone of contention when it comes to rights), but, in fact, countries with ready availability of guns seem to have more gun violence. The US has ready availability of guns -- that genie is well out of the bottle.

Just thinkin'

Wendy P.

Since guns are a relatively recent human invention, it is hard to claim that gun ownership is an inherent human right.

So's healthcare.

There is archeological evidence of healthcare going back millennia. Certainly pre-Biblical.

Archaeological evidence of tools suitable for self-defense going back millenia, too.

Wendy, to whom I responded, specifically wrote "guns", not self defense.

Sucks to be you, then.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I kind of think that it is only by definition -- i.e., since it's the foundation of our governmental system, it's by definition right.

Does that make it perfect, and a valid document for all other countries or people? I'm not nearly as sure of that.

Kind of how in spades, a spade can take other cards. Spades aren't inherently more powerful, it's just that the rules decree they are in that game. Not everyone likes the game of spades best.

Maybe, just maybe, it's a pretty good approximation at trying to identify rights that are inherent to being human beings, and trying to recognize them.

Have those rights changed in the last couple hundred years? The world sure has changed. I'm not for banning guns (which seems to be the biggest bone of contention when it comes to rights), but, in fact, countries with ready availability of guns seem to have more gun violence. The US has ready availability of guns -- that genie is well out of the bottle.

Just thinkin'

Wendy P.

Since guns are a relatively recent human invention, it is hard to claim that gun ownership is an inherent human right.

So's healthcare.

There is archeological evidence of healthcare going back millennia. Certainly pre-Biblical.

Archaeological evidence of tools suitable for self-defense going back millenia, too.

Wendy, to whom I responded, specifically wrote "guns", not self defense.

Sucks to be you, then.

No, actually it's pretty good to be me.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[muff528 3]

Quote

I kind of think that it is only by definition -- i.e., since it's the foundation of our governmental system, it's by definition right.

Does that make it perfect, and a valid document for all other countries or people? I'm not nearly as sure of that.

Kind of how in spades, a spade can take other cards. Spades aren't inherently more powerful, it's just that the rules decree they are in that game. Not everyone likes the game of spades best.

Maybe, just maybe, it's a pretty good approximation at trying to identify rights that are inherent to being human beings, and trying to recognize them.

Have those rights changed in the last couple hundred years? The world sure has changed. I'm not for banning guns (which seems to be the biggest bone of contention when it comes to rights), but, in fact, countries with ready availability of guns seem to have more gun violence. The US has ready availability of guns -- that genie is well out of the bottle.

Just thinkin'

OK, how about if we use freedom of speech instead of guns.
Wendy P.

I agree. The Constitution is neither "right" nor "wrong". It is really nothing more than a set of rules that the Congress (collectively) agreed upon to uphold the founding principles (written down over a decade earlier) that certain Rights were "unalienable" and that they believed were "self-evident". Once the country decided to stray from this set of rules the Constitution effectively became impotent and malleable to the ruling class's whims. That's the genie that's out of the bottle.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

I kind of think that it is only by definition -- i.e., since it's the foundation of our governmental system, it's by definition right.

Does that make it perfect, and a valid document for all other countries or people? I'm not nearly as sure of that.

Kind of how in spades, a spade can take other cards. Spades aren't inherently more powerful, it's just that the rules decree they are in that game. Not everyone likes the game of spades best.

Maybe, just maybe, it's a pretty good approximation at trying to identify rights that are inherent to being human beings, and trying to recognize them.

Have those rights changed in the last couple hundred years? The world sure has changed. I'm not for banning guns (which seems to be the biggest bone of contention when it comes to rights), but, in fact, countries with ready availability of guns seem to have more gun violence. The US has ready availability of guns -- that genie is well out of the bottle.

Just thinkin'

OK, how about if we use freedom of speech instead of guns.
Wendy P.

I agree. The Constitution is neither "right" nor "wrong". It is really nothing more than a set of rules that the Congress (collectively) agreed upon to uphold the founding principles (written down over a decade earlier) that certain Rights were "unalienable" and that they believed were "self-evident". Once the country decided to stray from this set of rules the Constitution effectively became impotent and malleable to the ruling class's whims. That's the genie that's out of the bottle.

Yet you support them and their minions lock stock and barrel....so to speak.

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I kind of think that it is only by definition -- i.e., since it's the foundation of our governmental system, it's by definition right.

Does that make it perfect, and a valid document for all other countries or people? I'm not nearly as sure of that.

Kind of how in spades, a spade can take other cards. Spades aren't inherently more powerful, it's just that the rules decree they are in that game. Not everyone likes the game of spades best.

Maybe, just maybe, it's a pretty good approximation at trying to identify rights that are inherent to being human beings, and trying to recognize them.

Have those rights changed in the last couple hundred years? The world sure has changed. I'm not for banning guns (which seems to be the biggest bone of contention when it comes to rights), but, in fact, countries with ready availability of guns seem to have more gun violence. The US has ready availability of guns -- that genie is well out of the bottle.

Just thinkin'

OK, how about if we use freedom of speech instead of guns.
Wendy P.

I agree. The Constitution is neither "right" nor "wrong". It is really nothing more than a set of rules that the Congress (collectively) agreed upon to uphold the founding principles (written down over a decade earlier) that certain Rights were "unalienable" and that they believed were "self-evident". Once the country decided to stray from this set of rules the Constitution effectively became impotent and malleable to the ruling class's whims. That's the genie that's out of the bottle.

Yet you support them and their minions lock stock and barrel....so to speak.

Well, it seems that the alternative is anarchy. Look out yer window.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I'm not for banning guns (which seems to be the biggest bone of contention when it comes to rights), but, in fact, countries with ready availability of guns seem to have more gun violence. The US has ready availability of guns -- that genie is well out of the bottle.

The largest genocides in the world have been committed with guns in the hands of the government, not by common citizens. Perhaps you should consider banning government ownership of guns.

Genocides: http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

When the citizens have guns, they have a chance to resist government genocide.
Even better, the government will probably know better than to even try.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Since guns are a relatively recent human invention, it is hard to claim that gun ownership is an inherent human right.

They come under the category of "self defense", and all creatures have a right to self defense. But since man wasn't born with big teeth or sharp claws for defense, he has had to use tools to keep himself safe from harm. Those tools have included things like spears and clubs in the past, and now handguns.

You wouldn't argue that cavemen didn't have a human right to use spears in defense against saber-toothed tigers, because at the time they were a relatively recent invention, would you?

Likewise, high-speed and mass communication didn't exist at the time the Constitution was written, so would you argue that free speech doesn't apply to the internet, radio and TV?

Principles of freedom do not change, just because technology increases.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I kind of think that it is only by definition -- i.e., since it's the foundation of our governmental system, it's by definition right.

Does that make it perfect, and a valid document for all other countries or people? I'm not nearly as sure of that.

Kind of how in spades, a spade can take other cards. Spades aren't inherently more powerful, it's just that the rules decree they are in that game. Not everyone likes the game of spades best.

Maybe, just maybe, it's a pretty good approximation at trying to identify rights that are inherent to being human beings, and trying to recognize them.

Have those rights changed in the last couple hundred years? The world sure has changed. I'm not for banning guns (which seems to be the biggest bone of contention when it comes to rights), but, in fact, countries with ready availability of guns seem to have more gun violence. The US has ready availability of guns -- that genie is well out of the bottle.

Just thinkin'

OK, how about if we use freedom of speech instead of guns.
Wendy P.

I agree. The Constitution is neither "right" nor "wrong". It is really nothing more than a set of rules that the Congress (collectively) agreed upon to uphold the founding principles (written down over a decade earlier) that certain Rights were "unalienable" and that they believed were "self-evident". Once the country decided to stray from this set of rules the Constitution effectively became impotent and malleable to the ruling class's whims. That's the genie that's out of the bottle.

Yet you support them and their minions lock stock and barrel....so to speak.

Well, it seems that the alternative is anarchy. Look out yer window.

Nope.. no anarchy to be seen our here in the country...

[kallend 2,027]

See post #13 this thread

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

See post #13 this thread

Still doesn't refute my argument nor his.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,027]

And your "argument" doesn't refute my response to Wendy. Your "argument" was non seqitur.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,991]

>Well, it seems that the alternative is anarchy. Look out yer window.

True. All those marauding zombies, communists and Muslims would be eating my brains in a New York minute if I didn't keep blowin em to bits with my handy Mossberg.