A question for the great legal minds and constitutional experts on this forum.

[Rocking Chair Fan]

No, it's a union of 50 clusterfucks.

No... It is a gang bang with some wearing covers and some not...

 

[Krusty]

No... It is a gang bang with some wearing covers and some not...

Nah. More of a circle jerk.

 

[Rob Allen]

The "objective truth," like blacks being 3/5 of a citizen? Many Constitutional principles were neither objective truths or intuitively obvious, but instead were the result of political compromise among the diverse group who framed the Constitution.

1. We fixed.
2. Yes it was a diverse group and because it was diverse we can all agree that what they came up with was absolutely great and stop trying to ruin it by taking things out of it.

 

[KerryS]

1. We fixed.
2. Yes it was a diverse group and because it was diverse we can all agree that what they came up with was absolutely great and stop trying to ruin it by taking things out of it.

The beauty of our constitution is the authors created a living document that can be amended as our society and country grows. This means that it can have both additions and subtractions to align with an ever changing world.

 

[Rogue Fanatic]

.

 

[Griswald]

No the constitution was meant to be a rock because it is based on principles that are objective truth.. we can add to it based on those eternally true principles. We cannot change it because we no longer believe in those principles..



It's my understanding that in general the states have been given authority over that states fish and wildlife and the management thereof.

In the state of Wyoming non residents cannot hunt big game in designated wilderness areas without a professional outfitter.

Ron,
I disagree. The Constitution was never meant to be a rock. It was designed (with great care) to be deliberately vague and flexible (when the need for change comes) but the process is not without difficulty. I studied Constitutional History in college and read/forgot most of it, HOWEVER, it is an amazing framework that survives and is relevant for precisely this design.

 

[Rob Allen]

Ron,
I disagree. The Constitution was never meant to be a rock. It was designed (with great care) to be deliberately vague and flexible (when the need for change comes) but the process is not without difficulty. I studied Constitutional History in college and read/forgot most of it, HOWEVER, it is an amazing framework that survives and is relevant for precisely this design.

Can we agree that the bill of rights was intended to be an unchanging rock? That after all is by a very wide margin the most important part of the constitution and in fact our whole government

 

[quilbilly]

 

[Salmo_g]

Can we agree that the bill of rights was intended to be an unchanging rock? That after all is by a very wide margin the most important part of the constitution and in fact our whole government

No, I don't think we can agree. However, it would be extremely difficult - by design - but within the realm of possibility to draft another amendment to the Constitution that modifies one of the existing first 10 Amendments (Bill of Rights). The Constitution was designed to be amended over time as conditions changed, i.e., the 14th Amendment outlawing slavery. The difficulty in amending the Constitution can not be made any clearer than the 38 (?) years that have passed, and the states still will not pass the Equal Rights Amendment, meaning that majorities in just over 1/3 of the states think equal rights for women is unwarranted, unnecessary. Since it wasn't explicitly stated in the "Rock" it must not have been a good idea, eh?

 

[majpreal]

Can we agree that the bill of rights was intended to be an unchanging rock? That after all is by a very wide margin the most important part of the constitution and in fact our whole government

You realize that this "unchanging rock" you speak of is actually composed of amendments, right? And amendments by definition are changes so there's a bit of irony there...the unchanging rock constructed 100% of changes. I guess I'll just have to be a tick mark in the "disagree" column as I consider it more of a solid foundation. I also fully realize I might be wrong and this is just an opinion.

 

[Hem]

This thread is a sorry joke.

 

[Hem]

I only said that because of freedom of speech.

 

[Rob Allen]

No, I don't think we can agree. However, it would be extremely difficult - by design - but within the realm of possibility to draft another amendment to the Constitution that modifies one of the existing first 10 Amendments (Bill of Rights). The Constitution was designed to be amended over time as conditions changed, i.e., the 14th Amendment outlawing slavery. The difficulty in amending the Constitution can not be made any clearer than the 38 (?) years that have passed, and the states still will not pass the Equal Rights Amendment, meaning that majorities in just over 1/3 of the states think equal rights for women is unwarranted, unnecessary. Since it wasn't explicitly stated in the "Rock" it must not have been a good idea, eh?

All of those are additions.. none of them are changes to the existing bill of rights..

1/3 of the states already acknowledge that the equal rights ammendment is already a reality in America without being superfluously ratified into the constitution. By law we are alreadu all equal and everyone is being treated equally on a nearly universal scale.

That's all I got to say about that...

 

[Rob Allen]

This thread is a sorry joke.

No, it's not.

 

[Hem]

No, it's not.

You tried Montana and couldn't hack it...why should you be entitled to some of the same perks as those of us that sacrifice to live here?
Dont bother answering Rob.
One and done for me.