Seventh Circuit Judge says the US Constitution, Bill of Rights have "no value"; "out-dated" - Polidicks

Pretty ignorant to outright say there's no value in studying it. Even if we void and replaced it with a fresh and modern constitution, it would still hold historical relevance and value for a law expert to study. Especially a judge. There's value I'm reading ancient text even if it holds no relevance. There's value in studying the Magna Carta, etc. It's research so you can apply past knowledge to improve future decisions. [Quote]“I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries — well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments),” he wrote. “Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century.”[/quote] What a shit way of saying it might not be the best fit for today's world.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50610506]Only if we have no bad laws to begin with. We have bad laws. They exist. By not passing laws to correct these bad laws, you are in effect supporting the bad laws.[/QUOTE] Or we could be passing laws to make bad laws worse. We can go in circles with this all day.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50610495]This is a fucking awful analogy and you should feel terrible for positing it as an argument.[/QUOTE] It's not an argument. I'm just stating what I think. The right to bear arms is stupid and shouldn't be a right.

A lot of bad law was inherited from English common law. A lot of shit no one really even remembers. For example, Trial by Combat (fighting for your innocence, or choosing a champion to do it a la Game of Thrones) was still legal in the United States until 1823. We imported it from English law and it was just kind of there till the SCOTUS said oh hey this doesn't fit with the Constitution.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50610513]Or we could be passing laws to make bad laws worse. We can go in circles with this all day.[/QUOTE] So if we pass "a law" to correct a "bad law," for example The Patriot Act, you believe that the law made to "remove" The Patriot Act is going to make the Patriot Act even worse than it already is? Non sense. Thinking that laws made to correct bad laws will actually result in the law being even worse has little historical precedent.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;50610514]An analogy is always great when it strikes a nerve and all you're left with is defensiveness.[/QUOTE] Or it's really shitty when there's no way to counter it because it's stating pure baseless opinion as absolute fact.

Shut up about the analogy.

[QUOTE=Anti Christ;50610502]how is this toxic and ill-thought out mentality so, so [B]so[/B] prevalent?[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, what is the better alternative I'm missing here because "get rid of things I don't like" doesn't seem like a very actionable plan

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50610533]So if we pass "a law" to correct a "bad law," for example The Patriot Act, you believe that the law made to "remove" The Patriot Act is going to make the Patriot Act even worse than it already is? Non sense. Thinking that laws made to correct bad laws will actually result in the law being even worse has little historical precedent.[/QUOTE] You misunderstood me. I'm not saying "good correcting laws" could go bad, I'm saying that laws that enforce bad ones could just as easily be pushed through if ease of passing them is made. Yes, bad laws sometimes get through. Sometimes good laws don't. But that is not a reason to open the flood gates for any and all laws to get passed. Heavy discussion, debate and compromise should be used with each and every one to get scrutinized. If you think allowing an ease of laws to be passed will somehow make a more perfect government, I think you're naive.

How does having a nigh-unchangeable constitution help with encouraging debate and compromise? If anything views become more entrenched than ever because you get a bunch of people going "but the founding fathers didn't want it this way" and another group going "the founding fathers were wrong" and neither side will ever agree.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50610576]How does having a nigh-unchangeable constitution help with encouraging debate and compromise? If anything views become more entrenched than ever because you get a bunch of people going "but the founding fathers didn't want it this way" and another group going "the founding fathers were wrong" and neither side will ever agree.[/QUOTE] so what, you should just be able to override them?

Maybe it'd be a bit easier to proactively amend the constitution, instead of jumping to things like throwing it out, if we didn't have such a [sp](all the emphasis in the universe)[/sp] [highlight][B][U]FUCKED[/U][/B][/highlight] bipartisan pool of obstinate babies.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;50610598]Abolish and rewrite them in their entirety, rename it, whatever. Do away with this almost fanatical fucking treatment of it.[/QUOTE] Okay, who gets to write it? Who gets to decide what's put in? Who gets to decide what to keep out?

[QUOTE=Marbalo;50610598]Abolish and rewrite them in their entirety, rename it, whatever. Do away with this almost fanatical fucking treatment of it.[/QUOTE] But why? What's wrong with it and the rights it guarantees, other than that you don't like the second one? Could you really have faith that a government today would draft a document that allows its citizens inalienable rights to anything at all, let alone concepts like freedom of speech or protection from unreasonable search/seizure?

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50610618]Could you really have faith that a government today would draft a document that allows its citizens inalienable rights to anything at all, let alone concepts like freedom of speech or protection from unreasonable search/seizure?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Marbalo;50610598]Abolish and rewrite them in their entirety, rename it, whatever. Do away with this almost fanatical fucking treatment of it.[/QUOTE] if this happens we're still gonna have guns but even less privacy rights unless you mean "only let people who agree with me" rewrite it [editline]28th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Starpluck;50610542]Shut up about the analogy.[/QUOTE] didn't know we aren't allowed to criticize other people's bad posts anymore

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50610576]How does having a nigh-unchangeable constitution help with encouraging debate and compromise? If anything views become more entrenched than ever because you get a bunch of people going "but the founding fathers didn't want it this way" and another group going "the founding fathers were wrong" and neither side will ever agree.[/QUOTE] Perhaps you should know that this bipartisan gridlock has only been a thing the past 8 or so years and the prior 200 did not have as much issue. And even now, the government is still functioning.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;50610675]Elected representatives of all cultures and corners of the US. You know, just like how they elect presidents who are entrusted with immense, unthinkable power. (if that's your argument) Let it be changed and refined with the circulation of representatives as they deem fit and make the process public and accessible to all, for all future generations. You know, you should really stop with this embarrassing prosecution complex. I haven't mentioned nor discredited your right to bear arms yet you bring it up backhandedly regardless. And yes, I could have that faith because the argument against government being inherently dysfunctional, corrupt and incapable of making reasoned decisions is moronic and stubborn, supported by, guess what - the constitution. The inherent and unfounded distrust of the government in the US is a problem. And it directly affects your leaders and the entirety of government itself - making it a self-fulfilling doomsday prophesy.[/QUOTE] so we should get the exact constitution worshiping people you're complaining about to rewrite it

[QUOTE=Marbalo;50610675]Elected representatives of all cultures and corners of the US. You know, just like how they elect presidents who are entrusted with immense, unthinkable power. (if that's your argument) Let it be changed and refined with the circulation of representatives as they deem fit and make the process public and accessible to all, for all future generations. [/QUOTE] then please inform me of what is so wrong with the constitution and its amendments that the entire thing has to be rewritten if the second amendment isn't the problem

[QUOTE=Marbalo;50610675]And yes, I could have that faith because the argument against government being inherently dysfunctional, corrupt and incapable of making reasoned decisions is moronic and stubborn, supported by, guess what - the constitution. The inherent and unfounded distrust of the government in the US is a problem. And it directly affects your leaders and the entirety of government itself - making it a self-fulfilling doomsday prophesy.[/QUOTE] People give the government all the trust it's earned - and that's how it should be. If the government wants its people to trust it, it should make every effort to [I]earn[/I] that trust. When trust and respect are inherent to authority, they lose their value. Is it a self-fulfilling prophecy? Well, it sure does look that way. But the fix for that is for the government to prove to its people that trusting it isn't a mistake. Remember, the government must exist [I]to serve the people[/I], not the other way around. That's something a lot of members of our government don't seem to understand, and until they do, they will be rightfully distrusted.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50610618]But why? What's wrong with it and the rights it guarantees, other than that you don't like the second one? Could you really have faith that a government today would draft a document that allows its citizens inalienable rights to anything at all, let alone concepts like freedom of speech or protection from unreasonable search/seizure?[/QUOTE] I can't help but think that someone who believes they still need the right to "a well armed militia" in this day in age, in a democratic first world country makes them just slightly insane. And I'm absolutely positive that if the US was to ever in a situation in which you needed a well armed militia, it would be because of gun advocates themselves. I mean the right to bear arms is to protect the right to bear arms, and theoretically the other rights, but I think it would only be used to protect itself.

The concept of a constitution being practically religious in terms of how sacred and untouchable it is is absolutely fucking bonkers and about as undemocratic as it gets.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50610289]He is right. The Constitution came from a different time and is inapplicable today. That would be like saying the Old Testament should be codified and is relevant today because the "bible says it must be relevant forever."[/QUOTE] this is not an argument something is not irrelevant because of age, judge it by its content instead otherwise you can say "well, kids were taught not to hit others for hundreds if not thousands of years and because its such an ancient tradition we should abandon it" how is the constitution inapplicable?

[QUOTE=ReligiousNutjob;50610296]What does it look like he's doing?[/QUOTE] Something he shouldn't be doing. The judicial branch has had the power to reinterpret old laws to further modern policy, which is why you sometimes see the Constitution invoked to overturn old precedent. But the judicial branch does not have, and should not have, the power to decide that old laws aren't important anymore and should get thrown out the window. It's the job of the legislative branch to overturn the old laws and replace them with new ones, hence why we have an amendment process to the Constitution. The Constitution is not holy scripture, but it is a pretty solid set of principles that the government is expected to uphold, to the point where the principles spelled out in the Constitution as applied by the Supreme Court generally trump even federal law. Amending the Constitution is a [I]really big deal[/I], not something that happens as soon as a majority of Supreme Court justices decide that the right to free speech or protection against unreasonable search and seizure aren't important anymore.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50610335][media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_xNyrzB0xI[/media] President Obama on the Constitution, in which he refers to as a "[B]deeply flawed[/B]" document. 1. Guns. You cannot be prohibited from buying guns if you are on a [B]watch list or a no-fly[/B] list because guns are a protected right in the Constitution. But you can be prohibited from flying because the right to travel is not in the Constitution. For some reason, the Constitution holds that the right to have guns is more important than the right to travel. This is an inherent flaw in the Constitution. Guns should not be the "right" that we choose protect over the right to travel. There is no reason why guns are more valuable than traveling. This is one of the many flaws in this imperfect and outdated document.[/QUOTE] Those watch lists are arbitrary and based off assumptions, often ignoring due process and not informing those placed on them with no way of getting off it. Like this 4 year old boy who was placed on one: [url]http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/04/06/4-year-old-alameda-county-boy-on-terrorist-watchlist/[/url]

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;50610748]The concept of a constitution being practically religious in terms of how sacred and untouchable it is is absolutely fucking bonkers and about as undemocratic as it gets.[/QUOTE] It's not untouchable. It takes 2/3rds of both the senate and house, or 2/3rds of the states to start a convention, and 3/4 support to pass an amendment. It can be easily changed if the changes you want to make are those that everyone can agree on. When people complain, it's usually because the changes they want to make are changes that won't get enough support.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;50610748]The concept of a constitution being practically religious in terms of how sacred and untouchable it is is absolutely fucking bonkers and about as undemocratic as it gets.[/QUOTE] Except it's not. That is an offensive hyberbole that people who want to toss the whole thing out project their opponents as. It's completely untrue.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50610513]Or we could be passing laws to make bad laws worse. We can go in circles with this all day.[/QUOTE] So, what, you want to completely shut down the political system? No laws can ever get passed ever again, that's your ideal? No matter how much the world changes, the law has to be completely static and never change despite how many problems it causes, because it could be made worse?

[QUOTE=No_Excuses;50610731]I can't help but think that someone who believes they still need the right to "a well armed militia" in this day in age, in a democratic first world country makes them just slightly insane. And I'm absolutely positive that if the US was to ever in a situation in which you needed a well armed militia, it would be because of gun advocates themselves. I mean the right to bear arms is to protect the right to bear arms, and theoretically the other rights, but I think it would only be used to protect itself.[/QUOTE] The second amendment postulates that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Giving this power to the people is intended as an ultimate balance against tyranny, as well as protection from other threats that the government may not be able to assist with. It isn't needed all the time, but because it could be needed some day, civilians must have the ability to organize it and are therefore guaranteed the right to own the weapons they could someday need by the document. This is the Supreme Court ruling on the matter. In the meantime, it implicitly covers the right to defend yourself and your property using your lawfully owned firearms, and by extension, the right to shoot as a hobby and to collect them for various reasons. While I doubt we will ever need a militia (or that if we do it will be much use), the other facets of the law are important to me. I believe the gun crime problem can be solved without further infringing on the rights outlined in the second amendment, thereby nullifying the need to get rid of it, meaning we can enjoy a hobby in peace. The second amendment is not some holy tenet passed down by our heavenly forefathers but it isn't the reason we have a crime problem, either. People find it objectionable based on misrepresented statistics and false assumptions. There is nothing wrong with it or the rest of the document, except [I]maybe[/I] that it didn't expect the government to do everything possible to get around its intentions in order to subvert and abuse its people. Which it's doing. So I wouldn't really trust that government to rewrite the document even if it were for some reason necessary, which it isn't. Things like "it doesn't guarantee the right to travel" can be fixed with amendments to the document. It does not need to be repealed and rewritten, risking the loss of our protections.

What would be a desirable alternative document that lays the ground work for how the government is structured? I wouldn't mind a few things with how we vote and the 2 party system as a whole being changed a bit, to be fair. But I don't see or understand the disdain for the bill of rights. Okay, you don't like guns, or the explicit right for people to own them. I get it. But [I]what else[/I] is wrong with it? Lets make up something better, then. I feel like a Constitution 2.0 would be mostly redundant. Like rewriting the same thing but condensing it. We [I]need[/I] to have obvious shit like freedom of speech and no unreasonable searches written down. Please, enlighten me. I'm legitimately ignorant of why people are so against it other than guns. So what parts of it would you change, omit, and keep?