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

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50610335]For some reason, the Constitution holds that the right to have guns is more important than the right to travel.[/QUOTE] You make this sound like a deliberate decision. It isn't, and the entity that maintains the no-fly list (or the entities that maintain other travel-related watchlists) is separate from any legislative branch. [QUOTE=Starpluck;50610335]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.[/QUOTE] Says who? Is the opinion of our founding fathers, the opinions of millions of living Americans, and many other groups just not at all worth considering in context of our laws and rights? Your views and opinions are not shared by everyone. [QUOTE=Starpluck;50610335]This is one of the many flaws in this imperfect and outdated document.[/QUOTE] This is a more verbose version of the "the Constitution is old" argument. This is not an argument. The Constitution being imperfect is not an argument. No law is perfect, that is why we have the power to modify existing laws and ratify new ones. If the District of Columbia v. Heller case - which may I remind you, concluded in 2008 - taught us anything, it's that even in modern times, a significant portion of American society still thinks that guns are worth keeping around. Of course, this doesn't mean we can't improve the laws in their current form, but to imply that we should get rid of guns because the Constitution is by your opinion outdated and imperfect, and you personally don't agree with a single amendment is ridiculous.

[QUOTE=OvB;50610866]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?[/QUOTE] Keep it all and update the language so its more applicable to the 21+ century

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50611041]Keep it all and update the language so its more applicable to the 21+ century[/QUOTE] So don't change it, just make it plain word for this time?

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50611041]Keep it all and update the language so its more applicable to the 21+ century[/QUOTE] Do you not see how this leaves room for "accidentally" forgetting some important details? Why mess with it? Why even take the risk? It's [U]fine[/U] as it is.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50610478] The last Constitutional amendment (the 27th) took 202 years, 7 months, and 12 days to ratify. This is not a valid argument.[/QUOTE] [t]https://i.imgur.com/JgyIY6h.png[/t] [URL]https://introductorystats.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/a-statistical-look-at-the-ammendments-to-the-united-states-constitution/[/URL]

We should just defederalize and turn into a state based system. Let California ban assault weapons, let Utah do the same to porn. The federal government takes away the rights of the state based on some 220 year old document. There needs to be a reform of power. the founding fathers could not have known that America would have stretched all the way to the Pacific. All we have to show for that in the past 30-50 years is hard-line gridlock. A parliamentary system needs to be established and the two parties split. Make it a rule that no major or minor party can hold more than 35% of the house and Congress to force compromise. There are a lot of ways to change the system but we have politicians so content they literally do nothing and still get a check.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50611137]We should just defederalize and turn into a state based system. Let California ban assault weapons, let Utah do the same to porn. The federal government takes away the rights of the state based on some 220 year old document. There needs to be a reform of power. the founding fathers could not have known that America would have stretched all the way to the Pacific. All we have to show for that in the past 30-50 years is hard-line gridlock. A parliamentary system needs to be established and the two parties split. Make it a rule that no major or minor party can hold more than 35% of the house and Congress to force compromise. There are a lot of ways to change the system but we have politicians so content they literally do nothing and still get a check.[/QUOTE] defederalizing is bad idea for a multitude of reasons not worth my time listing here. I dont think you understand how reliant states, cities, and citizens are on the federal government.

[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 watch list or a no-fly 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] I'm a little confused here - I've always been under the impression that the Privileges and Immunities Clause protected the right to travel. It's not necessarily an explicit right, but it is there.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50611137]We should just defederalize and turn into a state based system. Let California ban assault weapons, let Utah do the same to porn. The federal government takes away the rights of the state based on some 220 year old document. There needs to be a reform of power. the founding fathers could not have known that America would have stretched all the way to the Pacific. All we have to show for that in the past 30-50 years is hard-line gridlock. A parliamentary system needs to be established and the two parties split. Make it a rule that no major or minor party can hold more than 35% of the house and Congress to force compromise. There are a lot of ways to change the system but we have politicians so content they literally do nothing and still get a check.[/QUOTE] Let Mississippi segregate schools, let Texas ban abortion, let Florida mandate Christianity as the state religion. Yeah great idea lets do it.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50611137]We should just defederalize and turn into a state based system. Let California ban assault weapons, let Utah do the same to porn. The federal government takes away the rights of the state based on some 220 year old document. There needs to be a reform of power. the founding fathers could not have known that America would have stretched all the way to the Pacific. All we have to show for that in the past 30-50 years is hard-line gridlock. A parliamentary system needs to be established and the two parties split. Make it a rule that no major or minor party can hold more than 35% of the house and Congress to force compromise. There are a lot of ways to change the system but we have politicians so content they literally do nothing and still get a check.[/QUOTE] I feel like you've never taken a history or government class if you think that's a good idea

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50611398]I feel like you've never taken a history or government class if you think that's a good idea[/QUOTE] Get rid of the constitution and bring back the Articles of Confederation! Dissolve the Union and the Federal government - tyrants, the lot of them. We need to do exactly as Jefferson wanted and maintain a tax-free poor agricultural society. Anything else is un-American. Down with industry! Down with trade! Down with modernity! The real American Dream is running a plantation with hand tools - just like the founding fathers wanted!

[QUOTE=Jund;50610655]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] didn't know we aren't allowed to criticize other people's bad posts anymore[/QUOTE] you aren't allowed to get off topic and focus on one thing also what constitutes a bad post is subjective

not sure how throwing out the Constitution would even fix the gridlock issues we currently are having [editline]28th June 2016[/editline] only thing i could see happening in the instance of it being thrown out is a major clusterfuck that slows down our government even moreso than it already is as nobody can agree on anything. that is without the inevitable rebellions the act of throwing out the constitution would cause to rise up

[QUOTE=Marbalo;50610439]Furthermore, and by large, laws should always be updated, reviewed and subjected to scrutiny regularly. It is the only way to ensure the system is just and fair to all and always. What NOT to do however, is to rely on outdated pieces of text that were written by men over 3 centuries ago purely using "it just works" as a justification to keep relying on these laws. It's absurd. Regarding the constitution as a godly text that if touched could cause a celestial catastrophe is beyond idiotic. Tradition should never play a role in laws. Heritage should never play a role in laws. Some Americans believing that the founding fathers were some kind of divine omnipotent beings that could foresee the future are one step away from becoming a cult. Let it go and move on. Rewrite the laws and put the constitution in a museum where it belongs already.[/QUOTE] says the person that lives in a fucking country that plays off a religious image.

[QUOTE=XenArtifact;50611700]says the person that lives in a fucking country that plays off a religious image.[/QUOTE] now I may be wrong, but most people don't have a choice in where they're born

[QUOTE=Marbalo;50610785]How exactly has the government not earned your trust when the US is one of the worlds best leading nations in most fields ranging from medical fields to plumbing?[B] How has it not earned your trust when it provides you with water, clothing and food as well as a job of your choosing to supplement those wants and needs? [/B]Have you any idea of just how much your government is doing for you? Or is it much easier to ignore all that - and insist on the idea that the government is shitty simply because it fucked up once or twice or made a horrible decision here and there - when it is confronted by similar dilemmas, daily and thousands of them when the outcome is good? Year round, everyday of the week, the government is doing everything it can to give you everything you might need - or want. The government IS serving the people every single day of the year. It's serving you and you must not forget just how good you are living even if you have already gotten used to all the good things you are surrounded with. You must always remember humility (of course not to argue that you are not allowed to criticize the government just because they keep the infrastructure functional). The measure of a good country is only based on the comparison of other nations. In which - you are almost unrivaled. It is always good to put the government under scrutiny. It is the driving force behind betterment. But don't overdo it or live in a paranoia fueled fantasy where any day now the government will evict you from your house and put a bullet in your skull. (Fuck it lets bring up the second amn.) Just like all the bullshit with arming the militas in case the government goes apeshit tyrannical stuff that's written in the constitution. I've argued with people on this very forum that genuinely fear this. All in all, your government is bending over backwards for you, running marathons and trying to keep everybody happy as best as it currently can. Bureaucracy and politics weighs the process down, some people fall through the cracks, not everyone is treated as they should, but you must admit that these are the expected, yet necessary casualties when governing a superpower with over 350 million people living in it.[/QUOTE] Clothing and food is not the result of government, it is the result of labor and companies trading with each other and not because the government gives it to you. The government grants stability and order in which to trade in, but that is the extent of which to thank them for. Federal government is not responsible for water or electricity. That's what the state and local governments provide and even then [I]you still pay for it and not through taxes[/I]. Humility? Tell that to all the left leaning individuals crying out for free healthcare and college and that everything should be a human right.

It would certainly be nice to write a new constitution updated for this century, with things like gun ownership, equal rights for all, and right to privacy clearly and specifically stated. [editline]28th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=LtKyle2;50611793] Humility? Tell that to all the left leaning individuals crying out for free healthcare and college and that everything should be a human right.[/QUOTE] I'm confused as to how wanting to provide human rights to people is in any way arrogant.

[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] [QUOTE=Marbalo;50610598]Abolish and rewrite them in their entirety, rename it, whatever. Do away with this almost fanatical fucking treatment of it.[/QUOTE] Imagine building a house in the early 1800’s. Each generation who lives in this house builds an addition onto its existing foundation to add features which make the house more convenient to live in as time goes by. The process continues until the 21st century. Some self-entitled little shits with no house building experience now own the property. They decide it’s within everyone’s best interest to completely remove the old “outdated” foundation and replace it with a new “modernized” one. Upon removing the old foundation and using temporary scaffolding to hold up the house, the people start to argue about what materials and construction methods to use for the new foundation. As they continue to argue, one of the following things will happen: A. They end up arguing with each other for too long and the temporary scaffolding fails, bringing the entire house down with it. B. They can’t make a serious decision on what materials to use, so they end up making a half assed compromise of using the worst possible combination of 2 materials, so the house falls down on them anyway. All of the history and effort which went into making the original house is now forever lost. [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] ^ Pretty much this. You guys aren't talking about altering one or two minor laws here, you're talking about possibly fucking around with the entire foundation this country was founded upon. [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] Considering that you’re saying this in a thread where a bunch of people are advocating for the Bill of Rights to be outright abolished and replaced, I’d say you’re the crazy one. But hey why not, let’s just risk horribly mangling one of the biggest fundamental laws in the country which protects us from abuse at the hands of government, just because we live in a first world country where politicians [I]never[/I] abuse their power. This kind of blatant ignorance is what will be the downfall of our country and society. [B]This is the most disgusting thread I have ever read on Facepunch, and you all should be ashamed of yourselves.[/B] I never thought I'd see a day where people just casually talk about contemplating on removing the bill of rights, and yet here we fucking are.[U] Good Fucking JOB[/U] /rant

Rewriting the Constitution sounds like a good next step into the perfect dystopia.

Rewriting the Constitution would be a nightmare. Everyone would want there piece and few would be happy with the result. I imagine it getting tied up in courts for decades. Funny enough the Bill of Rights being unalterable was a topic of some controversy when it was first conceived because of the fear that it might become dated later. But I say let it be

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;50611793]Clothing and food is not the result of government, it is the result of labor and companies trading with each other and not because the government gives it to you. The government grants stability and order in which to trade in, but that is the extent of which to thank them for. Federal government is not responsible for water or electricity. That's what the state and local governments provide and even then [I]you still pay for it and not through taxes[/I]. Humility? Tell that to all the left leaning individuals crying out for free healthcare and college and that everything should be a human right.[/QUOTE] Only, a lot of other civilized countries have those things. The US is one of the only developed countries that doesn't. What does that tell you?

[QUOTE=IrishBandit;50612023]It would certainly be nice to write a new constitution updated for this century, with things like gun ownership, equal rights for all, and right to privacy clearly and specifically stated.[/QUOTE]aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa what is this No, the constitution has been amended several times to expand equal rights, and if public sentiment continues like it does expect another amendment to specifically bolster the 4th's privacy protections. We don't need to rewrite anything "for this century" because it's already written "for this century." Our language hasn't changed, I can read documents from the 18th century without issue; especially legal documents which is what we're talking about. [QUOTE=archangel125;50613225]Only, a lot of other civilized countries have those things. The US is one of the only developed countries that doesn't. What does that tell you?[/QUOTE]lmao what "developed country" has government-issued clothing Your post tells me you didn't read his, LtKyle2 [I]specifically said[/I] that state and local governments provide services like utilities and welfare. [editline]28th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=AlbertWesker;50612046]This kind of blatant ignorance is what will be the downfall of our country and society. [B]This is the most disgusting thread I have ever read on Facepunch, and you all should be ashamed of yourselves.[/B] I never thought I'd see a day where people just casually talk about contemplating on removing the bill of rights, and yet here we fucking are.[U] Good Fucking JOB[/U] /rant[/QUOTE]All the while they wonder why we hold on to our guns aren't compromising and then accuse us of being paranoid and unreasonable. It's ridiculous, it's like watching somebody playing with gasoline and then telling you you're a paranoid idiot when you hug a fire extinguisher hoping they don't burn down your entire neighborhood.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50613511]aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa what is this No, the constitution has been amended several times to expand equal rights, and if public sentiment continues like it does expect another amendment to specifically bolster the 4th's privacy protections. We don't need to rewrite anything "for this century" because it's already written "for this century." Our language hasn't changed, I can read documents from the 18th century without issue; especially legal documents which is what we're talking about. lmao what "developed country" has government-issued clothing Your post tells me you didn't read his, LtKyle2 [I]specifically said[/I] that state and local governments provide services like utilities and welfare. [editline]28th June 2016[/editline] All the while they wonder why we hold on to our guns aren't compromising and then accuse us of being paranoid and unreasonable. It's ridiculous, it's like watching somebody playing with gasoline and then telling you you're a paranoid idiot when you hug a fire extinguisher hoping they don't burn down your entire neighborhood.[/QUOTE] You might be being a little bit paranoid if you think a few people discussing something on an internet forum is a major threat to your individual rights. Especially since this is the same forum where people have defended pedophilia and bestiality and sincerely murdering all Donald Trump supporters (yet talking about redrafting the US constitution is apparently the most alarming).

[QUOTE=Zyler;50613571]You might be being a little bit paranoid if you think a few people discussing something on an internet forum is a major threat to your individual rights.[/QUOTE]Here's a hint: this isn't contained to Facepunch, I'm not sure why you think it would be. [QUOTE]Especially since this is the same forum where people have defended pedophilia and bestiality and sincerely murdering all Donald Trump supporters (yet talking about redrafting the US constitution is apparently the most alarming).[/QUOTE]Yeah no, I'm not going to list all of the many, many, [U]many[/U] opinions I have on all sorts of unrelated bullshit every time I post. We're talking about a specific thing, retards defending pedophilia and talking about murdering people aren't relevant to this discussion. Again, I'm not sure what was going on in your head.

that this judge is commenting as they are is proof enough that this is discussed beyond fp

Didn't they originally want the constitution to be refreshed like every 18 years or something?

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;50613692]Didn't they originally want the constitution to be refreshed like every 18 years or something?[/QUOTE] It was an idea from Jefferson, but it went nowhere.

[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 watch list or a no-fly 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] What are you talking about? The no-fly list was declared unconstitutional in 2014 as a violation of the Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14th Ademendment until the US Government provides some way for people on it to appeal it. Meanwhile the freedom of movement was declared a constitutional right by the Supreme Court in 1868 when Nevada tried to implement Exit Visas [editline]28th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;50613692]Didn't they originally want the constitution to be refreshed like every 18 years or something?[/QUOTE] There was also a Forth Branch of Government proposed that some states did have, I think New York and Pennsylvania, that was basically a elected court who ever 4 to 8 years who's sole purpose would be to review all the laws and acts of the legislature and executive branch and void and nullify any they found to be contradictory to the Constitution or infringe .

Should the constitution be updated a bit? Yes I think it should be because there are parts of it that aren't up with the times. But the problem is that I don't think we can trust the people in power right now with changing the constitution because a lot of them will probably see as it as a chance to add shit that benefits them and nobody else. and remove the parts that doesn't.

I'll stick with Critical Theory and accept that the Constitution is an inherently undemocratic set of laws to prevent majority control issues. As weird, undemocratic and Byzantine our government can be. At least referendums can't fuck over half the population because majority rules. Is it perfect? No. Are a few things in need of bring added like a legit privacy amendment, yes. Will I trade it for a Parliament system? Fuck no.