http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... ?tid=sm_fb

As a result of the rulings in Heller and McDonald, the Second Amendment, which was adopted to protect the states from federal interference with their power to ensure that their militias were “well regulated,” has given federal judges the ultimate power to determine the validity of state regulations of both civilian and militia-related uses of arms. That anomalous result can be avoided by adding five words to the text of the Second Amendment to make it unambiguously conform to the original intent of its draftsmen. As so amended, it would read:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

I never understood this line of reasoning. Why would it be necessary to draft an amendment to protect the militia's right to bare arms? Wouldn't that be like having an amendment saying the Navy is allowed to own and operate ships?

How many words would it take to create fixed terms of service for SC justices?

The constitution needs to be burned, and re-written from the ground up. Simple amendments aren't going to fix what needs to be fixed anymore. It was a good start but we need to update it to modern times.

Sounds like a rehash of the story from February.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... -amendment

The WaPo entry linked in the OP:

Following the massacre of grammar-school children in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012...

I guess it's about Sandy Hook. Surprise. The only interesting part is that apparently we cannot expect a former SC Justice to lead his essay with anything other than hiding behind deal children. In that regard Stevens' essay starts off no differently than just about every PAG article or opinion piece written within the past 16 months.

I have one word for Retired Justice Stevens: bu-bye.

Glad he wasn't there to derail McDonnald or none of us who aren't LEOs would be able to defend ourselves with firearms.

Jokers like him fail to see why armed self defense is a Ninth Amendment right.

gendoikari wrote:The constitution needs to be burned, and re-written from the ground up. Simple amendments aren't going to fix what needs to be fixed anymore. It was a good start but we need to update it to modern times.

I have no doubt that re-write would exclude or undermine most of the language currently in the BoR. I can't imagine having the current filth comprising the ruling elite write a new constitution. You would need to plan on surrendering all your firearms (2A), be prepared for repeated warrantless searches (4A) for contraband if there are not peacekeeping forces simply living at your house (3A), face felony convictions without grand jury indictments or trial protections (5A, 6A), undergo cruel and unusual punishment (8A), and keep your mouth shut about it (1A)--all while criminals simply exempt themselves, of course. And 9A and 10A would simply be gone. Beyond the BoR, much of 14A would be gone as well.

I'm glad Scalia and Thomas aren't re-writing the rest of the amendments...

Why does every supreme think they need to "fix" the system? It's not up to you to write the laws. You're supposed to make decisions based on law, not based on your ego. I swear, Scalia is the worst "what the founders meant"...shut the fuck up and rule on law, not on your imaginary idea of what people were thinking 222 years ago.

DispositionMatrix wrote:

gendoikari wrote:The constitution needs to be burned, and re-written from the ground up. Simple amendments aren't going to fix what needs to be fixed anymore. It was a good start but we need to update it to modern times.

I have no doubt that re-write would exclude or undermine most of the language currently in the BoR. I can't imagine having the current filth comprising the ruling elite write a new constitution. You would need to plan on surrendering all your firearms (2A), be prepared for repeated warrantless searches (4A) for contraband if there are not peacekeeping forces simply living at your house (3A), face felony convictions without grand jury indictments or trial protections (5A, 6A), undergo cruel and unusual punishment (8A), and keep your mouth shut about it (1A)--all while criminals simply exempt themselves, of course. And 9A and 10A would simply be gone. Beyond the BoR, much of 14A would be gone as well.

So Same as now basically?

senorgrand wrote:I'm glad Scalia and Thomas aren't re-writing the rest of the amendments...

Why does every supreme think they need to "fix" the system? It's not up to you to write the laws. You're supposed to make decisions based on law, not based on your ego. I swear, Scalia is the worst "what the founders meant"...shut the fuck up and rule on law, not on your imaginary idea of what people were thinking 222 years ago.

TBH, both main camps at the Constitutional Conventions made their thoughts and their thought processes very clear in their writings. Ruling on precedent alone would mean that Dread Scott would still be the law today.

gendoikari wrote:The constitution needs to be burned, and re-written from the ground up. Simple amendments aren't going to fix what needs to be fixed anymore. It was a good start but we need to update it to modern times.

Won't happen until after a civil war that makes the last one look like a domestic disturbance and even then we'll lose everything rather than gain anything. Feudalism 4 teh Win!

gendoikari wrote:So Same as now basically?

I expect better than teabagger fantasy from you.

The constitution needs to be burned, and re-written from the ground up.

I'm quite sure that if we did that, the corporations would have a lot more say in how it was written than you or I would. I think I'll keep what we've got.

As to Stevens's position, I'm quite sure that I belong to several militias, as would have been defined by the founding fathers.

fknauss wrote:'m quite sure that if we did that, the corporations would have a lot more say in how it was written than you or I would. I think I'll keep what we've got.

Aye.

This would be my fear as well.

I just get annoyed at the concept that we need to look through everything with 200+ year old eyes. As if 1776 was somehow perfectly relevant to 2014.

The constitution needs to be interpreted with respect to how times change. That's just the way it is. That may be extending free speech to the internet, forcing the NSA to stop snooping as part of 4A, or clarifying an individual's right to bear arms without marching around in some official militia.

1. I disagree with JP Stevens now, even though he is correct in his historical take on the constitution. The last thing any of us should want is state militias - that made the civil war that much more terrible. what he is really advocating is erasing the 2A.

2. Leave the constitution alone. While not perfect, it is darn close to a miracle document - except for the BORs, the 13th, 14th, and 26th amendments, most of the changes have been undone or were procedural (I am overstating and I know that). But i do admit, but for the 26th amendment Bill still might be President.

3. I am concerned about the diminution of rights for individuals while corporations get rights never intended. Do not forget, in 1789 there was really only one corporation in the entire world - John Company (British East India Co.). Companies were owned by individuals. Thus, it is pure crap to say corporations were ever intended to have rights. Last thing I want to see is corporations with 2A rights - think about that horror.

4. Ignore Stervens - everyone else will.

5. Do worry about the BORs. They make this country a country of laws and are the key to our greatness. And, please excuse me if I say that anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

gendoikari wrote:

DispositionMatrix wrote:

gendoikari wrote:The constitution needs to be burned, and re-written from the ground up. Simple amendments aren't going to fix what needs to be fixed anymore. It was a good start but we need to update it to modern times.

I have no doubt that re-write would exclude or undermine most of the language currently in the BoR. I can't imagine having the current filth comprising the ruling elite write a new constitution. You would need to plan on surrendering all your firearms (2A), be prepared for repeated warrantless searches (4A) for contraband if there are not peacekeeping forces simply living at your house (3A), face felony convictions without grand jury indictments or trial protections (5A, 6A), undergo cruel and unusual punishment (8A), and keep your mouth shut about it (1A)--all while criminals simply exempt themselves, of course. And 9A and 10A would simply be gone. Beyond the BoR, much of 14A would be gone as well.

So Same as now basically?

No. Currently provisions in the constitution are undermined regularly to satisfy the whims of government, but at least those provisions still exist on paper. And occasionally that is to our benefit. Having 1A with the government illegally confining 1A activity to free speech zones is not worse than having 1A repealed or rewritten altogether.

gendoikari wrote:The constitution needs to be burned, and re-written from the ground up. Simple amendments aren't going to fix what needs to be fixed anymore. It was a good start but we need to update it to modern times.

Ah! So you want to live in an officially Christian country? Want to need a letter of recommendation from you minister to stand a chance of getting any decent paying work? Want compulsory pregnancy (aka "Pro Life") to be the Law of the Land? Want to have your tax dollars paying the clergy of favored denominations?

That's what most of the folks I've meet who are into scrapping the Constitution are after - nothing less than a reactionary Christian theocracy.

SwampGrouch wrote:

gendoikari wrote:The constitution needs to be burned, and re-written from the ground up. Simple amendments aren't going to fix what needs to be fixed anymore. It was a good start but we need to update it to modern times.

Ah! So you want to live in an officially Christian country? Want to need a letter of recommendation from you minister to stand a chance of getting any decent paying work? Want compulsory pregnancy (aka "Pro Life") to be the Law of the Land? Want to have your tax dollars paying the clergy of favored denominations?

That's what most of the folks I've meet who are into scrapping the Constitution are after - nothing less than a reactionary Christian theocracy.

Isn't that called "Sharia Law" elsewhere?

gendoikari wrote:The constitution needs to be burned, and re-written from the ground up. Simple amendments aren't going to fix what needs to be fixed anymore. It was a good start but we need to update it to modern times.

Isn't that the fallback logic for people who want gun control and people who want the government to be able to access anything and everything about your person?

SwampGrouch wrote:

gendoikari wrote:The constitution needs to be burned, and re-written from the ground up. Simple amendments aren't going to fix what needs to be fixed anymore. It was a good start but we need to update it to modern times.

Ah! So you want to live in an officially Christian country? Want to need a letter of recommendation from you minister to stand a chance of getting any decent paying work? Want compulsory pregnancy (aka "Pro Life") to be the Law of the Land? Want to have your tax dollars paying the clergy of favored denominations?

I'd be okay with that. In the independent nation of Mississippi, that is. I live in Cascadia. I'd love life, with universal health care and other creamy goodness.

Yes, I would support a nonviolent division of the US into separate countries.

JColville wrote:

SwampGrouch wrote:

gendoikari wrote:The constitution needs to be burned, and re-written from the ground up. Simple amendments aren't going to fix what needs to be fixed anymore. It was a good start but we need to update it to modern times.

Ah! So you want to live in an officially Christian country? Want to need a letter of recommendation from you minister to stand a chance of getting any decent paying work? Want compulsory pregnancy (aka "Pro Life") to be the Law of the Land? Want to have your tax dollars paying the clergy of favored denominations?

That's what most of the folks I've meet who are into scrapping the Constitution are after - nothing less than a reactionary Christian theocracy.

Isn't that called "Sharia Law" elsewhere?

Yes, and I believe that's SwampGrouch's point, folks. Do you want that sort of legal regime to apply to you?

nhaP wrote: I'd be okay with that. In the independent nation of Mississippi, that is. I live in Cascadia. I'd love life, with universal health care and other creamy goodness.

Bingo! And it looks like we have our answer, folks.

If you want perfection, then die and go to Heaven, and you'll get it, but here on Earth, nothing's ever perfect. I'd say the Founding Fathers did pretty darn well overall.

fknauss wrote: I'm quite sure that if we did that, the corporations would have a lot more say in how it was written than you or I would. I think I'll keep what we've got.

How about "The right of corporations in the Fortune 500 and people affiliated with them have the right to a speedy trial with a jury of people making at least 250K per year (adjusted for inflation)."

I don't think the problems this country faces have to do with the Constitution. Take income inequality. There is nothing in the Constitution that says "Congress shall make no tax on stock compensation for corporate officers."

http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-chec ... 08250.html

This article turned into a real shit stirrer. LOL Take a look at the comments.

LibShooter wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-chec ... 08250.html

This article turned into a real shit stirrer. LOL Take a look at the comments.

And what's funny is Lyle Denniston (one of the SCOTUSblog regulars, btw) really didn't say ANYTHING. "Ohai, SCOTUS didn't say anything about RKBA until it did, and it hasn't since, but it might*, or it might not, and 2A isn't going to be changed because there isn't the political will to change it, and a Constitutional Convention would be like herding cats, blah blah blah..."

*The cert petition in Drake v. Jerejian is on SCOTUS's docket for this Friday. Since Peruta and the other two 9th Circuit cases create a conflict in the circuits, SCOTUS could grant cert in Drake. Or it might not.

There's a related thread in the 2nd amendment section.

sikacz wrote:There's a related thread in the 2nd amendment section.

I was brain dead and thought this was that same thread. I shall merge... ETA: And done.