AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Overstretching of Constitutional Rights

89 11781
SirNoobalot
offline
SirNoobalot
22,207 posts
Nomad

In modern America, the Bill of Rights along with ( i think) the other 13-15 amendments i believe are too vague, especially the Bill of Rights. The wording seems too outdated, and the translated meanings generalized...

should the Bill of Rights be rewritten to set much more clear standards??

and another, using the Amendments to protect against felony. So does the Constitution/Bill of Rights overrule everything that is the US justice system???

  • 89 Replies
Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,504 posts
Jester

You're using a demotivational poster to back up your speedy argument? Come on people! Use your own heads. The durability of this thread depends on it. Look at my reply. Anything else you can add? Do you argue it? If so, why? Besides gun laws, what else does the Constitution affect that is so ambiguous?

Get some brain flow going, use legitimate evidence instead of stupid pictures to questionable websites, argue some points to agree or prove me wrong, get some other points of interest going,or else this thread will be locked.

Efan
offline
Efan
3,086 posts
Nomad

It's far too old to still be truly relevant and functional. A rewrite that keeps some of the better parts while extensively modernizing it would be ideal.

Exactly because improvement comes from change after all.
Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,504 posts
Jester

It's far too old to still be truly relevant and functional. A rewrite that keeps some of the better parts while extensively modernizing it would be ideal.


Yes, and textbook interpretations of what the old amendments mean, interpreted by Supreme Court justices, doesn't mean squat, right? If we are just here to discuss re-writing the Constitution because it is illegible, then we are not getting anywhere as Americans.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.


Canst thou tell which amendment boreth the hand of The Framers?
Asherlee
offline
Asherlee
5,001 posts
Shepherd

The reason we moved away from simply discussing the Bill of Rights is because most of us agreed that it needs to be amended, not rewritten because some aspects are not applicable in this day in age.

So, why are we beating a dead horse?

Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,504 posts
Jester

While most are not commonly applicable in this day and age, they will most definitely occur when we least expect it. If we need to repeal an amendment to the constitution by the proper methods, then lets. If else, then they need to be left alone as was intended.

Asherlee
offline
Asherlee
5,001 posts
Shepherd

I agree, Freak, but what about some of the very vague amendments? I mean the first amendment really is vague and people use it to their advantage when they shouldn't.

waluigi
offline
waluigi
1,946 posts
Shepherd

Besides gun laws, what else does the Constitution affect that is so ambiguous?


Personally, I think that some people take freedom of speech a little to far (hopefully, I'm not doing this in the wrong thread). Out here, the was a funeral for a soldier and some group showed up at the funeral protesting the war in Iraq with sayings like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers". The Constitution does say that people have freedom of speech, but that takes it just a bit to far. What made it even worse was in court, the man who sued the group was ordered to pay the group some $10,000 or something like that. We need to do something about that. At least make it so people can't protest at private viewings and such things. Freedom of Speech needs to be amended, at least slightly.
samy
offline
samy
4,871 posts
Nomad

At least make it so people can't protest at private viewings and such things. Freedom of Speech needs to be amended, at least slightly.


I agree but at the same time I can't say that we should amend the amendment.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

-Voltaire
holt24
offline
holt24
1,133 posts
Nomad

Personally, I think that some people take freedom of speech a little to far (hopefully, I'm not doing this in the wrong thread). Out here, the was a funeral for a soldier and some group showed up at the funeral protesting the war in Iraq with sayings like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers". The Constitution does say that people have freedom of speech, but that takes it just a bit to far. What made it even worse was in court, the man who sued the group was ordered to pay the group some $10,000 or something like that. We need to do something about that. At least make it so people can't protest at private viewings and such things. Freedom of Speech needs to be amended, at least slightly.


Maybe. just maybe the first amendment needs to change in regard to private thing but that's still a slippery slope.
xBHWKxUSAx
offline
xBHWKxUSAx
121 posts
Nomad

Personally, I think that some people take freedom of speech a little to far (hopefully, I'm not doing this in the wrong thread). Out here, the was a funeral for a soldier and some group showed up at the funeral protesting the war in Iraq with sayings like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers". The Constitution does say that people have freedom of speech, but that takes it just a bit to far.


Couldn't this fall into disorderly conduct depending on the state? Some states like North Carolina have statutes prohibiting threatening behavior specifically around funerals.
Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,504 posts
Jester

I agree, Freak, but what about some of the very vague amendments? I mean the first amendment really is vague and people use it to their advantage when they shouldn't.


Hmm...let's see here.

[quote=Constitution]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/quote]

The first point is simple. We cannot have laws to restrict Religion or be in favor of it. The third point means you can assemble, such as strikes against your work station, or to petition for something. You can petition for or against something political as well. All this has to be peacefully, of course.

Speech and press may need clarification and amending. Of course, we can't just say whatever the hell we want anywhere. Right now, it's not against the law to do so, but it's against common ethics to say whatever you want in certain areas, especially if it's meant to be distasteful.

The press states you can write and type out whatever you want. This has limits, such as the press must be truthful and have significant backing. Those that type against an individual may be sued for slander*.

The only things that are iffy for me about amending the early areas of the Constitution is:

--Something can go wrong. The areas are broad for a reason. If we clarify the amendments to make it more restricting, then there may be instances in which a person could do things that they now cannot do anymore and would get arrested. The judges that are used to interpreting these early amendments would now have to interpret the new versions of them--that could backfire.

--It takes a dang long time to repeal. If said judges are okay with the rulings, it could take a little more or less than a decade to have new judges in place to change the amendments, if X is too restricting. So if they do screw something up, we may have to wait 1-2 more presidents to have it redone. And even THAT could backfire.
Joe96
offline
Joe96
2,226 posts
Peasant

I think the Constitution should be revised. One example is when illegal immigrants enter America, have children, and then use them as anchors. Then instead of just kicking them out, there is a big debate over whether to let them stay or not.

delossantosj
offline
delossantosj
6,672 posts
Nomad

no why would it need to be rewritten? thats what the supreme court is for

wajor59
offline
wajor59
909 posts
Nomad

I would have to say that the Constitution is worded perfectly. It may appear, at the first three glances, to be vague but Amendment I states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Truly, I've signed mortgage papers that weren't this clear! The beauty of this Amendment is in the simplicity of it.

This allows for every citizen to have a voice, it promises that Government won't tell me which God to pray to or which church to join or for that matter, to not hold to any religion. Either way I deserve respect and my opinion, as long as I assemble peacefully, matters. I, as a citizen may write to the Government with any problem I have.

Now, a lot of people have had a big problem with the 2nd Amendment:

A well Regulated Militia, Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is 2010 and we have the Border Patrol, Coast Guard, Homeland Security, FBI, etc. What the heck do we need a militia for? I live in North Carolina and I've never seen an FBI agent, in person. I've never seen a coast guard patrol boat even when I lived within 6 miles of the Atlantic Ocean. I've never seen a Border Patrol Officer nor have I seen a Homeland Security Officer walking a beat in my city. What I have witnessed have been long waits for officers to come investigate home invasions.

I see an immediate need for a "well regulated militia" that is trained by local police, sheriffs and highway patrol in an effort to allow citizens to patrol their own neighborhoods and feel safer around their neighbors.

I know who my neighbors are by name and by sight but I don't really know who they are behind closed doors. I would like to think that I trust my neighbors enough that I would never consider them as stalkers, thieves, etc. However I'm not naive enough to think that they aren't capable of committing crime.

What I may have difficulty with, in this century is the 3rd Amendment:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Ok,I would hope that my home would never be invaded by the army nor seized by the Government whether in peace time or war time! With keeping this amendment, as is, I know that this will never happen without the proper civil court order.

The 4th Amendment states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In other words, the Government had better have a proper Warrant, signed by the Judge of a civil court before the door to my house is kicked in by anyone, in uniform or not. Other wise, I have the right to shoot to kill anyone who's busting down my door.
The Warrant also has to include more than just &quotrobable cause" for the intrusion of my privacy. There has to be supporting evidence and a description of what is to be searched, who is to be searched, who is to be apprehended and why. All of this has to take place on the front porch before officers can just march into my home.
This amendment is perfectly worded, even in today's language.

I'll stop here and if anyone wishes me to continue, because I love talking about the Constitution and I could easily break down the rest of amendments, just ask.

Showing 76-89 of 89