Which parts of the US Constitution need to have a more modern interpretation?

Dude there are no Crimes. Pissing of Democrats is not a crime.

 

Yet it takes money to be heard and pretty much always has in this country To restrict the money a campaign has access to restricts it's ability get out its message.

 

And the details are what? Dude none of it is illegal.NDAs are not illegal even in a campaign. Not if you pay for it even second hand out of you own pocket. I have followed the trial. One of the reasons this is going to be over turned is the sheer amount of evidence that has nothing to do with the matter at hand presented.

 

Actuallu 16 to 65 your quoting draft law in WWII. And boys as young as fourteen and women both serve in Militia units in the revolution and in 1812 and men well beyond the top note the age limits tended to be little more than suggestions and it was not not limited by race. Around 5000 to 8000 African Americans served on the American side in the revolution. And at least one Spaniard name escapes me at the moment but he was know as the Spanish giant. His exploits are an interesting read.

 

The biggest thing restricting their ability to get out their message is the laziness of the voters.

I don't know about your state, but in my state I get a voter's pamphlet sent to me, provided free of charge to the candidates, for every election, by my state government. Anything the candidate wants to tell the voters is in the pamphlet.
If I'm a candidate for office, I can set up a website where my positions can be given. All of our members of Congress and the President, and all candidates for those offices have websites.
If I'm a candidate for a statewide office, I can call up the local TV stations and newspapers and offer to let them interview me, and they will.
Think of one of our country's swing states in presidential elections. I'll bet either Trump or Biden could offer to be interviewed by that state's major TV and print news organizations, and they would come running. They could even do it by phone or a virtual meeting on the internet.

And I won't bore you with the many examples of how our speech is limited already for the public good. I know you know them.

I think money is just the customary form of exchange for goods and services. It is not, by itself, "speech."

And so I think it is not unconstitutional to regulate political donations for the public good. I'm not saying we should prohibit donations. But I do think the unregulated gigantic amounts of money donated by corporations and wealthy individuals erodes the integrity of our elected leaders. When they decide how to vote on things, they should be focused on the issue and how it effects the vast majority of the people they represent, not how it effects their biggest donors, or how those big donors want them to vote. But we know that those huge cash donations influence them, and that is not what we gave them the office for.

 

Ours comes from the league of women voters or used to and it reads like everything the democratic party wants you to know. Restricting money in politics is an incumbent protection scam. The country spends more on fast food yearly then it does on political races.

 

I don't think restricting money is an incumbent protection scam. I think incumbents usually have a huge advantage over challengers in raising money, particularly from large donors. But we're going off topic.

It is not good for America to have our elected leaders bought and paid for by the highest bidder. The highest bidder doesn't usually have America's best interests in mind, and you wonder why things are the way they are.

Old saying: "Things are the way they are because someone wants them that way."

 

Not necessarily. In fact if both sides are limited to the same expeditures incombents will still win nearly 95% of the time just on name recognition alone. Disadvantages in name recognition can be hell. When I was a kid Will Rogers Jr. used to run for governor every year. No campaigning, no policies and no platform, Just his name on the ballot. His dad had been famous entertainer in the 20's and 30's. He wouldn't spend a dime other than that necessary to get his name on the ballot and because people new the name he'd still get 10-20% of the vote.

 

Changing the meaning requires a constitutional amendment.

I support changing ratification from 3/4ths of the States to 2/3rds to make it easier to amend the constitution, but that would take the agreement of 3/4ths of the States.

 

Why?

 

Nothing is free. Even those pamphlets are not free. Its paid for by taxpayers. And I would bet only for candidates that make it onto the ticket. In order to get onto the ticket you must have money to reach out to people in order to have enough people supporting you to get onto the ticket. In addition those pamphlets do not answer any questions that arise.

Websites cost money.

And newspaper/tv networks will not interview if you've never even been heard of. Just because you enter a race doesn't mean anything. You've got to be recognized as a serious candidate first before they'll give you any airtime. Its why most people start out in local races to get their name out there.

Phones cost money.
Internet costs money. Due to that even posting on this forum (or any other social media platform) costs money. The people that run this forum pay for it via donations and when they don't get enough donations they pay for it out of their pocket.

Like I said, nothing is free.

 

I didn't say it was all free, but I still don't think money is "speech." When you write or speak with your mouth, that is speech. And I don't think it is good for America to have our leaders bought and paid for by the highest bidder.

I'm not saying they couldn't take campaign donations. But I wouldn't mind regulations that put all of us, rich, middle, and poor, on pretty much a level playing field.

 

Here is the problem, we don't always know how what the original intention actually was. Sure the Federalist Papers and other writings help, but those can be misinterpreted as well. The other issue, is that the world has changed. How can you compare a society where information could take weeks if not months to get to its destination, versus a society where information is instantaneous or a society where the most powerful weapon threw big balls of iron a few hundred yards versus a society which has weapons that can destroy the whole planet? The people who wrote the Constitution knew this, which is why they added a way to change the Constitution, but the problem with that is we, as a society, are reluctant to make those changes. The last time an amendment was added to the Constitution, was over 30 years ago.

 

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-n...ose legal name is,to “promote his candidacy.”

"Prosecutors allege that Trump allegedly disguised the transaction as a legal payment and falsified business records numerous times to “promote his candidacy.” Trump faces 34 counts of falsifying business records. He has pleaded not guilty."

Please stop calling me Dude. Dudette would be more applicable.

 

The founders had no idea what America would become. It was based on what they knew of the world at the time, and they wrote a Constitution that included rules for changing that constitution as events dictated. Instead, to many (including several SCOTUS members), it's become a sacred document that should remain untouched for eternity. Many worship the document without understanding it or even reading it.

Thomas Jefferson suggested that the Constitution be updated every 20 years.

https://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/...-at-the-time-it-was-signed-and-agreed-to-1789

 

Yes they allege a lot of nonsense. But it was a legal payment to a lawyer for legal work done. What makes it illegal? Note it is not illegal to pay blackmail for any reason it is only illegal to ask for it. As for dude or dudette as you wish my lady. And sorry but CNN is not a legitimate source on anything concerning Trump.

 

That is why we have an amendment process.

 

The Constitution was largely authored by Thomas Jefferson.
Imagine if it is completely true that Thomas Jefferson was a sexual predator towards a 14 (fourteen!) year old slave child of his called Sally Hemings, and then fathered six children with her (the children of slaves became slaves and property)?
Surely that is as made up as Biden winning the Presidency, I mean Making America Great Again surely means returning to the time of the Constitution nobly authored by those great men and women all those years ago?

 

That argument wasn't settled until Heller, decided by a 5/4 conservative only vote, and rather recently in historical terms. As precedents go, that is as week as it gets.

 

I saw them with my own eyes. Sorry, there were plenty of crimes.

But, we shall see how the trials go. And don't harp on the one in NY, many dems are not comfortable with that one, either. We're looking to the Wash DC trial, maybe the doc trial, if we can get Cannon taken off the case.

 

Nah, Roe is way weak, the liberal side of the court had to invent prenumerances and emanations to find abortion a constitutional right.

 

Some fake news there.

Sally Hemings was his beloved wife's half sister and looked a great deal like her. After his wife died in childbirth, Sally accompanied TJ to France while he was Ambassador. She was not his slave in France as slavery was illegal. It was in France, while they were sharing the sorrow of TJ losing his beloved wife and Sally was grieving the loss of her sister that they fell in love and stayed in love for the rest of their lives.

This was not a time when two people in love could be public. She returned to the United States with him, again became his "slave" in the appearance of any observing, bore him many children, all of which were freed as soon as they came of age, with any who were still minors freed in his will on TJ's death.

Sally and TJ's Grandson who fought to free the rest of the slaves in the Civil War

 

Your opinion doesn't change the fact that the American people have a right to own arms. Just like the second amendment explicitly says.

But of course there's no doubt that you know better

 

My point was 'the people' in 1787 was not 'everyone'. as the poster claimed. Thus the accuracy of your anecdotal historical fluidity vs my statutory definitions doesn't negate my point.

I was referring the the definition of "militia" in the context of the U.S. Constitution and its ratification in 1787.

The claim that the militia comprised individuals aged 16 to 65 and that younger boys and women also served during the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 needs to be contextualized. Initially, the general understanding from the Militia Acts during the early years of the Republic, particularly the Militia Act of 1792, was that it encompassed all free able-bodied white male citizens aged 18 to 45. This Act was enacted five years after the Constitution was ratified, likely reflecting the prevailing notions at that time about who constituted the militia.

The claim about ages 16 to 65 seems to reflect broader, less formal practice rather than statutory law. It's also true that in practice, both younger individuals and older men could be found in militia units, especially in times of dire need, but these were exceptions rather than the rule established by law.

While there are historical anecdotes of women and younger boys participating in various capacities during military conflicts like the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, these were not standard militia practices and often occurred in unofficial capacities. The formal militia, as understood for legislative and constitutional purposes, primarily included adult males.

It is accurate that African Americans served during the American Revolution, with estimates of 5,000 to 8,000 free or enslaved African Americans participating in various capacities. However, this participation was often heavily restricted and varied widely by region and over time. The inclusion of African Americans or other races in the militia was not formally recognized in many states until much later.

Never heard of 'spanish giant'.

My original statement refers specifically to the militia as understood in 1787 at the time of the Constitution's ratification. Therefore, the most directly relevant legislative context would be the aforementioned Militia Act of 1792, which reflects early American statutory definitions closely following the ratification period. The Act's stipulation of ages 18 to 45 for white male citizens would be the most pertinent.

While it's true that militia service and composition could be fluid during times of conflict, the formal definitions surrounding the time of the Constitution's ratification did not typically encompass such a wide demographic as suggested by you, or rather, that is my understanding of history.

 

Of course not. The Constitution is a contract between the People and the Government. It is the charter which gives the government legitimacy, defines how our government is to be formed, how its officials are to be elected, to what powers it is limited. It is also a contract between individual Americans defining our rights as Americans, as humans. A promise among ourselves to come to the aid of America and other Americans should their rights defined therein be usurped. Like all contracts since the time of Hammurabi, its meaning does not change. The whole purpose of a contract is to set down in writing the exact agreement, so at some later date no confusion may exist. It is the sacred oath all Americans make with each other to abide and defend (up to and including our very lives) against all enemies foreign and domestic, if we are to call ourselves American. It is literally what it means to call ones-self an American.

The People aren't omnipotent. No contract created by mankind can anticipate every eventuality. In cases where such eventualities result in conflict as to proper Constitutional authority or remedy, the Supreme Court of the United States has been given the power to interpret the proper authorization or remedy (Marbury vs Madison). The People themselves have been given the authority to amend the Constitution should they deem it is in need of further clarification. The process for such constitutional amendments is likewise defined in the Constitution itself. The amendment process is a difficult hurdle to surmount. No past right of The People may be circumvented by amendment. Rights once defined in the Constitution are inalienable. So no, it is not a "living document" whose meaning is to be interpreted in a manner different from that which it possessed at the time of enactment. It is only a living document in the sense that further clarification by The People may be added from time to time should they deem it necessary to further clarify the Rights of The People. This is the purpose of the 9th and 10th Amendments. Any power or right not explicitly defined in the Constitution as having been given by The People to the US Government remains with The People and subsequently the States. All rights delineated are inalienable and cannot be restricted by the government through the amendment process.

In short, I would pose a question. If you enter into a contract for let's say the sale of property or a labor contract agreement, would you prefer the contract to be interpreted in any manner which wasn't the intent at the time you signed it? Of course not. The whole purpose in putting it down in writing is to guarantee the original intent is maintained by all parties.