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

Obviously the 2nd A. But we don't need to change the meaning. We should interpret it as was ORIGINALLY intended. What SHOULD be updated is the fact that "a well regulated militia" is NO LONGER "necessary to the security of a free state". And, for this reason, the 2nd A is as obsolete as the 3rd A.

My reasons are explained in multiple threads

The topic of this thread
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-101-for-gun-advocates.585785/

The EVIDENCE of what the idiom "to keep and bear arms" meant when it was passed
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/

The REAL reason why the 2nd A was passed
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/

And WHO this "well regulated militia" referred to (Spoiler alert: NOT "everybody")
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...form-part-of-a-well-regulated-militia.589757/

These threads were moved by mods from this forum to the "Gun Control" forum. So I believe they want us to discuss this there, and not here.

 

Apart from the 2nd A, I think we need to make sure that the Preamble of the Constitution is given its proper place. It explains WHY we constituted a nation in the first place. What its purpose is. And then evaluate every action, every law, every court decision, every single action by the government by THAT measure. The Preamble is not a law. It's the REASON for all laws. It is the basis to interpret ALL laws that have been enacted since.

One relevant thing about the Preamble, is that it's the BASIS for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the sense that everything in that Declaration, written by the committee chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt, actually RESPONDS to the rationale in the Preamble.

 

By 'update' do you mean amend?

 

Nope... We don't "amend" reality. Reality amends itself.

 

So... ignore the parts you dont like? You say 'update' instead of reinterpret or amend. Be specific- how does an 'update' to the constitution work, in your view? Realistically.

 

you ignore that if the entire constitution was interpreted as intended, the tenth amendment would prevent all federal gun control and your only issue is how the second is incorporated upon the states.

 

we all have figured out that his constant attempts to reinterpret the second is a concession that second is an obstacle to the gun bans he wants

 

well that is complete nonsense because the main purpose of the second was to prevent a federal government that was never given any gun control powers in the first place from acting in that area. and when the dishonest FDR court pretended that the commerce clause could trump the second amendment, that alone made the second amendment extremely important

 

Exactly the opposite. I LOVE the fact that a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state. Do YOU ignore that FACT? If you do, you have just proven you are projecting.

 

Some believe that the business of militia was included for political reasons. The actual reason, they say, was allowing people to arm in resistance to a government gone rogue. That seems extreme but it is just as reasonable as arming a militia. At any rate the 2d amendment didn't provide for gun ownership solely for militia. The text doesn't suggest any restrictions, only a reason.

 

It really depends on how you define 'state' and 'security.'

If 'the state' is the administrators and resources of the govt, then no, armed citizens arent demonstrably necessary to 'the state's' security, and may even be a threat to it.

If 'the state' is The People, well we dont have nearly enough cops to ensure everyone's security enough to ban them all from arming themselves.

But you still didnt answer the question: You say 'update' instead of reinterpret or amend. Be specific- how does an 'update' to the constitution work, in your view? Realistically.

 

I'm not talking about the entire constitution. Only about the 2nd A.

The INTENTION of the constitution, as I said, is spelled out in the Preamble.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-interpretation.618415/page-8#post-1074785612

 

and you are completely, totally, and thoroughly wrong about your reinterpretation of what the founders intended

 

as Kates noted in his seminal law review article in the U of Michigan Law Review (one of the top such journals in terms of academic respect and citation by the USSC) even if arming the militia was the main reason, there is no evidence the founders saw it as the ONLY reason and those who pretend that the second did not guarantee and individual right, have a high mountain to climb in order to prove what has no support among the writings or speeches of the founders

 

Are you saying the preamble takes precedence over the actual laws and rights in the body of the Constitution?

 

The main purpose of the 2nd A is explicitly spelled out in the TEXT of the 2nd A: to ensure the readiness of the well-regulated militias because it was "necessary to the security of a free state". It's the same if you look at the discussions by the framers leading to the enactment and approval in the links I provided (comment there, if there is anything you can rebut) Today well regulated militias are not necessary. Therefore, following the conditions indicated in the OP, without changing a single word, it should be interpreted as being obsolete.

 

wrong as usual-this is what it's main purpose is

TO PREVENT THE GOVERNMENT FROM INFRINGING ON THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR arms. as long as there are control freaks and criminals, the people need to be armed.

you also completely ignore the Cruikshank and Justice Story teaching which shows that the second was written to guarantee the right of SELF DEFENSE which is why the Court in Cruikshank noted that the right does not come from the constitution.

 

He constantly changes this in order to constantly pretend that the second doesn't stop Democrat schemes to ban guns. It's all outcome based reinterpretation that flies in the face of what the founders intended and what is obvious to people whose agenda does require ignoring the obvious meaning of the amendment

 

Did you mean to say inalienable or obsolete? Militias are still necessary, nice try.

 

No it doesn't. We KNOW what the founders meant. By "state" they meant the country. And by "security" they meant a military attack from a foreign nation. Most notably, at the time, the British

Are you playing with semantics?

You can use "interpret" if you want. But what I'm saying is simply that what is NEW is that a well regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state. That is not quite an "interpretation". It's just that reality has changed. So I hesitate to use the word "interpret". But you can read it that way if you want. It doesn't change my point.

 

No it doesn't

 

If any parts of the Constitution are thought by some of us to be "too old" to be useful today, then the Constitution should be AMENDED with the desired changes in wording or context. The Constitution has already been amended 27 times and that is the ONLY way we should make "revisions" in meaning or interpretation. Cancel and supersede the part that is considered to be inadequate by today's standards with an amendment, but don't to slime your way around what is actually written there by 're-imagining' it!

 

The preamble is not a part of the Constitution and certainly should not be treated as if it was.

 

The founders were in the process of overthrowing one 'state' and building a new one. Violently (as the previous state necessitated). What is a foreign nation but a hostile and unwelcome govt? Why would a state that turns hostile and unwelcome to uts own people be any different?

 

Precisely.