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

how about telling us if you think the second amendment needs to be revised or -as some of the gun banners say-eliminated as "obsolete"

the only issue is what the second amendment was intended to do-not the varying individual views of some of those who many have voted for its ratification

 

Everything to you boils down to your guns, so you ask the same questions over and over even when you have heard the answers dozens of times. When it comes to the topic, I have mentioned the Air Force, and Paper Money, + the fact that the founders were essentially gun banners. If some people argue the second amendment is obsolete, then you need to take it up with them, not me.

 

Exactly! Even though I don't personally like guns, I acknowledge the right of the people to defend themselves. But everybody (even Scalia) acknowledges that not all guns should be allowed. AND they should only be in the hands of people who have the ability and mental state to use them for that purpose. Maybe @Turtledude thinks that if some type of check for those conditions were a requirement, he might be left out. I'm only speculating...

 

I can't vouch for THIS partisan SCOTUS with at least two known justices who can be bribed (Thomas and Alito), but I'm pretty sure an honest non-partisan one would rule out any interpretation that negates any of the conditions "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, "

Or, at least, they should. Because it's in the Constitution!

 

everything to you boils down to contrarian comments so you try to pretend you are neutral when your real goal is taking often contradictory positions in order to stir stuff up. what the founders personally were has no relevance to what they thought the new federal government should be able to do. Some were devout Christians, some were Agnostic and at least a couple were atheists-but we have the first amendment

 

Thanks for re-posting your standard response to everything you don't want to hear. Unfortunately its only a meaningless deflection. Of course its true that I like to challenge what people claim. I do it to bring facts to the table. It helps to look at things from all sides, as opposed to re-gurgitating old talking points.

What I said has nothing to do with what their religion was, or what they were personally, but what actions they enforced during the revolutionary war.

 

do you claim that those who were-as you call it 'gun banners' instituted that view into the constitution?

 

I said what I said, nothing more, nothing less. I said they grabbed guns from people unwilling to serve in militias. Later the same people wrote the 2A. You can look up the 2A text and learn what it says. You made this about the 2A, not me, but it seems you insist the 2A is the only topic in the universe.

 

No I haven't, sorry.

 

The very same could be said of the defendant.

 

Your assumption, aside, there is no 'you', or 'me', we are anonymous.
Words matter, you nor I do not matter. All that matters is the argument.

Horseshit, you're making grandiose assumptions.

I don't use AI to compose. I use it to correct, verify, improve. I'll write out something, then feed it to 2 or 3 different AI's for feedback, fact verification, suggestions for links, embed annotations in the text. I often ask it to rewrite, word for word, what I wrote, but make it comport to facts if I'm not accurate, make it more coherent.

Then I'll take it to other AIs for fact verification, more links. It's a process to be as accurate as I can, because i want to be on the right side of any argument, I put effort into what I write. From what I can tell, a lot of folks on this forum don't seem to put much effort into their posts. Just want to chit chat, toss out their not well thought out opinions, which is fine, but that is not me.

I don't write for those with simplistic mindsets, short attention spans, ignorance of nuance, because life is nuanced, and often requires more than 25 words. If you can't handle me, how can you handle Publius, or the Constitution, or any treatise, essay, or any writing that is more than 25 words, because life is full of writings longer than mine? Oh, you say this is a discussion forum, okay, so what? The character limit is 16k, so take it up with the mods.

You don't like my prose, find another thread and quit complaining, it's a waste if time.

If I do use AI for a segment, I'll put it entirely in italics and preface it with 'Copilot' as I would for any source. Lot's of folks quote text they didn't write, what's the difference between their quote and a quote by AI that is summarizing internet text? What's the difference?

Whatever words I commit to print, I will own.

If you disagree, then rebut.

All the matters is the argument. Who wrote it, who cares?

Either you can refute the argument, or you can't.

Anything else is a lame excuse to not engage, and is a cop out.

I'm really sick of hashing this point out with you, like I said, if you don't like the prose, find another thread. Don't waste the forum's time with useless comments. As far as I know, I'm not breaking any rules.

And what's the difference between using AI, which scours the internet at breakneck speed faster than I can, or myself, taking longer to do the same damn thing? It's a tool Your computer's a tool. Your cell phone's a tool, you use these things and now you're telling me you have problem with AI?

Do you understand how luddite-esque that sounds?

This is the era of AI, get over it. AI is here to stay and will only get better.

 

Yes, permission granted to use arms. So?

 

I disagree. No one's challenged FDR era interpretations, as far as I know.
You'd think the NRA would have done so, by now.

I'm no expert, I'll leave 'public safety' determinations to experts. But, of course, we'll have to reverse Bruen. But, I don't think even Bruen is absolute against regulation.

 

King James II did, but he was replaced by William of Orange (the revolution of 168 who implemented the English Bill of Rights in 1689, which granted citizen protestants permission to bear arms for home and self defense (defence, using Brit spelling).

I understand, your attention span can't handle it.

but don't ever read the Federalist Papers, or the entire constitution, or the Bible, or any book or treatise of more than 25 words, you wouldn't want to be a H......nevermind.

 

Broad language leaves more room for interpretation than narrow language, which is why we have a Supreme Court, and cases challenging laws the petitioner believes are unconstitutional, written by state legislatures who thought the constitution meant something different than what the petitioner thought it meant, sues, and now the matter will be resolved by the SC.

If it were much narrower, the odds of these cases would have happened a lot less. This tells me that the framers chose broad language to make the document 'interpretable' for the ages. Anything that is really a radical change, such will be for amendments, but zeitgeist adjustments by the court. The nature of those court rulings/interpretations, will be made according to the judicial p[hiloso;hy of the court, which was supposed to be justices installed by presidents who have the hearts and minds of the people. but, by a fluke of the electoral college, the system has failed us, and now we have justices who judicial philosophy, for the most part, comports to that of the minority.

This has occurred because the framers were unable to predict that in some 220 years or so, American demographics would coagulate into two dominant parties, where Republicans would dominate the more rural states, and Democrats would dominate the more urban states, which are, in essence, spectrum coagulations (manifesting as Repub/Dem parties) which did not exist at the time of the constitutions' ratification. And the EC would, due to this demographic shift, favor Republicans, the minority, which was never framer intent. The framers NEVER intended on minority rule.

They feared the excesses of majority rule, as evidenced by antiquity, and they did their best to temper it with a bicameral legislature, house of representatives, and 2 senators per state, and the EC, not realizing that in the distant future, states would have some 39 million people, 20 million people, and fast swings in demographics would occur, giving a minority the distinct advantage. If they were alive today, I sincerely doubt they would leave the system as is, because they did believe in fairness, and majority rule, tempered majority rule. But, today, a Democrat candidate for president must win by at least 3 million votes, or the EC will pick the minority candidate, the Republican, and minority rule is anti-democracy. Naturally, Repubs love it because they have no trouble clinging to power and exacting an agenda that most people do not want. The EC no longers gives them the incentive to modify their positions to win the hearts and minds of the people.

If that were true, Trump would never have had a litmus test for the three justices he chose, who deceptively gave the senate the idea they would respect stare decisis, leaving us to believe they would continue to uphold Roe v Wade. Boy,. did they fool us, the majority. Well, that little trick is going to back fire on republicans, make no mistake about it.

This (minority rule) was NEVER framer intent, as evidenced that it happened once in 211 years from 1788 (when Washington was elected) until the year 1999. in the last two decades, 2000-2024, it has happened TWICE. The evolution of demographics have resulted in a situation where the EC must be abolished, or modified to conform to original intent.

Given how the document is written, clearly they did not want a static document, nor did they want willy nilly changes, which the legal doctrine of stare decisis is supposed to thwart.

 

one of the problems with earlier generations of "conservative" judges is that they respected precedent. The democrat party would suffer greatly in elections following a reversal of Bruen or Heller.

the Wickard bullshit has been challenged numerous times and in the last twenty years, some of that nonsense has been rolled back. 5 USSC Justices determined Obama care was not a constitutional power of the federal government-Roberts-completely rejecting Obama's attorneys, held that it was a permissible tax to allow it to survive. US V Lopez also demonstrated that the commerce clause nonsense was not going to fly with some gun regulations. Many legal scholars also believe that a commerce clause basis of jurisdiction would not fly with requiring second hand intra state sellers of firearms to conduct background checks

 

I believe he said arms and I would agree with that-the second amendment doesn't protect artillery, surface to air missiles, militarized anthrax while stuff like crew served heavy machine guns are probably not protected either. Hand held firearms-yep, every one of them is protected

 

Our 2nd is worded so we don't need permission.

 

What he said was:
"...weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned..."

At least one thing you, Scalia and I agree on. But it's up to Congress, not to you, to define what "and the like" includes or doesn't include.

 

Give me something with less hyperbole and inanity and I'll respond.

 

No

 

I'm just quoting The Preamble of the Constitution. I couldn't POSSIBLY give you something with less hyperbole than that. An honest SCOTUS would have to rule on anything that negates any of the things mentioned there (which is what I quote)

 

Scalia was wrong there-he also later noted that the "in common use" should include civilian law enforcement because if a new weapon was developed, the government could restrict its use to civilian law enforcement and evade the Heller test. and you are WRONG yet again-it's not up to congress, it's up to the constitution

 

Seems obvious they designed a document that was any thing BUT static from the start; the entire amendment process makes that clear. What is also clear is that didn't want change by whim. You keep harping on minority rule but as designed that was never an issue. Within each state majority DOES RULE, although now with some idiot states bonding together forfeit the decisions of their citizens to the rulers of other states; effectively saying "the voters of California and New York are some much smarter than us yokels".
The Constitution is infinitely changeable, just not by simple majority constructs.

 

It's obvious you realize you argument is weak when you turn to demeaning comments and insults - Funny that just a couple of days ago I pointed out that the Federalist Papers clearing argued against majority rule. At least I write my owe comments rather than let some chunk of software.