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

I didn't read this entire thread, but I'm sure birthright citizenship has been mention by my fellow right wingers.

 

The electoral college is no longer useful and is actually harming our democracy by disenfranchising the majority of voters.
No one should ever win without getting the highest popular vote.

 

Why does it need to be interpreted? Just read it.

 

Nope, sorry.

 

If it was that simple there would be no arguments.

 

Yeah, yeah, it displays the founder's intent when creating the Constitution. We get it.

But that's not what I asked.

For the third time, what does the preamble have to do with later legislative amendments?

 

It is but there are.

 

Since there are then its not.

 

Absolutely none of it!!! Nowhere in the constitution does it state anything that gives the notion that it can change because of interpretation. It can only be changed by amendments.

 

No!!! When creating the Republic!

They're not just creating a set of laws. They are creating a WHOLE Republic. Our SECOND Republic, as a matter of fact. Our First Republic was constituted by the Articles of Confederation. Our Second Republic was constituted by a document called "Constitution of the United States". They named the document to highlight the purpose of the document. But understand that the document is MORE than just a set of laws.

It's called a Constitution because it's the way you CONSTITUTE a nation! (do you get the similarity?... Constitute?... Constitution?)

So when you see in this Constitution of our Second Republic the words "in Order to" that means this nation was constituted for a purpose. Or "with the intent of..." obtaining xxx... THAT is WHY we we establish this constitution of our Second Republic.

That's ALL the "intent" you will EVER need. Again IF the intent of the founding fathers is of any relevance to you. But if that intent changes, then we need to start talking about a THIRD Republic. Or a First Monarchy.... That we would need to decide.

For the third time you ask, and for the FOURTH time I explained. If you don't get it, .... I guess the only reason why you wouldn't get it that would be acceptable to the mods is that you don't WANT to "get it". So you can read it over and over. But four times is enough for me.

 

Here is where you fail. the reason why it was enacted was to reiterated that the federal government does not have any proper power to infringe on the rights of the citizens to keep and bear arms. As long as there is a possibility that the federal government may do that (and it has been established that the federal government constantly craps on our rights) the reason for the second exists facially. when one (for those of us who actually have a background in constitutional scholarship as I do) examines the natural right that serves as the foundation of the second amendment, the NATURAL RIGHT Of self defense, no one can HONESTLY claim that right is obsolete or no longer needed.

 

yes, a group of men who had just used arms to successfully rebel against an empire are mainly going to discuss arms in that context, You all fail by pretending that was the only context they thought free citizens should have arms-an assumption that you all have NEVER EVER COME CLOSE to establishing by using the words or speeches of the founders and it completely flies in the face of many comments they have made

 

bullshit. it doesn't disenfranchise anyone and you who want to change it ignore the fact that this nation was a union of sovereign states. and the EC prevents or at least retards the nefarious schemes of the Democrats that involve some states allowing improper votes

 

because dishonest gun banners hate the fact that their gun banning schemes are essentially treason and certainly unconstitutional. And when the 14th amendment and McDonald finally incorporated the second, then the Gun banners became even more frantic because blue state bullshit could be struck down=even in cases where dishonest democrat state judges ignored their own state constitutional safeguards

 

Hmmmm. That doesn't seem quite right. Okay....

Because Article VII of the 1689 (British) Bill of Rights explicitly states that the rights and liberties of subjects (citizens) include the right to bear arms: “That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law.” This provision was limited to non nobility Protestants (beyond your 'retinues') , your comment doesn't make sense. I'm not sure what you mean by what America was rejecting, other than we didn't limit the right to bear arms to just protestants.

 

Yeah, you gun nuts can't handle the fact that the matter of 'individual' vs 'militia' aspect of the second amendment wasn't a settled argument until 221 years later, and that Heller, whose history is wrong, was decided on a shakey 5/4 vote, and rather recently. Hardly a precedent that will withstand the test of time, should a future liberal court return the second amendment to his anachronistic status.

 

The EC, having twice in a couple of decades allowed a president get elected by a minority of voters, whereupon prior to that, it happen twice in 212 years, it is no longer serving the will of the people. It has nothing to do with 'improper votes' or whatever the hell your fertile imagination is imagining.

 

Nice tap dance, the old razzle dazzle 'em with bullshit.

Fail.

 

I don't know what they taught in grammar school in 1787, but in mhy grammar school in 1963 (er 'Junior High') terminology of 'prefatory clause' and 'operative' clause did not exist. Did Scalia just make that up? And if it didn't exist in 1963, I suspect it did exist in 1787. Now then, the terminology used during my school years was 'main clause' (the first clause) and 'dependent (or subordinate) clause', (the second clause) which makes it militia-centric, which more aptly describes what you were talking about in your 101-2 threads, right? There was also the 'independent clause', which would be that if the context was there, but in the second amendment, it looks a lot more like main/subordinate(dependent) to me.

 

You freedom hating gun banners cannot handle the fact that the founders rejected your statist bullshit and the current court rejected 9-0 the collective rights fiction that racist lower court judges concocted in their effort to disarm freed blacks and "papist" immigrants. The state "rights" bullshit has been rejected almost completely by all leading scholars and the only people who continue to push that nonsense are dishonest statists who hate the fact that we citizens have a constitutional right to be armed-a right we need now more than ever given the creeping crud of collectivism that the communist-lite leftists are trying to force feed us

 

what did the phrase the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed mean 61 years ago?

 

There are more places in Europe than England.

 

fail is the very best way to depict the absolute disingenuous nonsense that the gun banners are spewing here.

 

You had not answered my question, and you STILL have not given it a substantive answer.

 

Actually correct. Your, FAILure to deal with reality duly noted.