NationStates Jolt Archive

I have seen it stated on this forum that the US constitution is out of date, archaic, etc. My question is, what exactly makes it old fashioned?

it is not so much out of date as the "strict" interpretation of it is

It's not out of date, just that there is controversy over what it means. And what it was supposed to mean.

For example, 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."

Has the meaning changed between the 1700's and the 2000's? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

(And the second amendment probably was the Founding Father's way to allow for another revolution on their own government, should the need arise. The second amendment wouldn't let the government take weapons from its citizens.)

Ya, I'm sure the Founding Fathers just kind of threw in some of those things.

Ihatevacations']it is not so much out of date as the "strict" interpretation of it is
But what exactly does that entail? In my opinion it is impossible to have a strict interpretation of a document never meant to be interpreted that way. Otherwise, it wouldn’t have the ninth amendment in the bill of rights. Of course, some parts should be read and not interpreted, like the elastic clause, and the structure of government.

The fourth amendmentis the only out-of-date section in the Constitution, since the orginal settlers on America didn't really have to worry about terrorist bombings, because they did not exist back then!

The fourth amendmentis the only out-of-date section in the Constitution, since the orginal settlers on America didn't really have to worry about terrorist bombings, because they did not exist back then!
I hope that's sarcasm.

Ya, I'm sure the Founding Fathers just kind of threw in some of those things.
Such as?

I hope that's sarcasm.
You are far too optimistic.

As I see it with the constitution is that some moment it's pretty stickt the 1st Amendment is pretty good the 2nd is shockingly vague and now totally out of date. Either the US needs to get rid of its military or readdress the constitution.

I hope that's sarcasm.

Since when did the colonists get bombed by a commerical jetliner?

Since when did the colonists get bombed by a commerical jetliner?
Because bombs and jets are the ONLY form of terrorism.

Ever heard of "The Sons of Liberty"?

You really think American patriots would've had the support they needed for the revolution if it WEREN'T for terrorism?

The fourth amendmentis the only out-of-date section in the Constitution, since the orginal settlers on America didn't really have to worry about terrorist bombings, because they did not exist back then!
Wrong, my little pinewood puppet. The fourth ammendment is in the constitution SPECIFICALLY because of "terrorist bombings," or at the very least, the like. The 4th ammendment was written in to protect dissenters of the government and other people who, with corrupt police practices, would be taken away without even the slightest ability to protest. One of our most important rights in these times of danger is the right to secure in our persons and things and protected against illegal searches and seizures. Danger is no reason to ignore the Constitution, maybe we should become an everpresent police state because we might be in danger of terrorist bombings? I will tell you this, if money was spent in the right way and they had their shit together, you wouldn't need ILLEGAL searches and seizures to be safe.


But what exactly does that entail? In my opinion it is impossible to have a strict interpretation of a document never meant to be interpreted that way. Otherwise, it wouldn’t have the ninth amendment in the bill of rights. Of course, some parts should be read and not interpreted, like the elastic clause, and the structure of government.
Strict interpretation, something that crazies like thomas or scalia have been advocating for decades, interpreteing the constitution STRICTLY how it was written or somehow how the framers themselves intended, like anyone knows. Strict interpretation removes the right to privacy and various other rights which arn't stated specifically.

Since when did the colonists get bombed by a commerical jetliner?

Terrorism has existed since the dawn of Human Civilization. Or maybe even before it. The only thing that has changed is the devices and methods that have been used. On September 11th, it was a commercial jetliner. In the 1600s, it may have been a powder keg. In the Roman Empire, it could have been a dagger. Terrorism happens when a certain group wan'ts to exicute a plan (or person) without the use of considerable resources (like an army group, for example). And terrorists have always faught for a certain cause that they believe in, so the only thing that has changed over the centuries is the methods by which the terrorists exicute their plans (or people :) ).

Jesus could be considered a terrorist... I mean, he did use fear tactics (eternal damnation) to get people to live by some funny socialist-esque rules he put in place, didn't he?

Jesus could be considered a terrorist... I mean, he did use fear tactics (eternal damnation) to get people to live by some funny socialist-esque rules he put in place, didn't he?

You're gunna get burned, buddy.

Ihatevacations']I will tell you this, if money was spent in the right way and they had their shit together, you wouldn't need ILLEGAL searches and seizures to be safe.
How should money be spent and things put together?
Strict interpretation, something that crazies like thomas or scalia have been advocating for decades, interpreteing the constitution STRICTLY how it was written or somehow how the framers themselves intended, like anyone knows. Strict interpretation removes the right to privacy and various other rights which arn't stated specifically.
But that doesn’t make any senses. The ninth amendment specifically says that all rights can’t be listed. They aren’t following a strict interpretation, they are following a less inclusive interpretation, and they would do well to change their terminology before someone in power calls them on their bull crap instead of seeming to argue against a strict interpretation, which is impossible.

On the issue of right to privacy; in conjunction with the fourth amendment it seems only natural to me.

I'd like an amendment which forbids the use of taxpayer dollars to directly subsidize the standard of living of other individuals. Just my desire, though. :p

The fourth amendmentis the only out-of-date section in the Constitution, since the orginal settlers on America didn't really have to worry about terrorist bombings, because they did not exist back then!
What on earth do you think the boston tea party was but terrorism?

What on earth do you think the boston tea party was but terrorism?
Dumping tea into a harbor is the same as blowing one's self up in order to kill civilians?

What on earth do you think the boston tea party was but terrorism?
The Boston Tea Party, while an illegal act, was rather peaceful. Thousands died in the September Eleventh attacks, thus the poor fellow’s confusion is understandable.

I'd like an amendment which forbids the use of taxpayer dollars to directly subsidize the standard of living of other individuals. Just my desire, though. :p
God forbid you arnt allowed to be a totally selfish ass

I'd like an amendment which forbids the use of taxpayer dollars to directly subsidize the standard of living of other individuals
I second that.

Ihatevacations']God forbid you arnt allowed to be a totally selfish ass
Actually, right now, Congress is forbidding it.

Actually, right now, Congress is forbidding it.
And that is scary. My money, my right to spend as I wish, I say.

Such as?

Depends on which side you fall on.

If you want to tell me the Second Ammendment is out of date, ya, I'm sure the Founding Fathers juist thought guns were really cool and wanted everyone to see that.

If you want to tell me the Fourth is, ya, because they were just hiding their kiddie porn collections.

And that is scary. My money, my right to spend as I wish, I say.
As do I, but...Congress doesn't! :p

I'd like an amendment which forbids the use of taxpayer dollars to directly subsidize the standard of living of other individuals. Just my desire, though.
So the government can't employ anybody?

The main argument gun-control advocates use om the 2nd Amendemt is that thre right to keep amd bear ic allotted to the militias which they interpret as the National Gaurd or somesuch. But if you read your history (Like Say the autobiographical writings and journals of some of the founding fathers) every time a militia ws raise dthey went about recruiting armed citizens. The term predates the existance of the US as a sovereign nation. For instance Franklin and Washington both raised citizen militias to fight the French when they were still British citizens....

Ihatevacations']Wrong, my little pinewood puppet. The fourth ammendment is in the constitution SPECIFICALLY because of "terrorist bombings," or at the very least, the like. The 4th ammendment was written in to protect dissenters of the government and other people who, with corrupt police practices, would be taken away without even the slightest ability to protest. One of our most important rights in these times of danger is the right to secure in our persons and things and protected against illegal searches and seizures.
I highly doubt suicide bombing (directly what I meant by "terrorist bombing", although I realize that wasn't entirely clear) took place in the 1700s. If it did not (which I am almost sure of), then it means it is out of date, because suicide bombings are much more difficult to stop then normal bombings (a normal bombing would involve unattended packages, a suicide bombing involves a normal-looking person).

Ihatevacations']Danger is no reason to ignore the Constitution\
Why not, if it protects the people?

Ihatevacations']I will tell you this, if money was spent in the right way and they had their shit together, you wouldn't need ILLEGAL searches and seizures to be safe.
Why? How else can suicide bombings be 100% stoped without searching people to make sure they don't have bombs on them?

I highly doubt suicide bombing (directly what I meant by "terrorist bombing", although I realize that wasn't entirely clear) took place in the 1700s. If it did not (which I am almost sure of), then it means it is out of date, because suicide bombings are much more difficult to stop then normal bombings (a normal bombing would involve unattended packages, a suicide bombing involves a normal-looking person).
Oh really? and What are the ground for this ludicous assertion? It is no easier to stop a suicide bomber than a normal bomber of vice versa if people arn't on the ball. Could anyone please refresh some memories about how old the EXPIRED visas the suicide bombers had were. It is NOT out of date because there is a new way of killing people, relatively. It is still jsut as valid. Maybe its out of date because it doesn't mention the ability to create and command and airforce?


Why not, if it protects the people?
How does scratching the 4th amendment protect people? Franklin said, or it was at least attributed to him to say, "He who sacrifices essential liberty for temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety"


Why? How else can suicide bombings be 100% stoped without searching people to make sure they don't have bombs on them?
I donm't think you understand the 4th amendment..

Ihatevacations']it is not so much out of date as the "strict" interpretation of it is
I don't see what's so outdated with the interpretation that holds to the meanings of words and phrases as used when they were written down. Got to keep the government's size and power in check, you know.

And for the record; it's possible to interpret the 9th and 10th amendments w/o restricting civil liberties and/or local authoirty

Dumping tea into a harbor is the same as blowing one's self up in order to kill civilians?
They are both acts of terrorism. Both were designed to cause damage to a group of people to get that group of people to bend to their wishes. Both were highly illegal.

Ihatevacations']Maybe its out of date because it doesn't mention the ability to create and command and airforce?
Nah. It seems to have worked out making the Air Force officially part of the Army, and giving the Navy some stuff.

Ihatevacations']Oh really? and What are the ground for this ludicous assertion? It is no easier to stop a suicide bomber than a normal bomber of vice versa if people arn't on the ball. Could anyone please refresh some memories about how old the EXPIRED visas the suicide bombers had were. It is NOT out of date because there is a new way of killing people, relatively. It is still jsut as valid. Maybe its out of date because it doesn't mention the ability to create and command and airforce? How does scratching the 4th amendment protect people?

Did you read what you wrote? Bolded parts I cannot understand.

Anyway, from what I can read, you call my reasoning a "ludicous assertion" on the single point of the expired visas of the 9/11 terrorists. So what? Cracking down on unexpired visas would not prevent most suicide bombings. Searching every person entering a form of public transportation would be much more effective (but apparently civil rights lawyers are opposing this in the New York City subways as we speak, in the name of... "The Fourth Amendment"). As for getting rid of it, I'm against getting rid of it.

Ihatevacations'] Franklin said, or it was at least attributed to him to say, "He who sacrifices essential liberty for temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety"

And what's so great about Franklin? I personally hate him, and his reasoning doesn't make any sense in that quote.

Ihatevacations']I donm't think you understand the 4th amendment..

I donm't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm only saying the fourth amendment is out-of-date and needs updating, not that we should get rid it!

Arguing that the 4th amendment should be changed to take into account new dangers ignores entirely the reason that the amendment was created. The founders recognized that there was a danger in allowing people to have privacy, but that the right to not be unreasonably searched and to have privacy outweighed the government's "need" to keep people safe.

It's logically out-of-place to search anyone for no reason. That's why we need a fourth amendment as it is, if not, strengthened.

Did you read what you wrote? Bolded parts I cannot understand.

Anyway, from what I can read, you call my reasoning a "ludicous assertion" on the single point of the expired visas of the 9/11 terrorists. So what? Cracking down on unexpired visas would not prevent most suicide bombings. Searching every person entering a form of public transportation would be much more effective (but apparently civil rights lawyers are opposing this in the New York City subways as we speak, in the name of... "The Fourth Amendment"). As for getting rid of it, I'm against getting rid of it.

Because we all know how fast the type of searches required to find bombs are. Consider how many people use the Subway in New Yourk each day an then think how long it would take to search each and every one of them. Not to mention the fact that there are always crooked cops/officials who would be willing to look the other way, and the fact that it wouldn't be incredibly hard for a terrorist to become one of the searchers. If they really want to blow themselves up on a train, the terrorists will find a way.


And what's so great about Franklin? I personally hate him, and his reasoning doesn't make any sense in that quote.

How about him inventing a whole bunch of stuff that was rather important in history and today. How about him having a very high IQ and a succesful author. You hate one of the Founding Fathers of our country, really one of the only ones who has respect from other countries, good for you. You want reasoning behind Ben Franklins statment one word: McCarthyism

Dumping tea into a harbor is the same as blowing one's self up in order to kill civilians?
The Boston Tea Party wasn't a happy, fun jolly occasion where the revolutionaries went on ship and had a party.

It would be equivilant to sneaking into a warehouse and burning all the products inside. It's economic terrorism.

In regards to violence, it was a more violent time. I'm sure villages were often attacked.

So the government can't employ anybody?
Government officals are part of the government. The government can hire as many people as it wants, but the government's purpose cannot be to directly subsidize the lives of people.

They are both acts of terrorism. Both were designed to cause damage to a group of people to get that group of people to bend to their wishes. Both were highly illegal.
Aye, the status of legality and the intent to cause damage is always terrorism, which does indeed make Gandhi one of the most evil men of the 20th century.

Aye, the status of legality and the intent to cause damage is always terrorism, which does indeed make Gandhi one of the most evil men of the 20th century.
Eh, there are plenty of examples (tar and feathering of tax collectors, throwing rocks at redcoats, etc) of terrorism in our past. We don't call it terrorism because we won. Simple enough really, history is written by the winners, and they don't like to malign themselves.

I don't see what's so outdated with the interpretation that holds to the meanings of words and phrases as used when they were written down. Got to keep the government's size and power in check, you know.

And for the record; it's possible to interpret the 9th and 10th amendments w/o restricting civil liberties and/or local authoirty
so you propose people born over 100 years past the death of the last framer understands the original meaning of the words and phrases used in the constitution? For all we know a loose interpretation adheres stricter to the original meanings of the words and phrases

I donm't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm only saying the fourth amendment is out-of-date and needs updating, not that we should get rid it!
1) bold = hah
2) Update it to what, allow illegal searches and seizures in teh homes of individual citiznes of the united states if claimed to be terrorists? *sniff sniff* What is that I smell?? Oh yes, a witch hunt

Eh, there are plenty of examples (tar and feathering of tax collectors, throwing rocks at redcoats, etc) of terrorism in our past. We don't call it terrorism because we won. Simple enough really, history is written by the winners, and they don't like to malign themselves.
Is any of this really similar to 9/11-style attack or suicide bombing, which are now the epitomes of terrorism in the American mind?

Tarring and feathering...brutal stuff...rarely done, if I believe, and a lot better than beheading people. Well, in my opinon. I'd prefer some :fluffle:

Is any of this really similar to 9/11-style attack or suicide bombing, which are now the epitomes of terrorism in the American mind?

Tarring and feathering...brutal stuff...rarely done, if I believe, and a lot better than beheading people. Well, in my opinon. I'd prefer some :fluffle:
Well, 9/11 doesn't exactly happen every day either. You're far more likely to die in a car accident then to die in any act of terrorism. Terrorism has existed in the past, did exist when we founded our country, and some acts of terrorism (see almost every underground action during the war) took place during the founding of our country itself. Saying that we need to revoke the constitution because of terrorism is pathetic.

In order to understand the constituition you need to understand what was going on when it was written. The people in America at the time had come here to escape tyranny and absolute rule. They were disgusted by it and gave up their homes and in many cases their families to escape it.

Their resolve was such that this country could NEVER be subjected to the things that they had just escaped from. Illegal search and seizure, kept unarmed so that they were forced to be submissive to rulers, forced to worship in ways that they didn't want to worship.

If you actually read the constitution and take those things into consideration it is very clear what the intent of it was. Outdated, no....overuled..in many instances yes.


One other thing...current rulings of the supreme court have decided that it is not the role of "the state" to protect you. Police are under no obligation to protect you they are only obligated after the fact of a crime. So....who is responsible for protecting you?


Might that be ...duh...yourself?

Well, 9/11 doesn't exactly happen every day either. You're far more likely to die in a car accident then to die in any act of terrorism. Terrorism has existed in the past, did exist when we founded our country, and some acts of terrorism (see almost every underground action during the war) took place during the founding of our country itself. Saying that we need to revoke the constitution because of terrorism is pathetic.
Oh, make no mistake, I have no problem with the 4th amendment, but I highly doubt the "terrorism" of the 18th century is equal to the "terrorism" of the 21st century. Most people seem to agree that these days terrorists can cause real harm.
Before, they best they could hope for is a lucky assassination.

In order to understand the constituition you need to understand what was going on when it was written. The people in America at the time had come here to escape tyranny and absolute rule. They were disgusted by it and gave up their homes and in many cases their families to escape it.
The problem with history classes is they don't actually report history

After the americans managed to drive out the brits, each state wanted equal power and they created the articles of confederation, under the articles tehre was no central government, well there was but it was just a nothing, each state had more power than the federal government because tehy were scared of a strong central government such as that of the british empire. they used this until the constitution was finally ratified some 11 years after the articles and 5 years after the official end of the war

the framers were not authorized to create a new government practically, they were only ordered to fix the articles, which they decided sucked and scrapped them and spent a good deal of time heralding the greatness of the new constitution

Ihatevacations']Strict interpretation, something that crazies like thomas or scalia have been advocating for decades, interpreteing the constitution STRICTLY how it was written or somehow how the framers themselves intended, like anyone knows. Strict interpretation removes the right to privacy and various other rights which arn't stated specifically.
Well now, I would think a BIG clue could be found in the things they wrote, their various memoirs, and the senate notes from the time period. Oh, and as an aside, neither Thomas nor Scalia are truly strict interpretationists.

Well now, I would think a BIG clue could be found in the things they wrote, their various memoirs, and the senate notes from the time period. Oh, and as an aside, neither Thomas nor Scalia are truly strict interpretationists.
many wrote many things. things madison wrote did not always agree with hamilton, and hamilton is marked as to not agree with jefferson, and those are just three of them.

Ihatevacations']The problem with history classes is they don't actually report history
After the americans managed to drive out the brits, each state wanted equal power and they created the articles of confederation, under the articles tehre was no central government, well there was but it was just a nothing, each state had more power than the federal government because tehy were scared of a strong central government such as that of the british empire. they used this until the constitution was finally ratified some 11 years after the articles and 5 years after the official end of the war

the framers were not authorized to create a new government practically, they were only ordered to fix the articles, which they decided sucked and scrapped them and spent a good deal of time heralding the greatness of the new constitution
Funny, that’s what my eighth grade American History class taught. Of course, I did have one of the best History teachers in existence.

Funny, that’s what my eighth grade American History class taught. Of course, I did have one of the best History teachers in existence.
My history teachers would beat me over the head with a very, very hard stick if I forgot about the Articles of Confederation.
I don't understand how Libertarianism is automatically equated with the Articles of Confederation, though...
And tension still existed even after the Constiution was implemented. Whiskey Rebellion?

My history teachers would beat me over the head with a very, very hard stick if I forgot about the Articles of Confederation.
I don't understand how Libertarianism is automatically equated with the Articles of Confederation, though...
And tension still existed even after the Constiution was implemented. Whiskey Rebellion?

There was some tension, but the fact is that the Constitution is a perfect example of the principle on which America is based - compromise. The document is nothing more than a series of compromises on a variety of topics in dispute between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, the nation's first political parties.

I do not believe that the Constitution is outdated. It had the Elastic Clause built in specifically for that purpose. In addition, many forget the thousands of examples of legislation outside of the Constitution (but under it in authority) that support its values and ideas. An example is the various Civil Rights laws created to support the true values of the Civil War Amendments.

Ihatevacations']so you propose people born over 100 years past the death of the last framer understands the original meaning of the words and phrases used in the constitution? For all we know a loose interpretation adheres stricter to the original meanings of the words and phrases
Actually we can have a good idea because the US founding fathers had this penchant for writing stuff all over the place, ranging from the federalist papers to their own diary's and journals. Plus we have laws that they passed at the time and all sorts of other fun things. :D

Whosoever shall be guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy with a man or woman, shall be punished; if a man, by castration, a woman, by boring through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch in diameter at the least ~ Thomas Jefferson

Clearly they were people of their time, not some sort of gods. Not everything they believed to be great and good is necessarily still.

But who do you choose to change it? Politicians? Judges?

I don't like people calling Revolutionary War soldiers terrorists. It's not that I don't think some of the tactics they used could be considered terrorism, it's more that it's a dishonor to me and my family. My ancestors fought in the revolutionary war, my great-great-great-grandfather fought for the Confederacy in the Civil War (if you want to get into a terrorism argument, why don't you talk about how the union burned down our towns?), great-grandfather fought in WWI, my grandfather fought in WWII, my father fought in Vietnam and the Korean war, and I fought in Desert Storm and Grenada. I could call all soldiers terrorists, whether they're foreigners, Americans, or my ancestors, but it's a dishonor no matter where you're from.

Anyways, I know this was off-topic, but I had to get it off my chest.

Dumping tea into a harbor is the same as blowing one's self up in order to kill civilians?

Blowing one's self up in order to kill civilians is not the definition of terrorism.
The definition is:"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons".

Government officals are part of the government. The government can hire as many people as it wants, but the government's purpose cannot be to directly subsidize the lives of people.


Aye, the status of legality and the intent to cause damage is always terrorism, which does indeed make Gandhi one of the most evil men of the 20th century.

Um, i don't know how much you've studied about Gandhi, but you should know that he used peaceful protest. He never attacked the British, or anybody else. In fact, when violence broke out between Hindus and Muslims after India got it's independance in the 30's, Gandhi almost killed him self when he went on a starvation diet to make them stop. And there are recorded instences when Gandhi's followers simply walk up to British soldiers and got beat down without putting up any kind of physical fight.So, since terrorism requires using "violence against persons or property to coerce a society or government", Gandhi is definetly not a terrorist. In fact, he was a pacifist.

I have seen it stated on this forum that the US constitution is out of date, archaic, etc. My question is, what exactly makes it old fashioned?

I really don't think it's out of date at all.

Consider: There are only 27 Amendments since it was written. Since the end of Reconstruction (10 years after the end of the Civil War), there have been 12.

Of those 12:
1 bans alcohol and 1 recinds the ban.
8 deal with voting and terms of office and
2 deal with taxes.

So: the ONLY time the Constitution was changed to deal with social change (Prohibition) was a failure, and nothing has even been tried otherwise. Literally, everything else was "fleshing out" the actual document (ie: Women's right to vote, voting at 18, 2 term Presidency, etc.)

If it really were out of date, one would expect more Amendments by now...

The Constitution, like all of us, is alive. :)

I have seen it stated on this forum that the US constitution is out of date, archaic, etc. My question is, what exactly makes it old fashioned?

i can think of several things. firstly is its overblown reliance on states, which are nothing more than artifacts of the colonial past and compromises with slave owners. their borders make no sense for today's social facts, and they create legislative divides between places that any rational system would group together. the same goes, to a lesser extent, with the system of counties and other lower levels of government. the whole system of federal levels needs to be restructured from the ground up in a more organic fashion, with the possibility of further reorganization explicitly recognized when the social reality changes further.

secondly, the whole system of first-past-the-post elections is crap. it makes the focus of the whole system a contest of which rich person looks best on tv, and who has the greatest name recognition. my suggestion? if we are going to keep something like representative democracy in place, at least one legislative body should be based on a lottery of the entire population. and since the system of states would be gone, we'd probably also need something to replace the senate - maybe a body of equal representation for urban clusters and lesser population centers (with a combined population over 100,000 or something). this body might stil have first-past-the-post, but with appropriate steps taken to prevent the overpowering influence of money. i also think a move away from a single executive leader would do us some good, because it too puts personality and wealth above anything else.

and since the 9th and 10th apparently didn't do the job, we should probably explicitly list a few more rights, powers, and duties. just so we don't have to rely on the whims of the supreme court for them. we'd obviously keep something like the 9th and 10th too, though.

we also need to write in something regarding the economic structure of the country, because the current system results in an economic oligarchy of the fantastically wealthy who own the vast majority of everything while the vast majority of people own pretty much nothing. and those vast majority spend their lives following the arbitrary commands of private systems of authoritarian power. this is not a state of affairs that is compatible with a free society.

i'm sure i could think of some other stuff. maybe later.

The Constituiton's mother was a hamster and it's father an elderberry. I fart in its general direction.

Blowing one's self up in order to kill civilians is not the definition of terrorism.
The definition is:"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons".
And how much force was involved in dumping tea in a harbor? I admit it wasn't approriate...but equating them to modern-day terrorists that slaughter innocents is a pretty big stretch.

Um, i don't know how much you've studied about Gandhi, but you should know that he used peaceful protest. He never attacked the British, or anybody else. In fact, when violence broke out between Hindus and Muslims after India got it's independance in the 30's, Gandhi almost killed him self when he went on a starvation diet to make them stop. And there are recorded instences when Gandhi's followers simply walk up to British soldiers and got beat down without putting up any kind of physical fight.So, since terrorism requires using "violence against persons or property to coerce a society or government", Gandhi is definetly not a terrorist. In fact, he was a pacifist.
But he did something illegal that damaged the British(indirectly, but still designed to undermine their rule).
If that is the definition of terrorism(and it "was" when I wrote that),then Gandhi is a terrorist

And how much force was involved in dumping tea in a harbor? I admit it wasn't approriate...but equating them to modern-day terrorists that slaughter innocents is a pretty big stretch.
OK this boston tea party comparison is maknig me want to strangle some idiots. HISTORY IS LONG AS HELL, there has been plenty of other things that occurred in the revolution ALONE besides the boston tea party. Modern day terrorists re nothing special and require no special removal of rights from the general populace to stop. If people would do their job right there would be no problems, like I said the WTC attacks were by people with expired visas. You know what people were probably doing instead of taking care of those people? Probably trying to throw out mexicans or cubans. People not donig the best job they can do and wanting it to make like they are doing something important

The Sons of Liberty also harrassed British customs people and tax collectors, doing things such as tarring and feathering them and throwing them into the ocean. All in harmless play, of course. ;)

And how much force was involved in dumping tea in a harbor? I admit it wasn't approriate...but equating them to modern-day terrorists that slaughter innocents is a pretty big stretch.


But he did something illegal that damaged the British(indirectly, but still designed to undermine their rule).
If that is the definition of terrorism(and it "was" when I wrote that),then Gandhi is a terrorist

But for it to be considered terrorism, the "terrorist" must have exicuted these plans in a violent manner. Gandhi did not condone or practice violent protest, so no, he was not a terrorist.

But if that is you're definition of terrorism, then you are suggesting that the people involved in the Boston Tea Party were also terrorists, since they did something illegal that damaged the British (it helped insight a rebellion, and ruined perfectly good tea).

The Sons of Liberty also harrassed British customs people and tax collectors, doing things such as tarring and feathering them and throwing them into the ocean. All in harmless play, of course. ;)

Only one British tax collector was ever tarred and feathered during the years leading up to the Revolution. It was an exceedingly rare practice, and has only been perpetuated as a major atrocity of the times because of its unusual nature.

And how much force was involved in dumping tea in a harbor? I admit it wasn't approriate...but equating them to modern-day terrorists that slaughter innocents is a pretty big stretch.

and what group is the major domestic 'terrorist' threat in the u.s. these days?

and what group is the major domestic 'terrorist' threat in the u.s. these days?
The extreme environmentalists, mostly.
The anarchists and crazies pose a threat also, as they have since this nation's founding.
Islamic terror is a foreign threat that needs not be dealt with in a defensive manor. If they don’t get in, they can’t blow stuff up.
I am puzzled by why you said domestic, though. The post you were responding to certainly did not.

I am puzzled by why you said domestic, though. The post you were responding to certainly did not.

mainly because the top two groups listed as domestic terrorists by the fbi use no violence against living beings at all.

By what right is a document signed by a bunch of old men who died hundreds of years before I could have met them, in a place I've never been imposed as law upon me without my consent?

In any case the constitution was supposed to establish a very limited federal government and the government was origionally supposed to have only the powers enumerated within the constitution itself. Then came the Bill of Rights which told the government things it couldn't do(almost implying that it could do everything else). Of course the 10th amendment should've made it so that a plethora of blatantly unconstitutional programs were struck down, but it has generally been ignored or, through great feats of mental gymnastics, reasoned around.

Over the years the constitution has lost any power it ever did have as law, and is now generally a political tool to ensure one party doesn't break the rules when another party doesn't want it to. When both parties look the other way noone cares. The supreme court is almost entirely composed of party men who don't really care about the letter of the law if they can get around it. A good example of this is the recent Supreme Court case involving Medical Marijuana. The feds said it could arrest people using it because they had jurisdiction under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the court agreed even though the program involved absolutely no interstate commerce, the pot was grown and consumed in the same state. The conservatives were split: The ones who follow their party line didn't like marijuana and so voted the feds authority, the liberal justices don't want this to stand as precedent against other times when they would like to use the commerce clause and so they voted for the feds, in the end only a couple of justices upheld the letter of the law.

Who really cares what a constitution says when you have no choice in the matter anyway, even if the constitution says something, it's still up to the parties in power whether or not the law is followed. The constitution is yet another in a line of illegitimate documents, bills, and laws that are forced upon us by power-hungry politicians and our neighbors, people who have no rightful claims of authority over us, but a lot more guns.

mainly because the top two groups listed as domestic terrorists by the fbi use no violence against living beings at all.
Care to enlighten as to what those two groups are?

Care to enlighten as to what those two groups are?

the earth liberation front and the animal liberation front

and what group is the major domestic 'terrorist' threat in the u.s. these days?
Those white power groups up in Idaho. Come on FS, get on them.

Those white power groups up in Idaho. Come on FS, get on them.

heh, actually its been all downhill for them for a couple years now. poor sorry fuckheads, can't even organize a proper race skirmish, let alone a race war.

the earth liberation front and the animal liberation front
Are you kidding? They fire bomb laboratories and steal animals being used in those laboratories. That ultimately hurts humanity.
Besides, the FBI has nothing to do with the constitution.

Besides, the FBI has nothing to do with the constitution.

this whole sidetrack of a conversation doesn't, really. did you see my comments in post 58 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9344469&postcount=58)?

Whether or not it (The US Constitution) is 'outdated' I do no know, however I would argue that one way or another, it is not working, if working is defined as 'achieving the objectives as stated in the pre-amble'.

this whole sidetrack of a conversation doesn't, really. did you see my comments in post 58 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9344469&postcount=58)?
Yes. And I found your views irreconcilable with the ideas of representative republicanism laid down in the constitution. There really is nothing I could say that would sway you from your opinion or that would not invoke attack. Not to mention the shear impracticality of picking government officials by lottery, and your disregard for those of us who choose to live in rural areas. Your views are appreciated. Though, I was looking for opinions from those a bit more main stream, as opposed to an anarcho-communist.

Yes. And I found your views irreconcilable with the ideas of representative republicanism laid down in the constitution. There really is nothing I could say that would sway you from your opinion or that would not invoke attack. Not to mention the shear impracticality of picking government officials by lottery, and your disregard for those of us who choose to live in rural areas. Your views are appreciated. Though, I was looking for opinions from those a bit more main stream, as opposed to an anarcho-communist.

wouldn't somebody in the mainstream essentially not think the constitution is outdated as an almost axiomatic position? though maybe the mainstream has shifted enough that a mainstream position might also include the idea that significant amounts of the liberty and seperation of powers set out in the constitution weren't such good ideas after all.

in any case, i don't see how anything i said was irreconcilable with the general concept of a representative republic. there were still representatives and there wasn't a king.

the current system of states and their borders weren't set down by god. and they have a nasty tendency to break up both urban centers and rural areas that are completely socially and economically linked together into multiple different states, thereby unecessarily complicating all sorts of things, from business regulations to snow removal. they also link together places that might not otherwise choose to join together, and rule out or make extra difficult the formation of other levels of organization that would make sense to have (bioregions, the entirety of urban clusters, particular farming communities that cross county and state lines, etc). plus, the state borders are just silly looking. have you taken a look at maryland (http://www.gateley.net/maryland.JPG) recently?

picking by lottery couldn't be much worse than the current plan of systematic corruption. it would be a bit of a hassle, but since congressional pay is something like $115,000 more than the median family income, it's not like it would be like jury duty. it would also be so refreshingly informal.

and what disregard - rural areas would wind up with proportional representation in the lottery house, and would be disproportionately overrepresented in the senate-like house.

bump

I have seen it stated on this forum that the US constitution is out of date, archaic, etc. My question is, what exactly makes it old fashioned?

Please, those idiots probably either never even read it nor do they understand it.

1. It outlines that the government MUST respect its citizens' civil liberties.

2. Its a fluid and vague document in which a LOT of laws can be created and passed without having to tamper with it.

3 It outlines government behavior without putting difficult constraints on branches and ensures a Republican form of government with democratic held elections.

Here's the problem, PEOPLE are idiots. Those who criticize it, and those who don't care about the Republic enough to ensure it runs properly and as it should.

Since when did the colonists get bombed by a commerical jetliner?

The colonial patriots WERE terrorists you fool. Furthermore, we wouldn't even BE worried about terrorists had we listened to George Washington's warning.

"no entangling alliances" = Stop being Israel's *****.

And what's so great about Franklin? I personally hate him, and his reasoning doesn't make any sense in that quote.[/b]!

Well when WHY the hell are you even in this topic? This is a topic for AMERCIAN CITIZENS. Not german neo-nazis. The hell does your opinion matter to us US citizens? You don't even understand the concept of our Constitutional Republic. Go shave your head or something and get out of this thread.