NationStates Jolt Archive

My kid just said something.....and I was wondering what y'all think about it.

She was reading how to repeal an amendment and pointed out to me that in her opinion if the founding fathers had intended for guns to be an absolute right, it would have been in the constitution proper and not something that could be repealed.

I'm not sure what I think about that.

Do you agree/disagree?

Does this thought follow with other rights contained in the first ten amendments? (religion, speech, warranted searches)

What about rights contained in amendments after that? (they were put in by other people I know, but are they conditional as well?)

Also, as if I didn't ask enough questions already, if you live in a place that doesn't have a rights document similar to the U.S. Constitution, how do you view rights? Are they inherent? Given by the government? Or something else?


Edit: I do not want to talk about gun control, whether the 2nd amendment really guarantees the right to bear arms to the general public or about school shootings or anything else that gun threads become........this one is really narrow in what I want you to talk about.

Historically, many of the framers felt that there was no need for a Bill of Rights because the basic structure of the Constitution should make it impossible for the government to infringe upon those rights already. They further felt that enumerating those rights would unintentionally give the government the ability to infringe on any rights not so enumerated(which was why the Ninth Amendment was tacked on). Though unnecessary, it was sort of an insurance policy insisted upon by some of the Framers.

The 18th Amendment should never have been added and the 21st(the only amendment that directly repeals a previous amendment) was the only way possible to repair a catastrophic lapse of judgment.

She was reading how to repeal an amendment and pointed out to me that in her opinion if the founding fathers had intended for guns to be an absolute right, it would have been in the constitution proper and not something that could be repealed.
In my foreign and non-constitutional lawyer opinion, the fact that something is an amendment doesn't seem to make it less important, legally-speaking.

The US Constitution seems to be based on natural rights, so perhaps it's as simple as the authors not believing that a right to gun ownership, though important, could not be derived from one's very existence as a human being.

Which seems sensible.

EDIT: The above could quite reasonably be bollocks, so I'd wait for a certain feline lawyer to turn up.

Also, as if I didn't ask enough questions already, if you live in a place that doesn't have a rights document similar to the U.S. Constitution, how do you view rights? Are they inherent? Given by the government? Or something else?
Rights are not inherent, they're a man-made construct. I'm a fan of the no-rights theory, proposed by Arthur Danto and others, that if you say you have a right, and if your assertion of a right is backed up in some manner (by social convention, agreement, codified law, or other system) then you have a right.

Well, I think the process for changing an amendment is basically to create another amendment, which is really no different than changing any other part of the Constitution, so I don't quite understand what the thrust of her argument is (as one could 'repeal' another part of the Constitution). That said, I have always thought the 2nd Amendment is an important right guaranteed by our Constitution (not on the level of Freedom of Speech, but up there), if only for completely paranoid reasons.

Well, I think the process for changing an amendment is basically to create another amendment, which is really no different than changing any other part of the Constitution, so I don't quite understand what the thrust of her argument is (as one could 'repeal' another part of the Constitution). That said, I have always thought the 2nd Amendment is an important right guaranteed by our Constitution (not on the level of Freedom of Speech, but up there), if only for completely paranoid reasons.

I'm not really sure, because she's 5 she may not have a point, but if you have specific questions I can ask her. I'm a little loopy today so I was kinda confused by what she was saying and thought I'd better ask before I said anything in retort (so as not to look stupid).

I will not argue with either of the Smunklings. When their reign of terror is at hand, I want my death to be quick and painless...

And possibly pantless...

I'm not really sure, because she's 5 she may not have a point, but if you have specific questions I can ask her. I'm a little loopy today so I was kinda confused by what she was saying and thought I'd better ask before I said anything in retort (so as not to look stupid).

Not really, if she's only 5 I would probably just be happy that she realizes that we have a Constitution, she has plenty of time to learn the finer points of Constitutional law. :p

Tell her that amendments can and do affect the actual constitution, not just other amendments.

Also, this is Squish we're talking about, right?

no

the bill of rights especially represents the rights that the citizenry insisted on before they would ratify the constitution. they are the very most important things that the people wanted spelled out. they werent content to let the government decide which rights were covered and which werent.

An 'amendment' is, by the dictionary definition, a change. Similarly, Constitutional Amendments are changes to the Constitution enacted after the initial ratification. The Amendments are all changes made to the U.S. Constitution with the same force as the parts written by Madison.

For example, the Twelfth Amendment directly changed a part of Article II to set up the idea of voting separately for the President and Vice-President. Before it was enacted, the Electoral College voted by giving two votes per voter, which could (and did) lead to a first place winner (President Adams) and second place winner (Vice President Jefferson) from different parties.

Theoretically, a Twenty-Eighth Amendment could eliminate the whole of the Federal government and create a group of five clowns that would run the national government. Thus, LG and four comrades of his choosing would end up ruling the United States.

Democracy: it can be a massively and greatly surprising thing.

An amendment can override an article of the Constitution proper just as easily as another amendment.
The 12 amendment revises the presidential election procedure something explained in article two.
The 16th Amendment Over rides article 1 section 9 over apportion by state of direct taxes

The 20th Amendment rewrote when A new President and congress enter office.

There has only been one amendment to override another amendment yet there have been 3 Amendments to override articles Constitution itself.

the bill of rights especially represents the rights that the citizenry insisted on before they would ratify the constitution. they are the very most important things that the people wanted spelled out. they werent content to let the government decide which rights were covered and which werent.

By the citizenry, Ashmoria means a group of rich, white men 200 years ago. Many of whom believed democracy to be a dangerous thing, indeed.

By the citizenry, Ashmoria means a group of rich, white men 200 years ago. Many of whom believed democracy to be a dangerous thing, indeed.
which is why the bill of rights didnt include the right for all adults to vote, the outlawing of slavery, the rights of women to their own property, or the right of children to be free of being beaten by their parents.

By the citizenry, Ashmoria means a group of rich, white men 200 years ago.

And, yet, these rights seem to be equally applicable to people who fit into none of those categories.

Many of whom believed democracy to be a dangerous thing, indeed.

That's why, to this very day, we live in a liberal, constitutional democratic republic. The system is designed to be sluggish, yet not unresponsive. It's supposed to encourage careful consideration of any act the government undertakes. In fact, which is why most all of the developed world embraces a similarly deliberate system--even if they utilize different mechanisms.

which is why the bill of rights didnt include the right for all adults to vote, the outlawing of slavery, the rights of women to their own property, or the right of children to be free of being beaten by their parents.

Quite so... and yet things seemed to have turned out better than not for us. We're lucky folk.

And, yet, these rights seem to be equally applicable to people who fit into none of those categories.
Well, their philosophy was that if you have each individual fighting for what's best for only himself, then the best solution will be arrived at. We're lucky that the rights of rich, white men are the best for the rest of us - or perhaps not!

That's why, to this very day, we live in a liberal, constitutional democratic republic. The system is designed to be sluggish, yet not unresponsive. It's supposed to encourage careful consideration of any act the government undertakes. In fact, which is why most all of the developed world embraces a similarly deliberate system--even if they utilize different mechanisms.
I would argue otherwise, but that's for another time and place.

By that logic, the founding fathers didn't want freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and all of those to be an absolute right. Also, if memory serves correctly, they just wanted to get the Constitution ratified as fast as possible, as the Articles of Confederation were absolute crap.

My kid just said something.....and I was wondering what y'all think about it.

She was reading how to repeal an amendment and pointed out to me that in her opinion if the founding fathers had intended for guns to be an absolute right, it would have been in the constitution proper and not something that could be repealed.
By her logic everything from freedom of expression to freedom from slavery and occupation would have to be open to repeal. And they kind of are but no one would ever dare pull anything from the Bill of Rights unless they wanted to set off another American civil war.

I sometimes wonder what life today would have been like if the Whiskey Rebellion picked up momentum and overthrew Washington. We'd probably be a bunch of well-armed drunken hippies strolling around a mirror of Somalia.

I sometimes wonder what life today would have been like if the Whiskey Rebellion picked up momentum and overthrew Washington. We'd probably be a bunch of well-armed drunken hippies strolling around a mirror of Somalia.

Such good dreams start with those thoughts.

In Canada, we have the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/), and they are guaranteed (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/#garantie) to a point:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Not a bad guarantee, but certainly not set in stone, so to speak.

I have come to believe that nothing in life is "guaranteed", other than death and taxes. :p

Everything, and I mean everything is subject to recall, and I believe that applies to all humans.

My take is that the founding fathers foresaw a time when we would be able to put away our guns. I don't think that the time has come yet.

My take is that the founding fathers foresaw a time when we would be able to put away our guns. I don't think that the time has come yet.

Still got the gays and the ragheads to shoot.

Still got the gays and the ragheads to shoot.

Not exactly what I meant. I think the founding fathers thought (over-optimistically) that one day we would not need to defend ourselves, either from our chosen government, or those who would attack us.

Not exactly what I meant. I think the founding fathers thought (over-optimistically) that one day we would not need to defend ourselves, either from our chosen government, or those who would attack us.

Why does an average citizen need a gun to do this?

I just want to throw this out there...

Why is there so much attention paid to what the 'Founding Fathers' wanted? Honestly, it's great when interpreting the Constitution...but the Constitution is a living document. The Founding Fathers, on the other hand, are quite dead.

How does it make any sense to limit your supreme law to 'WWTFFD?' Fuck the founding fathers in their dessicated, bony behinds.

I just want to throw this out there...

Why is there so much attention paid to what the 'Founding Fathers' wanted? Honestly, it's great when interpreting the Constitution...but the Constitution is a living document. The Founding Fathers, on the other hand, are quite dead.

How does it make any sense to limit your supreme law to 'WWTFFD?' Fuck the founding fathers in their dessicated, bony behinds.

That there is treason. Unless, your a foreigner, then that there is a terrorist act. And we might need to water board you.

I just want to throw this out there...

Why is there so much attention paid to what the 'Founding Fathers' wanted? Honestly, it's great when interpreting the Constitution...but the Constitution is a living document. The Founding Fathers, on the other hand, are quite dead.

How does it make any sense to limit your supreme law to 'WWTFFD?' Fuck the founding fathers in their dessicated, bony behinds.

Well, they included mechanism for changing everything, I think that was wise on their part. While some of their ideas deserve enduring attention, I think even they felt that things would eventually change, and the goverment should be prepared to do the same.

I think they disclaimed their own prescience, and that's admirable. They might not even want us to put a lot of attention on their particular wants, although I think they hoped certain of their principles would survive, or ideally, warrant survival.

So, they might agree with you.

So, they might agree with you.

Especially Franklin. That kinky bastard was all about being fucked in his desiccated bony behind.

Especially Franklin. That kinky bastard was all about being fucked in his desiccated bony behind.

S'what the hair was for, like horse reins.

S'what the hair was for, like horse reins.

One of many reasons I'm rather fond of my three-foot-long locks. ;)

One of many reasons I'm rather fond of my three-foot-long locks. ;)

A well regulated wang, being necessary (not really, but its one way) to a thunderous wet orgasm, the right of Poli to dump Harvard and run away with me, shall not be infringed.

Well, they included mechanism for changing everything, I think that was wise on their part. While some of their ideas deserve enduring attention, I think even they felt that things would eventually change, and the goverment should be prepared to do the same.

I think they disclaimed their own prescience, and that's admirable. They might not even want us to put a lot of attention on their particular wants, although I think they hoped certain of their principles would survive, or ideally, warrant survival.

So, they might agree with you.


The irony of you countering my exhortations to ignore the wishes of the dead Founding Fathers, with an admission that they themselves might have wanted exactly that...is not lost on me :D

One of many reasons I'm rather fond of my three-foot-long locks. ;)Oooh...are you into anal now? *hopeful*:p

The irony of you countering my exhortations to ignore the wishes of the dead Founding Fathers, with an admission that they themselves might have wanted exactly that...is not lost on me :D

This statement is a lie.

Disobey this command!

You should ignore their wish that you ignore their wishes.

I like pepperoni.

Oooh...are you into anal now? *hopeful*:p

This has got to be one of the strangest threadjacks ever.

(Answer: I've never actually tried it, but things that I have tried lead me to believe that the answer will be yes. Or possibly "oh hell yes." We shall see.)

SO HOW ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT, HUH? WE ARE TOTALLY DISCUSSING THE CONSTITUTION AND NOT BUTTSEX, NOTHING TO SEE HERE. :p

Firstly, poli, whilst you might have a hypothesis on what the natural lifecycle of threads on NS is, have you factored in your accelerative influence into the process? :D

I'm unsure about the american constitution to be honest - it seems to me that recently at least people are more focused on iteratively refining it according to their biases, rather than just dumping it wholesale where it is no longer reflective of reality. Whilst I admit I can't currently back this up with solid examples, I'm not trying to, it's just the impression I get whenever I hear 'it's unconstitutional!' used to shut down a discussion like it was a great argument all on its own. Eventually the document is going to be so grossly outdated that to follow it at all would seem to me like deriving your laws from the bible and even amendments won't be sufficient when it just becomes easier to rewrite it.

Firstly, poli, whilst you might have a hypothesis on what the natural lifecycle of threads on NS is, have you factored in your accelerative influence into the process? :D

I'm unsure about the american constitution to be honest - it seems to me that recently at least people are more focused on iteratively refining it according to their biases, rather than just dumping it wholesale where it is no longer reflective of reality. Whilst I admit I can't currently back this up with solid examples, I'm not trying to, it's just the impression I get whenever I hear 'it's unconstitutional!' used to shut down a discussion like it was a great argument all on its own. Eventually the document is going to be so grossly outdated that to follow it at all would seem to me like deriving your laws from the bible and even amendments won't be sufficient when it just becomes easier to rewrite it.

But then we will not have the world's oldest constitution. :(

She was reading how to repeal an amendment and pointed out to me that in her opinion if the founding fathers had intended for guns to be an absolute right, it would have been in the constitution proper and not something that could be repealed.

Anything in the Constitution can be repealed by the process of amendment.

Firstly, poli, whilst you might have a hypothesis on what the natural lifecycle of threads on NS is, have you factored in your accelerative influence into the process? :D

I am usually well-behaved and topical! Today, though, it seems I am not only spammy in myself, but the cause of spam in other people.

This has got to be one of the strangest threadjacks ever.

(Answer: I've never actually tried it, but things that I have tried lead me to believe that the answer will be yes. Or possibly "oh hell yes." We shall see.)

*_* I haz strapon.

I mean um...

SO HOW ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT, HUH? WE ARE TOTALLY DISCUSSING THE CONSTITUTION AND NOT BUTTSEX, NOTHING TO SEE HERE. :p

LIVING DOCUMENT! FOUNDING FATHERS DEAD!

*_* I haz strapon. FOUNDING FATHERS DEAD!

Interesting genuine not at all edited quote there. I didn't know you had such a... erm.... thing, for Jefferson. :)

Not exactly what I meant. I think the founding fathers thought (over-optimistically) that one day we would not need to defend ourselves, either from our chosen government, or those who would attack us.

I think you're forgetting a couple of potential targets, such as:

Woodchucks
Prairie dogs
Feral hogs
Any other varmints I missed
Deer/Moose/Elk/Caribou
Predators dangerous to people

I think you're forgetting a couple of potential targets, such as:

Woodchucks
Prairie dogs
Feral hogs
Any other varmints I missed
Deer/Moose/Elk/Caribou
Predators dangerous to people

I like that word, and approve its use in public contexts.

My kid just said something.....and I was wondering what y'all think about it.

She was reading how to repeal an amendment and pointed out to me that in her opinion if the founding fathers had intended for guns to be an absolute right, it would have been in the constitution proper and not something that could be repealed.

I'm not sure what I think about that.

Do you agree/disagree?

Does this thought follow with other rights contained in the first ten amendments? (religion, speech, warranted searches)

What about rights contained in amendments after that? (they were put in by other people I know, but are they conditional as well?)

Also, as if I didn't ask enough questions already, if you live in a place that doesn't have a rights document similar to the U.S. Constitution, how do you view rights? Are they inherent? Given by the government? Or something else?


The creation of the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, also known as the "Bill of Rights" was created and approved at the same time as the main body of the Constitution.

According to the Amendment process, any of the current provisions in the Constitution, including Amendments, can be changed, or removed. The other alternative is a completely NEW Constitutional Convention (Wouldn't that be an incredibly noxious can of worms?).

Now, as to the question of where rights come from.... Rights, inalienable, bestowed upon men (humankind) by their Creator, and contested/limited by other humans