I passionately believe it’s time to abolish the Electoral College.

[Dr. Who]

If you really look at the issues that I am addressing, it breaks down to rights - which are protected under the Constitution and preventing corruption. Allowing states to legislate away rights is unconstitutional, so they simply should not be under the impression that this is within their purview. The States should have the economic independence to make their constituent populations as successful as possible, educate them as well as possible, determine their infrastructure and even decide what form of health care system that they want.

I think that the 2nd Amendment is problematic. It prevents sensible gun law. I don't happen to think that the federal government would ever ban guns that could even be written into the constitution. That said, attaching responsibility to gun ownership is necessary and not a violation of rights. Self-defense is a right, but it's not an unrestricted right. It shouldn't allow irresponsible gun nuts to keep 500 unsecured weapons in their shed or basement. These are weapons, not clocks or dishes. They are the targets of criminal enterprise. They shouldn't be bought, sold and traded in the private market like baseball cards. The absence of central registration and licensing makes straw purchases possible and rapid identification of criminal gun dealers difficult. Every gun sale should have to go through a licensed broker or a gun registry department that checks licenses so you can mitigate undocumented weapons transfers. People who wish to be weapons collectors should have a specific license to do so, with appropriate storage mandates and liability insurance so that if their weapons are stolen and used to kill or injure people, the victims are not left high and dry. In fact, everyone who keeps a weapon should have to carry liability insurance so that in the event that the weapon is lost, stolen or accidentally discharges, resulting in a death or injury, the victim or their family is compensated. Furthermore, that liability should be absolute, such that even if your weapon is used by you or anyone else, with intent to murder, the policy would still pay on a statutory basis.

Perhaps if gun ownership carried more of an onus for responsibility, there would be fewer guns falling into the wrong hands and regulating it centrally, sets one national standard, eliminating disparate State regulations. One less issue for governors to have to address during elections.

Similarly, issues like abortion or same-sex marriage should not be the burden of States. They involve civil rights which will always be held up to the Constitution. It's such a waste of time and energy having States creating legislation to please their constituents when what their constituents want may well be a violation of citizen's rights. The entire idea of having a nation with citizenship really implies that every citizen should enjoy the same legal rights regardless of the administrative division of the country in which they reside.

Is there really anyone who supports the idea of politicians being bought and paid for by special interests because of the lobby system. It is the singular most obvious source of corruption in government. The commercialization of elections in combination with the lobby system basically ensures that elected representatives are primarily working for their corporate benefactors, not their constituents.

[Tahuyaman]

I kind of suspected that her view of the constitution was mostly based on her opposition to the second amendment.

[Adelaide]

Liberals have nearly no working knowledge of the constitution, but they know it needs to be abolished and re-written.

No suggestion is a bad suggestion. But the problem is people, not the system - that's mostly my view. I am unsatisfied with Article III but I also realize it's never going to change, or at least not in my lifetime.

Liberals can and do have as much knowledge as conservatives, but they/we tend to view things differently.

Take the Supreme Court; Kennedy said something a few years back that makes sense for all sides: “An activist court is a court that makes a decision you don't like." We all know judicial activism exists, but most on the left won't admit it when it's an issue they care about that is given a SCOTUS nod, and the same can be said about most conservatives. I have mentioned a few times that Brown v. Board of Education was judicial activism and a conservative member actually wrote me to say he couldn't believe I thought that because it's a conservative position. I bet if I said Citizens v. FEC was judicial activism, conservatives would riot and liberals might agree. If I called Roe v. Wade judicial activism... if I called Obergefell v. Hodges judicial activism... or if I questioned some of the Commerce Clause decisions of the Rehnquist court... It just depends what side you're on. And that's exactly how the Constitution is viewed in many cases. It just political opinion.

It is never going to be a black and white issue where the Constitution is literal and all-encompassing; it simply wasn't written that way on many issues.

[Captdon]

If you really look at the issues that I am addressing, it breaks down to rights - which are protected under the Constitution and preventing corruption. Allowing states to legislate away rights is unconstitutional, so they simply should not be under the impression that this is within their purview. The States should have the economic independence to make their constituent populations as successful as possible, educate them as well as possible, determine their infrastructure and even decide what form of health care system that they want.

I think that the 2nd Amendment is problematic. It prevents sensible gun law. I don't happen to think that the federal government would ever ban guns that could even be written into the constitution. That said, attaching responsibility to gun ownership is necessary and not a violation of rights. Self-defense is a right, but it's not an unrestricted right. It shouldn't allow irresponsible gun nuts to keep 500 unsecured weapons in their shed or basement. These are weapons, not clocks or dishes. They are the targets of criminal enterprise. They shouldn't be bought, sold and traded in the private market like baseball cards. The absence of central registration and licensing makes straw purchases possible and rapid identification of criminal gun dealers difficult. Every gun sale should have to go through a licensed broker or a gun registry department that checks licenses so you can mitigate undocumented weapons transfers. People who wish to be weapons collectors should have a specific license to do so, with appropriate storage mandates and liability insurance so that if their weapons are stolen and used to kill or injure people, the victims are not left high and dry. In fact, everyone who keeps a weapon should have to carry liability insurance so that in the event that the weapon is lost, stolen or accidentally discharges, resulting in a death or injury, the victim or their family is compensated. Furthermore, that liability should be absolute, such that even if your weapon is used by you or anyone else, with intent to murder, the policy would still pay on a statutory basis.

Perhaps if gun ownership carried more of an onus for responsibility, there would be fewer guns falling into the wrong hands and regulating it centrally, sets one national standard, eliminating disparate State regulations. One less issue for governors to have to address during elections.

Similarly, issues like abortion or same-sex marriage should not be the burden of States. They involve civil rights which will always be held up to the Constitution. It's such a waste of time and energy having States creating legislation to please their constituents when what their constituents want may well be a violation of citizen's rights. The entire idea of having a nation with citizenship really implies that every citizen should enjoy the same legal rights regardless of the administrative division of the country in which they reside.

Is there really anyone who supports the idea of politicians being bought and paid for by special interests because of the lobby system. It is the singular most obvious source of corruption in government. The commercialization of elections in combination with the lobby system basically ensures that elected representatives are primarily working for their corporate benefactors, not their constituents.

This wrong and self-serving nonsense. I want the right to own guns. I want no abortions. It is not a right. Marriage has always been a state right. Health insurance is not a right.Civil rights are protected now.

See, you can't write a new Constitution to suit you.

[Captdon]

I kind of suspected that her view of the constitution was mostly based on her opposition to the second amendment.

Mostly, but she wants to kill babies too.

[Tahuyaman]

Mostly, but she wants to kill babies too.

She shows her hypocrisy on that issue.

[Cletus]

No suggestion is a bad suggestion.

That is most definitely NOT true.

Just read any of Who's posts about the Constitution.

[Captdon]

No suggestion is a bad suggestion. But the problem is people, not the system - that's mostly my view. I am unsatisfied with Article III but I also realize it's never going to change, or at least not in my lifetime.

Liberals can and do have as much knowledge as conservatives, but they/we tend to view things differently.

Take the Supreme Court; Kennedy said something a few years back that makes sense for all sides: “An activist court is a court that makes a decision you don't like." We all know judicial activism exists, but most on the left won't admit it when it's an issue they care about that is given a SCOTUS nod, and the same can be said about most conservatives. I have mentioned a few times that Brown v. Board of Education was judicial activism and a conservative member actually wrote me to say he couldn't believe I thought that because it's a conservative position. I bet if I said Citizens v. FEC was judicial activism, conservatives would riot and liberals might agree. If I called Roe v. Wade judicial activism... if I called Obergefell v. Hodges judicial activism... or if I questioned some of the Commerce Clause decisions of the Rehnquist court... It just depends what side you're on. And that's exactly how the Constitution is viewed in many cases. It just political opinion.

It is never going to be a black and white issue where the Constitution is literal and all-encompassing; it simply wasn't written that way on many issues.

Brown v Board of Education was activism.The proper solution was the Civil Rights laws to enforce the Constitution. In fact, the Court didn't solve the program. It was the law that did.

[Ransom]

If you really look at the issues that I am addressing, it breaks down to rights - which are protected under the Constitution and preventing corruption. Allowing states to legislate away rights is unconstitutional, so they simply should not be under the impression that this is within their purview. The States should have the economic independence to make their constituent populations as successful as possible, educate them as well as possible, determine their infrastructure and even decide what form of health care system that they want.

I think that the 2nd Amendment is problematic. It prevents sensible gun law. I don't happen to think that the federal government would ever ban guns that could even be written into the constitution. That said, attaching responsibility to gun ownership is necessary and not a violation of rights. Self-defense is a right, but it's not an unrestricted right. It shouldn't allow irresponsible gun nuts to keep 500 unsecured weapons in their shed or basement. These are weapons, not clocks or dishes. They are the targets of criminal enterprise. They shouldn't be bought, sold and traded in the private market like baseball cards. The absence of central registration and licensing makes straw purchases possible and rapid identification of criminal gun dealers difficult. Every gun sale should have to go through a licensed broker or a gun registry department that checks licenses so you can mitigate undocumented weapons transfers. People who wish to be weapons collectors should have a specific license to do so, with appropriate storage mandates and liability insurance so that if their weapons are stolen and used to kill or injure people, the victims are not left high and dry. In fact, everyone who keeps a weapon should have to carry liability insurance so that in the event that the weapon is lost, stolen or accidentally discharges, resulting in a death or injury, the victim or their family is compensated. Furthermore, that liability should be absolute, such that even if your weapon is used by you or anyone else, with intent to murder, the policy would still pay on a statutory basis.

Perhaps if gun ownership carried more of an onus for responsibility, there would be fewer guns falling into the wrong hands and regulating it centrally, sets one national standard, eliminating disparate State regulations. One less issue for governors to have to address during elections.

Similarly, issues like abortion or same-sex marriage should not be the burden of States. They involve civil rights which will always be held up to the Constitution. It's such a waste of time and energy having States creating legislation to please their constituents when what their constituents want may well be a violation of citizen's rights. The entire idea of having a nation with citizenship really implies that every citizen should enjoy the same legal rights regardless of the administrative division of the country in which they reside.

Is there really anyone who supports the idea of politicians being bought and paid for by special interests because of the lobby system. It is the singular most obvious source of corruption in government. The commercialization of elections in combination with the lobby system basically ensures that elected representatives are primarily working for their corporate benefactors, not their constituents.

A free people ought to be armed.”
– George Washington

[Dr. Who]

No suggestion is a bad suggestion. But the problem is people, not the system - that's mostly my view. I am unsatisfied with Article III but I also realize it's never going to change, or at least not in my lifetime.

Liberals can and do have as much knowledge as conservatives, but they/we tend to view things differently.

Take the Supreme Court; Kennedy said something a few years back that makes sense for all sides: “An activist court is a court that makes a decision you don't like." We all know judicial activism exists, but most on the left won't admit it when it's an issue they care about that is given a SCOTUS nod, and the same can be said about most conservatives. I have mentioned a few times that Brown v. Board of Education was judicial activism and a conservative member actually wrote me to say he couldn't believe I thought that because it's a conservative position. I bet if I said Citizens v. FEC was judicial activism, conservatives would riot and liberals might agree. If I called Roe v. Wade judicial activism... if I called Obergefell v. Hodges judicial activism... or if I questioned some of the Commerce Clause decisions of the Rehnquist court... It just depends what side you're on. And that's exactly how the Constitution is viewed in many cases. It just political opinion.

It is never going to be a black and white issue where the Constitution is literal and all-encompassing; it simply wasn't written that way on many issues.

No Constitution is perfect, but one that is suffering from antiquity is even more problematic. Nations change. Ideologies, cultures and technology changes. Those who see America differently than conservative textualists have just as much right to want to see change than those who don't want change. As you said it's political opinion. I believe the so-called progressive side of the argument is actually in the majority, so it's really a matter of time. Amendments to the Constitution are not happening because of political paralysis, so these issues continue to be dumped on SCOTUS. SCOTUS is comprised of people who are most certainly affected by their beliefs despite their desire to be as neutral as possible. How they interpret the Constitution is filtered through their belief system. That doesn't make either side right or wrong, but equally flawed. You cannot apply a 300-year-old document without interpretation because the frame of reference in that original document could not be more different than the complexity of today's world.