Society evolves... why shouldn't historical documents that effect our lives today?

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

What are your thoughts on the validity of historical documents in todays society? Should they be reformed and updated, while recognizing and honoring their significance in the past?

 

Why can't the US constitution be amended/interpreted to reflect current values? Surely society has evolved over the last 225+ years. Shouldn't this legal document be required to evolve too? Same goes for ancient religious texts. Why interpret them so strictly as to cause violence and misery today?

 

This has the potential to inflame passions so be nice but I think it's worthwhile discussing. Hopefully you do too.

[PantlessKing 1050]

Because some people won't change their guns and others won't change their gods. I think it's for some people a "safe place", because as time goes on everything around us changes, including ourselves. I guess there needs to be a minimum, like a constitution, which acts as "what constitutes the state of being a nation". I hope this thread picks up more interest because I would like to hear what others might have to offer. :)

[mrrnice2 157005]

I am presuming that in no way you are speaking of revisionist history which is a pet peeve of mine.

 

A constitution is a very difficult thing to change from a political sense. In the U.S. the issue is their undying faith in founding fathers and the sacrosanct belief that the constitution is inviolate. For them the desire to hold on to the past will be a difficult thing to get over.

 

Religious texts are also inviolate to those who believe, whether it be the Bible or the Koran. How one interprets the text has always been and will alwys be open to interpretation.

 

On a more local level it would seem that most Canadians would like to have an abolished senate or a revised one but in order to do so a constitutional amendment would be required and unfortunately that is no small thing.

[redskin44 3588]

you want to make change , you need to influence the Bilderberg group . if I remember correctly the Bilderberg group met in Germany earlier this year . it is a group made up of the rich and political elite .

 

Yes , shockingly enough , money creates influence . Money gives you power in this world . this is the world that has been created for all of us to live in . NRA only has 5million members but , does contribute to the '' right '' candidates . Churches , better go give your 10% or the church may not be able to pay their taxes , oh ... wait , that's right , churches don't pay taxes .

 

We live in a world obsessed with greed , " keeping up with the jones' " . We as a society are putting ourselves deeper in debt year after year . 90% of adults have a credit card , 75% of those adults cannot use that card because it is completely maxed out .

 

We , as a society , are so preoccupied with getting ourselves out of debt and feeding our desires to have " more " , probably less than 5% of the population gives a topic such as this any true thought let alone try to act on it . We are being separated by religion , by wealth , political support and so on and so on .

 

the more distractions there are to separate us , the less time there is for introspective thought on ourselves and society on the whole . there is also the feeling of what can " I " do . People also forget our political leaders work for us ! People will vote , in small numbers unfortunately , but will never contact their city councilor , mpp , or mp . Of course they will complain but , never hold these politicians accountable .

 

THEY WORK FOR US !!

 

All that being said , it all starts right here , man in the mirror . To steal a phrase " think globally , act locally " , its up to us to knock these dividers down . Let the media , bankers , corporations know that these little things don't matter , we all laugh , cry , and bleed . The things that separate us are superficial , the things that make us the same is nature , its life .

 

If we all just take care of our own little corner of the world , we will gain that power , and this is what scares the bankers , corporations and governments . We would be able to make change but , we gotta start by talking care of each other .

 

rant over .

[Dunstan Ramsay 1882]

Stevemcqueen said:

Why can't the US constitution be amended/interpreted to reflect current values? Surely society has evolved over the last 225+ years. Shouldn't this legal document be required to evolve too?

 

mrrnice2 said:

A constitution is a very difficult thing to change from a political sense. In the U.S. the issue is their undying faith in founding fathers and the sacrosanct belief that the constitution is inviolate. For them the desire to hold on to the past will be a difficult thing to get over.

 

A little research is needed before making such statements. The U.S. constitution has changed in the history since its inception in 1789. The constitution has been amended twenty-seven (27) times, the last being in 1992.

 

The original section, The Bill of Rights, are there to protect the individual's rights and liberties, and places restrictions on what the government can do. The remaining 17 amendments expand on individual civil liberties.

 

As the times changed, so did the government's views on a person's rights and changes were made to the constitution. For example, abolishing slavery, prohibit the government from allowing women to vote, and the age at which someone can vote. These changes came a century after the Constitution was enacted.

 

There has only been one amendment that has been repealed, and that was the eighteenth amendment; prohibiting the making, transporting, and selling of alcohol.

At the turn of the last century, the government felt the need to prohibit alcohol. Then 13 years later, they repealed that amendment.

 

Times changed and the Constitution changed with it. The issue seems, at least in my opinion, to be with how the laws are interpreted. Especially with the Second amendment, the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Therefore, making statements that the Constitution hasn't changed, or cannot be changed are completely false.

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

Thank you for the responses.

 

Dunstan, I know the constitution has been amended but it seems the 2nd amendment will be part of the US constitution forever. I was mostly referring to that particular constitutional aspect with my original post. Maybe I should have referenced that in my original post but then I started thinking about broader adherences to historical documents such as the Quran and even the Bible.

 

Blind adherence by many US citizens to the second amendment causes the US to have astronomical gun deaths compared to similar first world countries. Homicides, suicides and injuries exceed 100 000+ each year there and still the second amendment seems sacrosanct. Don't interfere with the right for "practically anyone" to buy an assault rifle! Why?

 

Religion is evolving and I don't want to pick on Islam but they definitely need a reformation similar to the Christian reformation. The Quran is far more strictly interpreted by Muslims than the Bible is by Christians. Again, I'm not excusing Bible thumpers but the news is currently filled with people who interpret the Quran too severely.

 

Thanks again for the responses.

[Kubrickfan 12836]

What exactly is wrong with the US Constitution? It's the cornerstone document, together with the Declaration of Independence, of the greatest society that the world has ever known. Those documents, together with the republic they were written for, has done more to promote liberty and freedom, than most other nations in the world combined.

 

It's intended to be a static document as its intended to be considered to be a compact, or "contract," between the state and its citizens so that it can be relied upon. When you have a "living" constitution (whatever the hell that means), you have a bull crap situation where the law only means what the unelected, old fart, wannabe legislator judge wants it to mean. Blecch.... As Alexander Hamilton said allowing judges to create law is a really bad idea as it substitutes their will for the legislature.

 

On the other hand, the highest duty of a judge is to consider the validity of any law as to whether it is constitutional. And I don't think any judge on the U.S. Supreme Court thinks that they can somehow interpret that right to bear arms to take that right away from citizens. There is some debate over whether the Second Amendment applies to State, versus federal, laws, but that's about it. It's there, right after the First Amendment, for a damn good reason that has very little to do with hunting, target shooting, etc. That reason is to prevent the government from so controlling its citizens that, should the government become "destructive" as provided in the Declaration of Independence, the citizens cannot bear arms, as part of a militia or otherwise, to re-claim their liberty. So, respectfully, I don't have much patience, nor do most Americans, for people who want to diminish that right.

 

Gun violence is certainly a problem but that doesn't require the Constitution be amended.

[Brad 49550]

Kubrick, there's reason to argue the Constitution shouldn't be easily or lightly changed, but if you truly think it's completely static (or should be) then you're missing some obvious examples.

 

I mean, I'm assuming you wouldn't argue that new amendments should never be added, else you'd have to be unhappy with the one that abolished slavery.

 

Or maybe you're okay with adding amendments but not ever repealing or adjusting? Of course, if that's the case, then you'd have to argue that the amendment prohibiting alcohol should still be around.

 

As far as freedom goes, it's worth pointing out the addition of the 13th amendment and the repeal of the 18th could be said to have increased liberty.

 

Besides, you can have gun control without changing the second amendment at all. Arguments that politicians want to "take away all your guns" or "abolish the second amendment" are BS and scare tactics. I mean, unless you think prisoners in jail should be able to buy and carry guns, or an 8 year old should be able to walk into a cornerstore and walk out with an assault rifle, then you too believe in at least some level of gun control.

 

My point is, it is possible to acknowledge the achievement of historical politicians and documents and the good they've done but also recognize that they weren't perfect and didn't know everything.

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

What exactly is wrong with the US Constitution? It's the cornerstone document, together with the Declaration of Independence, of the greatest society that the world has ever known. Those documents, together with the republic they were written for, has done more to promote liberty and freedom, than most other nations in the world combined.

 

It's intended to be a static document as its intended to be considered to be a compact, or "contract," between the state and its citizens so that it can be relied upon. When you have a "living" constitution (whatever the hell that means), you have a bull crap situation where the law only means what the unelected, old fart, wannabe legislator judge wants it to mean. Blecch.... As Alexander Hamilton said allowing judges to create law is a really bad idea as it substitutes their will for the legislature.

 

On the other hand, the highest duty of a judge is to consider the validity of any law as to whether it is constitutional. And I don't think any judge on the U.S. Supreme Court thinks that they can somehow interpret that right to bear arms to take that right away from citizens. There is some debate over whether the Second Amendment applies to State, versus federal, laws, but that's about it. It's there, right after the First Amendment, for a damn good reason that has very little to do with hunting, target shooting, etc. That reason is to prevent the government from so controlling its citizens that, should the government become "destructive" as provided in the Declaration of Independence, the citizens cannot bear arms, as part of a militia or otherwise, to re-claim their liberty. So, respectfully, I don't have much patience, nor do most Americans, for people who want to diminish that right.

 

Gun violence is certainly a problem but that doesn't require the Constitution be amended.

 

Appreciate your thoughts on this. Is there some reason that historical documents like the US Constitution can't be further reformed?

 

As for the 2nd amendment, it seems it could be interpreted by the SC in a subjective way now, depending on your leaning. What is so wrong with formalizing this with further reform?

 

I appreciate all the opinions. I'm learning a lot from you and an American friend who I battle with frequently on this 2nd amendment issue.