The obsolete constitution

[Hakons]

Why would the modern world come up with a new interpretation they could accidentally misinterpret? The current interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that of what it always has been, the right of the people to bear arms.

Well people interpret things differently. I believe the Founding Fathers didn't expect people to all own a gun, (apparently there's one and a half guns per citizen in the US), I bet they expected there to be an actual militia, not a bunch of conservatives calling themselves "patriots".

We shouldn't interpret it differently. We can't interpret it differently. Saying something actually means something it never meant is a lie. The framers absolutely expected a large portion of the population to own firearms. It's why the right to bear arms was in the the Bill of Rights to begin with. The framers absolutely expected a large portion of the population to own firearms so as to secure their liberty. Militias are formed by the people. No betting has to be done about what they thought. They wrote extensively about it. For one, they wrote it into the constitution.

[Valgora]

Why would the modern world come up with a new interpretation they could accidentally misinterpret? The current interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that of what it always has been, the right of the people to bear arms.

Well people interpret things differently. I believe the Founding Fathers didn't expect people to all own a gun, (apparently there's one and a half guns per citizen in the US), I bet they expected there to be an actual militia, not a bunch of conservatives calling themselves "patriots".

Considering what basically makes up a Militia, I think the Founding Fathers did expect all (white) people to own a gun.

[Toaslandia]

Well according to the Constitution, if you're born in the US, you can marry someone of the same sex.

I think you are missing my point. That was not a political reality until 2015 - and it became as such because of a loophole. This wasn't the initial intent of the 14th amendment, but it is being used to justify it as such.

This isn't about gay marriage, it's about one of our constitution's biggest short falls being that there are numerous loopholes which can go about justifying a plethora of things.

I'm confused: Are you against same-sex marriages or not? Because you're giving of mixed signals to me.

[Valgora]

Well according to the Constitution, if you're born in the US, you can marry someone of the same sex.

I think you are missing my point. That was not a political reality until 2015 - and it became as such because of a loophole. This wasn't the initial intent of the 14th amendment, but it is being used to justify it as such.

This isn't about gay marriage, it's about one of our constitution's biggest short falls being that there are numerous loopholes which can go about justifying a plethora of things.

Gay marriage wasn't justified because it was a loophole.
Bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional. Those bans being ruled unconstitutional in 2015 means that they were unconstitutional since 1868.

[Joohan]

Why would the modern world come up with a new interpretation they could accidentally misinterpret? The current interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that of what it always has been, the right of the people to bear arms.

Well people interpret things differently. I believe the Founding Fathers didn't expect people to all own a gun, (apparently there's one and a half guns per citizen in the US), I bet they expected there to be an actual militia, not a bunch of conservatives calling themselves "patriots".

Yet another shortfalling of the constitution.

Conservative constitutionalists typically think that very little to no limits should be placed upon the right to bear arms - but the 2nd amendment is so vague about the topic that numerous pieces of legislation which they have found appalling and in start contrast to the founding father's vision have been passed.

An appeal against the current constitution.

[Flawless Walruses]

I am not too familiar with smart contracts. Could you explain the idea you had in mind?

Everyday language is often ambiguous, so laws and constitutions end up written in a precise, formalised, jargon-laced "legalese" version of the local language. "Plain English" is too open to creative misinterpretation.

The intended meaning of legalese is almost always clear, but the "interpretation" step via your policeman / soldier / bureaucrat / judge / regulator is fallible, because bribes, friendships, skin color, accent, whatever.

Its called "discretion".

A banking regulator can ignore AML/CTF violations if she knows the culprit is a school chum, or her husband's cousin, or someone she wants to impress, or from a very powerful company.

A patrolman in a wealthy suburb can target for (harrassment / beatings / shootings) anyone who has the wrong skin color, speaks a non-prestige accent, or looks like they don't have the resources to access justice.

None of these "considerations" are transparent, or unambiguously available for public comment or auditing. Even when provable and actionable for members of the public, the process is necessarily cumbersome and expensive. The usual solution is greater centralisation - putting the authority figures under another authority figure who can monitor them and dispense rewards and punishments.

The problem with using humans for that is that the highest authority is then able to (ab)use their powers of reward and punishment to perpetuate their power, and to protect/reward their cronies. Further centralisation of power doesn't help.

Decentralisation of power in a transparent way is hard. "Representatives" often do anything but, and elections are a very imprecise way to influence the powerful.

Smart Contracts can be used as a further evolution of both legal language and public administration, written in mathematics & computer code - https://auth0.com/blog/an-introduction- ... ts-part-2/

if (this), then do (that)

Skin color not required. Being the Mayor's cousin won't help.

Detail can be described exhaustively, viewed publicly, audited, and even voted on, verifiably. Its a pain, but its cheaper than assigning a cop to follow every cop. And then another cop to follow him, and a ombudsman and staff to fob off the inevitable complaints of abuse.

Any law written as a "smart contract" only has the power to set variables for some other smart contract, like "isSuspended", or decrypt a file, or to pay or not pay some digital blockchain transaction. But that's a lot more power than paper has.

[Hakons]

I'm sure they were thinking of gay marriage at the time. They just didn't remember until 147 years later.

Whether or not they were thinking about gay marriage doesn't matter.
If it was ruled that gay marriage bans were unconstitutional in 2015, then they were always unconstitutional.

Ex post facto laws are banned by the constitution. It was only deemed unconstitutional in 2015 and thereafter, not beforehand. For example, someone denying a gay couple a marriage license in 2014 could not be prosecuted.

[Toaslandia]

Whether or not they were thinking about gay marriage doesn't matter.
If it was ruled that gay marriage bans were unconstitutional in 2015, then they were always unconstitutional.

Ex post facto laws are banned by the constitution. It was only deemed unconstitutional in 2015 and thereafter, not beforehand. For example, someone denying a gay couple a marriage license in 2014 could not be prosecuted.

Good thing it's illegal to do that now.

[Valgora]

Whether or not they were thinking about gay marriage doesn't matter.
If it was ruled that gay marriage bans were unconstitutional in 2015, then they were always unconstitutional.

Ex post facto laws are banned by the constitution. It was only deemed unconstitutional in 2015 and thereafter, not beforehand. For example, someone denying a gay couple a marriage license in 2014 could not be prosecuted.

Doesn't change that gay marriage bans have always been unconstitutional.

[Joohan]

I think you are missing my point. That was not a political reality until 2015 - and it became as such because of a loophole. This wasn't the initial intent of the 14th amendment, but it is being used to justify it as such.

This isn't about gay marriage, it's about one of our constitution's biggest short falls being that there are numerous loopholes which can go about justifying a plethora of things.

Gay marriage wasn't justified because it was a loophole.
Bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional. Those bans being ruled unconstitutional in 2015 means that they were unconstitutional since 1868.

The ban on ex post facto laws should most certainly be carried onward into the next document.

That ruling was not made until 2015. There had not been no such clarification prior to that point, and since the federal government had not specified in that specific interpretation the matter was then left for state interpretation.

Edit: It only became unconstitutional post the ruling.

[Flawless Walruses]

Well people interpret things differently. I believe the Founding Fathers didn't expect people to all own a gun, (apparently there's one and a half guns per citizen in the US), I bet they expected there to be an actual militia, not a bunch of conservatives calling themselves "patriots".

Considering what basically makes up a Militia, I think the Founding Fathers did expect all (white) people to own a gun.

(white) (free) (male).

Sometimes (property-owning) was the substitute for (white).

But yes, anyone who claims the word "Militia" meant some hand-picked, salaried and uniformed force in the 1700s is lying.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

The constitution has been interpreted in ways that the creators did not intend for quite a while now. Some of them supported tarring and feathering, something that many would consider cruel and unusual, but they also supported a bill of rights which banned that. Most (if not all) of them supported slavery and sexist legislation. Today the constitution is (rightly so) interpreted to not contradict the amendment(s) which were added later, but not always. The true power lies not in a constitution but in who interprets and enforces it.

[Joohan]

The constitution has been interpreted in ways that the creators did not intend for quite a while now. Some of them supported tarring and feathering, something that many would consider cruel and unusual, but they also supported a bill of rights which banned that. Most (if not all) of them supported slavery and sexist legislation. Today the constitution is (rightly so) interpreted to not contradict the amendment(s) which were added later, but not always. The true power lies not in a constitution but in who interprets and enforces it.

making a constitution quite pointless then if it is rendered meaningless to it's upholders. A better model, I believe, should be created.

[Valgora]

Gay marriage wasn't justified because it was a loophole.
Bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional. Those bans being ruled unconstitutional in 2015 means that they were unconstitutional since 1868.

The ban on ex post facto laws should most certainly be carried onward into the next document.

That ruling was not made until 2015. There had not been no such clarification prior to that point, and since the federal government had not specified in that specific interpretation the matter was then left for state interpretation.

The law required that such a ruling be made. Since the ruling, and the law, was made in 2015, no one before that could be prosecuted under that law.
However, gay marriage bans have been unconstitutional since the creation of the 14th Amendment in 1868.
Unless you subscribe to the idea of a "living document", which many liberals do.

[Bombadil]

Well people interpret things differently. I believe the Founding Fathers didn't expect people to all own a gun, (apparently there's one and a half guns per citizen in the US), I bet they expected there to be an actual militia, not a bunch of conservatives calling themselves "patriots".

We shouldn't interpret it differently. We can't interpret it differently. Saying something actually means something it never meant is a lie. The framers absolutely expected a large portion of the population to own firearms. It's why the right to bear arms was in the the Bill of Rights to begin with. The framers absolutely expected a large portion of the population to own firearms so as to secure their liberty. Militias are formed by the people. No betting has to be done about what they thought. They wrote extensively about it. For one, they wrote it into the constitution.

This may well be true, I think it's pretty clear the Founders felt everyone had the right to own firearms. However they lived in a very different world where the intent was to be secure from invading forces. I think few people own arms for that intent anymore.

It's the idea it's a sacrosanct right set in stone because it's in the Constitution. It can and should be amended. And people seem very picky as to what is sacrosanct because it's in the Constitution and what isn't, on both sides really.

Fact is any such piece of paper would create arguments down the line because that's what people do, and the world changes and so nothing should be set in stone. Yet that is why the Constitution can be amended.

Having said that I do think that decisions such as abortion should not be decided through the Constitution, Congress should have the balls to deal with it themselves. I think the issue of a legislative Supreme Court is because Congress is so averse to dealing with anything slightly controversial.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Please make some concrete proposals for new clauses, then, so we can see if they're any better than what we've got.

I am not proposing a specific piece as our new basis of laws, I am simply stating that a radical change is necessary. I am leaving it up in the air as to what.

In other words, complaining is very easy, but offering solutions, or even initial proposals for solutions, is too hard. Got it.

The onus of proof is always on those seeking change. Since you're unwilling to provide any proof, I'm going to have to agree with what others have already said: we can simply amend the existing Constitution as we've done before, patching up problems as they arise.

[Toaslandia]

The constitution has been interpreted in ways that the creators did not intend for quite a while now. Some of them supported tarring and feathering, something that many would consider cruel and unusual, but they also supported a bill of rights which banned that. Most (if not all) of them supported slavery and sexist legislation. Today the constitution is (rightly so) interpreted to not contradict the amendment(s) which were added later, but not always. The true power lies not in a constitution but in who interprets and enforces it.

making a constitution quite pointless then if it is rendered meaningless to it's upholders. A better model, I believe, should be created.

While I agree that it' not perfect and should be recreated, or at least revised, it should be made so it helps the common person and working class, not the political parties.

[Jabberwocky]

Current liberal climate? Under King don? Funniest thing I've ever heard.

[Toaslandia]

Current liberal climate? Under King don? Funniest thing I've ever beard.

[Kowani]

making a constitution quite pointless then if it is rendered meaningless to it's upholders. A better model, I believe, should be created.

While I agree that it' not perfect and should be recreated, or at least revised, it should be made so it helps the common person and working class, not the political parties.

Better idea. We do what Washington said, and no political parties.

[Joohan]

The ban on ex post facto laws should most certainly be carried onward into the next document.

That ruling was not made until 2015. There had not been no such clarification prior to that point, and since the federal government had not specified in that specific interpretation the matter was then left for state interpretation.

The law required that such a ruling be made. Since the ruling, and the law, was made in 2015, no one before that could be prosecuted under that law.
However, gay marriage bans have been unconstitutional since the creation of the 14th Amendment in 1868.
Unless you subscribe to the idea of a "living document", which many liberals do.

But they weren't, and you've yet to prove such a point. No one could be prosecuted for banning gay marriage prior to 2015 because it had not been illegal at the time - only after 2015 was it clarified at the federal level to be illegal.

But that's the whole point - the constitution is so vague on matters that we are arguing today weather or not civil war dudes who set up the amendment to protect freed slaves also meant to let gay people marry at the same time. They obviously didn't, but the Constitution is vague enough that such an interpretation can be ( and has been ) permitted.

Never mind gay marriage, that such a loophole can be exploited should be worrying and merit a remarkable change.

[Joohan]

While I agree that it' not perfect and should be recreated, or at least revised, it should be made so it helps the common person and working class, not the political parties.

Better idea. We do what Washington said, and no political parties.

^

[Valgora]

While I agree that it' not perfect and should be recreated, or at least revised, it should be made so it helps the common person and working class, not the political parties.

Better idea. We do what Washington said, and no political parties.

[Joohan]

I am not proposing a specific piece as our new basis of laws, I am simply stating that a radical change is necessary. I am leaving it up in the air as to what.

In other words, complaining is very easy, but offering solutions, or even initial proposals for solutions, is too hard. Got it.

The onus of proof is always on those seeking change. Since you're unwilling to provide any proof, I'm going to have to agree with what others have already said: we can simply amend the existing Constitution as we've done before, patching up problems as they arise.

What ever floats your boat.

I stated right from the beginning that this thread isn't about a specific idea for replacement, just that a replacement should be made. That was all, and as proof I have listed numerous shortfalls which I believe a few amendments would be inadequate to mend.

But if you don't care to contribute, you are free to continue lurking.

[Toaslandia]

While I agree that it' not perfect and should be recreated, or at least revised, it should be made so it helps the common person and working class, not the political parties.

Better idea. We do what Washington said, and no political parties.

Amazing idea! That's even better than what I put!