What do you think about the US Constitution?

Best document ever written.

was genociding natives and enslaving negros and turning South America into a massive fruit plantation in the Constitution?

I like the it but too many revere it and reduce all American successes to da cawnatitooshun

>turning South America into a massive fruit plantation
What the fuck are you talking about?
You Americans are still confused about geography I see...

t. gun grabber

Awful document which enslaved the West

Back to >>>/tumblr

It was the negros that sold other negros to us after waging war amongst themselves

And you cant deny that most negros that came to America had a far better life than they would have had in Africa
They still do

The natives thing sucks, but thats pretty much part of the history of any place in existence. Sadly for the US they happened to be one of the last to use their strength to get somewhere, so theyre the whipping boy for slavery and genocide (besides the Germans)

an expensive vanity project that we keep going to ego stroke.

>native american """"""""""'genocide"""""""

It's a pretty neat document, but this strange obsession some people have over it is pretty dumb.

>turning South America into a massive fruit plantation in the Constitution?
American ''''''''''''''education'''''''''''''''

yeah haha like who even needs rights n shit amirite

What a sad state of affairs when the people who want to actually abide by the values and principles of our nation's founding are the crazy ones.

Good one.

Ic wut u did there, and I riked it!

Almost perfect

Just need to:
Repeal the 17th amendment
Remove the clause "provide for the general welfare"
Remove all instances of "public good"

Why do people like you exist

i love freedom and hate aggressing against non-violent people

That's what makes the document neat, it guarantees us rights that people didn't really have a few hundred years ago. Also, the obsession I'm referring to is the one where people bitch and complain when people say we should try to control this ridiculous gun problem.

>it guarantees us rights that people didn't really have a few hundred years ago

It secures pre-existing rights that were previously infringed upon by authortarian rulers.

>I'm referring to is the one where people bitch and complain when people say we should try to control this ridiculous gun problem.

You have an amendment process afforded to you. We are not going to abandon the structure of our entire government just to please your desires even if they are rightfully founded. If you want to change the law, use the same system everyone else did.

Should preventing the mentally ill or not allowing Abdul Jafar who is on the no fly list from getting guns really require a whole new amendment to the Constitution?

>rights
>existing

> If you want to change the law, use the same system everyone else did.
You mean violent uprising?

Whether or not it should, it does. So unless you're going to overthrow the US government and implement a new Constitution, you have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

Except I alone can't amend the constitution, that's why we have representatives and senators that try and push amendments in Washington. Unfortunately, the representative for my district has no desire to change any of our gun laws.

With what, the guns you want to ban?

Who said I wanted to ban guns?

...

Sorry, thought you were this

Then petition your representative or vote to replace him

Do you have any actual argument or are you just going to rely on shallow utilitarianism and consequentialism ?

But there are varying degrees of gun control in place already. Why make appeals to the Constitution when it's technically being violated already anyway?

They had violent uprising before guns m8

>murrican thinks the murrican revolution was the first revolution

Except I did both of those things and neither worked, now what?

"Gun control", depending on details, is not necessarily a violation of the 2nd amendment.

You could try to violently revolt against a democratic nation. I'm sure you could enlist a grand militia to support you in that endeavor, since your views are obviously so much more right than that of the majority.

>They had violent uprising before guns m8
yeah, and then guns happened, and now we don't.

There's a very, very good case to be made that the no fly list itself is unconstitutional and should be done away with.

But that's wrong?

So if I'm in the minority I should just shut up and live under the tyranny of the majority?

Do whatever you'd like. I'd suggest before you revolt you read the Federalist Papers because Madison and Hamilton addressed many of your grievances. Consult them.

It's okay but often misunderstood by neocons and disregarded by neolibs.

>neolibs

are you implying that modern liberals hold the same beliefs as classical liberals?

I only have memes

I love anacap memes

I'm afraid you're just on the wrong side of history then. You can't win every fight.

By the way, the Democrats could have had their no-fly no-buy but they refused to cross the aisle to vote for either of the Republican bills that worked to do the same thing. If they had done so, the bills would have easily passed into law, but the Democrats did not, for one of two reasons.

1. To keep it as a wedge issue for the election (lel).

2. They did not want to compromise one inch, and the Republican bills had remedies and accountability.

You see, the Republican sponsored no-fly bills would have required that the government had actual evidence sufficient to satisfy the ban, so no typo of Buttle to Tuttle, or shoddy investigating, or run of the mill Islamophobia would be enough to block someone from ownership in perpetuity. Notice I said perpetuity, that's because the R bills had an explicit timeline so the government couldn't stall forever and the blocked individual have no remedy.

They could have had their no-fly, but they insisted on a lack of accountability on an already opaque process that ironically succeeded in planting some of the Democratic lawmakers who voted or it on the list by accident.

>neolibs

Not the person you're replying to but Justice Thomas would overturn either version of a no-fly list gun ban as soon as an appropriate case arises in the Supreme Court

Pretty good due to how it only really addresses how government is specifically going to be run and the most basic of rights (for the most part) but it isn't perfect and it's really annoying when people act like it's the word of God and absolutely flawless. In America you will hear people justify themselves on certain opinions simply by saying "it goes along with the constitution" or deride your opinion because it isn't based in constitutional law. It's so annoying.

I'm a fan.

I have literally committed the Declaration to long-term memory, and I've made a handful of autistic threads around Veeky Forums over the past fortnight about this project.

I am currently working on committing the bill of Rights to memory. The idea is to attack the Constitution in its entirety by starting on the important bits that a conscious American already generally knows, but which could use detail. I have an inferior B&N pocket copy of the whole business and I've annotated imperfections in that copy with respect to the old charter documents. However, it requires knowing that there are multiple copies of the various documents, but the body of the original constitution is pretty singular. I am actually down on the autistic level of checking punctuation, etc, and comparing various versions, and trying my best. I am currently stuck on a possible comma on amendment ten, not reported on the senate reproduciton of the exact text (and my one major quibble in the two texts).

I am currently very interested in /what the exact text of the present constitution is supposed to be/, especially as it relates to addition of amendments as part of the binding and supreme law, historically. This is a matter which is fraught with gaps, holes, and imperfections from copy to copy, and certain confusions which are glossed over or else tucked away in a drawer somewhere.

*looks away and cringes*

name one (1) violent revolution that did not use firearms after their invention

Adding to this, I now conceive of the Constitution for the United States of America as consisting of exactly 75 relevant "blocks", chunks, etc, any word apart from "sections", which of course have a specific code citation context in reference to law.

Pic related is my treatment of the 75 sections (in my understanding) of the United States Constitution. I also intend to build myself a glossary, to my own ends, later in the project.

Here is how far I have carried this autism. I find it interesting that the amendments to the constitution receive different numberings in different contexts. The "articles" of amendment, purportedly literal additions to the original Law, are instead styled as "I, II, III" in a latter internal logic, which is independent of the the original constitution's internal logic of "Article I, Article II", etc. This is all very pedantic and autistic, yes, but it also goes to some substance: /What is the exact text of the present law?/

would be awesome if people cared about it anymore, but hey what are you going to do :(

Madison is well pleased with my endeavour, smiles on it, and you damn well know it.

convince other people that you are right then bro

great argument

t. Liberal

Enjoy a historically accurate one then.

Basically glorified toilet paper at this point considering how much of current US legislation goes against its spirit.

Its just english common law but made unnecessarily hard to modify

Not bad but but not perfect

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm no

try again

So do we all

regrettably, for all of its national religion and lauding, I fear that you are correct. Even one of our greatest presidents was obliged to ignore it at multiple points, although in his defense he was in mission-critical circumstances, exactly such as rendered the Declaration necessary. What I mean by this sly defense of Lincoln is that the Declaration plainly acknowledges the necessity of periodic, hectic change of government, under great duress. I leave it to you to judge my rhetoric.

Suppose that the reason of state is to preserve Union in its entirety first, and secondarily to follow the law. What might Lincoln have done differently? Or, from what perspectives are the above model of reason of state undesirable?

YES, it is a basic human liberty.

Breddy good, but could be clearer in some parts. Certain oversights and vagueness of language have led to some erious legal headaches over the years, but I'm still glad we have it over countries like the UK who hav no constitution whatsoever, and basically let the government do whatever they want.

Toilet paper.
Dogma if you are an idiot.

It was an elitist coup because the Articles of Confederation was not deemed powerful enough.

Should be easier to democratically modify.

It was designed to specifically difficult to modify so as to not be subject to passing whims.

The laws of the land belong to the living, not the dead.
That besides, the passing whim can always get an amendment annulling it.

Modern liberals are not neoliberals.

>what did the founding fathers think about violent video games . actual supreme court case

And you dont see any problem with every administration making their "passing whim" amendments to combat what the previous administration did and to shield their own whims from future changes?

You really think that's better than a relatively static fundamental document?

The constitution was designed partly to be open to interpretation. The framers made arguments to the state legislatures in order to ratify that were pro-federalism (decentralized nationalism) and then when it was ratified and they were in power they did things against what they had argued for before.

Holy shit you're a simpleton.

Checks & Balances
Also
18th and 21st Amendments

Administrations come and go, but I would include a provision that would make it impossible to prevent an administration to shield their amendments from annulment.

That besides, any amendment would have to go through every branch of the gov't plus the people themselves, so I can't see anything radically stupid happening.

And I do believe a more fluid Constitution to be better than a more rigid one, as it can better represent the people that it governs.

>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

>and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them

A fucking mess that someone lasted ~230 years

If the founding fathers were still alive they would be shocked

Based. I might not agree with USA policies but American system is proven, and Constitution provided framework for it.

>double spacing
go back

>In his Second Treatise on Government, the philosopher John Locke asked by what right an individual can claim to own one part of the world, when, according to the Bible, God gave the world to all humanity in common. He answered that persons own themselves and therefore their own labor. When a person works, that labor enters into the object. Thus, the object becomes the property of that person.

>However, Locke held that one may only appropriate property in this fashion if the Lockean proviso held true, that is, "... there is enough, and as good, left in common for others".

...

It's pretty much THE constitution, upon which every other democratic constitution is based.

John Adams swore his oath of office on the back of a copy of the constitution, I wish that had become the standard.

t. a democracy that suffers from no constitution (UK)

It's actually pretty based. So based, in fact, that its become a problem and americans have this kind of strange shintoism thing going on with it and the founding fathers.

>Articles of confederation

Kek what an absolute shit show those were

Articles of Confederation was a true federalist document, not this quasi-federalist crap we have now. They could have amended the AoC for taxation and a few other things they needed, but no that wasn't good enough for the nationalists.

He's referring to the CIA's meddling in Latin American countries during the Cold War, you dipshit

basically you want a merchant state with no president or judiciary

Constitutions are a farce. They are only useful as a means of documenting who already holds actual power. (See also: gun rights. The guns came first.)

Get out