Do you think the Constitution still works well in the modern day Veeky Forums?
Did the founding fathers go to far in separating the powers and thereby allowing Congressmen to abuse bill amendments and pander to vested interests in their districts?
Are there any other parts of the Constitution which just don't work in Modern America?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
the right to bear arms
It's outdated. It was written by old white men. Let women and POC add their own ideas to it to better represent our modern society. Preferably having our country based on a newer document not written by a bunch of white supremacists
>Did the founding fathers go to far in separating the powers and thereby allowing Congressmen to abuse bill amendments and pander to vested interests in their districts?
They clearly did not go far enough, considering how much power the president has in the modern USA. Some user told me the president used to be more of a simple representative as he should be, but at some point was given far too much power.
Honestly, looking at the modern USA, the blatant corruption in its politics, it's become more than clear that the founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing.
Sounds too good to be true.
Must be bait.
The best constitution is the unwritten one.
We're at the point on Veeky Forums where perfectly reasonable liberal sentiment is bait.
>he's prodding me to take the bait
Nope, I'm smarter than that.
Gonna swim away now, Mr. Fisherman. Bye.
Why is it that you cannot believe anyone on here genuinely agrees with the idea that black people should have more of a say in how the US is run and that the constitution is outdated?
Genuinely curious.
>the constitution is outdated?
I agree. The freedom of press and freedom of speech should be removed. We cannot accept, in this day and age, people who intentionally cause others mental harm by spewing such putrid filth like the racists on /pol/ do.
This bait is so irresistable, idk if I can swim back to other threads. It's just, alluring me.
Still gonna bite it tho.
*Not bite it.
This is moronic. What ethnicity is the concept of natural rights? What race is the idea of limited centralized government?
I do actually think the Americans take freedom of speech way too far.
As for freedom of the press, I do support Levinson, I think some of the antics of the British press, especially the tabloids, are simply unacceptable.
>What race is the idea of limited centralized government?
Well, white and Southern generally.
But the point is that African Americans are a minority, one that is subject to a significant amount of opposition in the US by some people in very high positions of power. Not only this but they are simply underrepresented in the US government.
1st amendment must be repealed, makes me sick
>I'm afraid of words
Go back to the UK
Not merely words dipshit. They have effects on society
>But the point is that African Americans are a minority, one that is subject to a significant amount of opposition in the US by some people in very high positions of power. Not only this but they are simply underrepresented in the US government.
Qualify your accusation. What current governmental policies expressly suppress the rights and advancement of black people? Also, have you seen the black congressmen that actually do sit in the House of Representatives? They are a race-baiting laughingstock.
>these words aren't just words!
>I'm scared of them
>But the point is that African Americans are a minority, one that is subject to a significant amount of opposition in the US by some people in very high positions of power. Not only this but they are simply underrepresented in the US government.
Blacks get too much traction in public sphere nowadays in USA because the media has over represented their portion in society. Most Americans think whopping 30% of USA is black for god's sake.
Well then that raises the question: Who would then dictate what or what will not affect society?
I find it fairly presumptuous to think any person on this planet would be suited for that role.
Let all views been seen. People will work it out.
>They have effects on society
Any society comprised of a people so feeble-minded that mere words could lead to its undoing is not a society worth preserving. Pic fucking related.
Not the man you responded to but..
>waaaah they have effects on making people feel bad
How immature, no wonder you need to be ruled by big government. You're obviously too sheepish and sheltered to have a free society, so you let the big boys and nobles rule over you.
How pathetic, I guess this is why USA wanted to secede because of faggots like you.
Yes and if those words aren't allowed to be said, then nobody can change society without violence and you can't change society with violence if you don't have guns. Thus the right to carry arms and right to free speech are monumentally important for a people.
It was doomed from the start desu.
Any government, given the time, will turn tyrannical.
>What current governmental policies expressly suppress the rights and advancement of black people?
The war of drugs, waged by Nixon to facilitate the oppression of blacks and hippies by the admission of his own policy advisor. Given Nixon's racism I find this to be likely.
One could argue the entire adherence to the doctrine of limited government and Reaganist Trickle Down economics, while they don't target blacks specifically do result in blacks getting it in the neck more so than other racial groups due to the fact that blacks are disproportionately poor.
And this is the major sticking point, most oppression blacks face, I would argue, isn't because they're black per se; it's because they're poor. But, due to literally centuries were blacks were oppressed due to their race, they are still second class citizens for the most part and they're still disproportionately poor. And because they're poor they simply don't have the same representation in government that richer people have, meaning successive governments are free to shit on them without facing the kind of blowback they would if they shat on say, southerners or old people or whatever. It's not that these governments are filled with hate, it's just that they're either oblivious or uncaring.
That said, you do some genuinely hateful people in government, didn't it come out the governor of South Carolina was in the KKK?
>Also, have you seen the black congressmen that actually do sit in the House of Representatives?
Yes but how many black people are in the Senate, HoR, are governors etc as a percentage? Does that percentage match with the percentage of blacks as a proportion of the population? If not then blacks are, by definition, under represented.
Who gives a shit? TV shows and rap music won't change government policy.
I never understood why conservatives worship the Constitution so much when their political positions are much better represented by the Anti-Federalists who opposed the constitution, which was proposed by the progressives of the time who wanted a centralized government.
And of course, with the benefit of hindsight, we know that the constitution failed at preventing the enlargement of a centralized government, and that the Anti-Federalists were right about literally everything.
But user, that's just about every western society. Yours especially.
To be frank, the liberals' affirmitive actions and gibsmedats aren't exactly helping their situation either. All of it is just allowing them to live in their own shit, never being forced to improve their own communities, leaving them a violent, ignorant, poor underclass that's pretty much doomed to never improve. But hey, more votes for democrats. Nobody cares about niggers, am I right?
The thing that bugs me about the 2nd Amendment is that everyone claims that it's defence against tyranny.
If that's so then why has nobody ever done anything to stop it? Like when the Federal Reserve was created, or Japanese-Americans were interned, or when police constantly violate the 4th, or when the NSA spying was uncovered?
The Founding Fathers chimped out over a tea and paper tax. Imagine if they saw what was happening today.
>African Americans are a minority, one that is subject to a significant amount of opposition in the US by some people in very high positions of power
I with that was actually true.
The truth, of course, is that blacks are infinitely pandered by the government, and thanks to affirmative action, several bureaucracies like DMV for example are majority black.
>waaaah they have effects on making people feel bad
Not quite.
...
Panem et circenses. Things just aren't bad enough for people to actually rebel against their leaders, but so long as they are armed, they have that possiblity and from what I've read, every single wargame done by the US government on an insurrection leads to the governments' loss and fracturing of the United States.
>Killing people is a part of free speech
This is the truth of the matter. And it proves the greatness of the Constitution that when these types of socialist policies go against the core principles of the founding document that the result is less opportunity and wealth for the very class it was meant to aid. Lack of representation in government is irrelevant. Stop with the fucking identity politics bullshit.
That's a fault of the people that have grown complacent with their comforts in the face of the slow erosion of their liberty. The Constitution means nothing if there are not people out there willing to defend it.
Slow and gradual clippings at rights go over with a huff and puff, but no violence.
Had we no arms I'm certain much more sweeping resolutions would have been forced. But just listen to what the Left actually says. They know they can't take it all at once, it's a gradual thing. Until they can get rid of guns they have to be slow.
>Things just aren't bad enough
how much worse does it have to be?
What are you showing me here? And how does it relate to our argument?
People starving, kids being blackbagged, tortured and dumped into drainage channels for protesting against the government, the government actively trying to disarm the entire population and remove the constitution, stuff like that.
>every single wargame done by the US government on an insurrection leads to the governments' loss and fracturing of the United States.
Got any sources on this?
Nice strawman.
My actual point is that an unapologetically xenophobic press builds and contributes to a culture of xenophobia. It then whips this culture into a frenzy to sell papers. And then as a result people start killing other people. Or firebombing their shops. Or voting for some very, very unsavoury people.
The UK press is by far not unapologetically xenophobic.
The truth is, if you keep up with the current affairs, the issue is finding a reason NOT to revolt. We are well past the point of having a legitimate federal government.
The Federal Government should never have been created in the first place.
Well no, only if those people were ready to commit violence in the first place.
Free speech leads to self disenfranchisement by the crazies.
The U.K. elected a literal Nazi party back in the 80s. Solely because they were anti immigration and knowledge was not much more in depth than that.
Then the party leader, now with political power, got on the TV.
A month later their voting support had dropped 90%.
The problem with the constitution was the first past the post system.
Jefferson knew this and recommended his own system, however they never implemented it.
Now we are damned by two major parties with never a chance for a third option.
The powers that be will never vote themselves out of power so its unlikely we will ever get a third party.
It just needs to be more explicitly limited. The commerce clause has to be much more definitive in the powers it gives Congress, as does the necessary and proper clause. And so forth.
>Or voting for some very, very unsavoury people.
Look, I'm not trying to shitpost here, but that sounds absolutely ridiculous. Why should anyone get to determine what kind of media others consume? Because you don't like a candidate?
So you think people should not have the right to free information, to have their own opinions or be able to vote for who they want. You sound like an enemy of all free men everywhere.
As whole, not really, but the tabloids definitely are.
True, true but I would hold that the culture would then give these violent people a target, rather than just leaving them to start punch ups in pubs.
Because most people are idiots and need guidance. That may sound fascist, I would respond that fascism isn't inherently bad or immoral.
I think the press should not be allowed to race-bait for the sake of selling papers.
Why do Americans have this perception that their lives are hard?
I had a discussion a couple months ago with a few Americans who claimed they were living in a legitimate war-time country.
The truth is that people only rise up when they believe it will lead to a better quality of life, and the quality of the average Americans life is too high for any rebellion to occur
Look at the French Revolution, the Irish Troubles, or the rise of NSDWP
Your lives are easy, this is why there has been to uprising.
>I think the press should not be allowed to race-bait for the sake of selling papers.
And who defines race-baiting? Reporting statistics is considered racebaiting by the EU at this point. Not wanting to ruin your country with mass-migration is racist.
Except they don't report statistics, they report blatant lies on the front page and issue apologies in fine print.
>they report blatant lies on the front page
Got a few examples of this?
...
It's not about our lives being hard, it is about our government far and away operating outside the bounds of its prescribed and legitimate functions in such a way that undermines the core principles upon which the country is founded.
>the government shouldn't be trusted
Im shocked
But again, Americans will not do what needs to be done to fix it, until their lives are hard
I would argue if you want fascism go back to Europe. America was founded to be free.
Freedom is a burden as much as it is a blessing. But it is a blessing unlike any other. Go lose your rights in the name of safety. I want the dangers of freedom.
That's not a lie though, is it? The article is misleading because it referred to ISIS with its image, whilst the questionnaire referred to Islamic fighters in Syria in general.
>The question about sympathy asked respondents about people "who leave the UK to join fighters in Syria".
>Complainants argued that, as the question did not mention Isis, those who responded to the question might not have intended for their answers to be understood as relating to those joining Isis.
>Some British Muslims have also left the UK to fight against Isis, or alongside anti-Assad forces or with various Sunni groups.
en.wikipedia.org
Nobody will do what needs to be done to fix their government before the times get hard.
>America was founded to be free.
only for white land-owning men
And that's why the US is a shitehole.
Sounds great, doesn't it? Then the elites decided to bring in African slaves and create an unwanted minority in the states. Then Lincoln wanted to repatriate them into Africa, but was conveniently assassinated.
No, white men in general, with land owners, having a bigger stake in the country and less likely to be influenced by bread and circus tactics currently dominating both American and European politics, given naturally more representation and say in politics.
As I said. Freedom is a burden. We gave freedom to everyone and they traded it for welfare checks.
And Europe's heading down the exact same path.
>The article is misleading
Yeah, because it's a sensationalist lie.
And there is always pic related.
Central Europe, sure. But central Europe's always been racist.
I think he was more referring to how most European countries are committing mass ritual suicide at the moment.
>Yeah, because it's a sensationalist lie.
Except it's not, as I stated. 1/5 Brit Muslims do have sympathies for fighters who've left to fight for Syria, who by the definition of the term, are jihadis.
Why in the bloody hell would you think I'm talking about racism instead of the centralization of power, culture of enforced political correctness, mass-migration (barbarian invasion) from the third world, economical crisis, the rebirth of the cold war, decline of birth rates, death of the family unit, destruction of military capability and willingness to defend own countries? Add to that the seemingly omnipresent belief that we're living in some kind of utopistic times, the "right side of history" and that nothing can ever go wrong again and everything's "progressing" leading to ignoramuses willingly giving away rights for the sake of feelings and misguided ideologies.
Federalism is a barrier to action in most cases. I'm for subsidiarity, but effecient administration is hindered not helped by inflexible structures of hierarchy and sovereignty.
The electoral college has only twice ever served its intended purpose. They did not anticipate political parties. Move the task of presidential election to the House of Representatives to eliminate redundancy and restore the intended process of filtration that is supposed to occur through the college.
I would remove direct election of senators and restore the original process, again so that we may filter for higher quality representatives.
I would remove the legislative powers of the Senate and give them advice and consent powers.
I would remove the presidential veto and would merge his office with the legislature.
Basically I'd change the government to look more like the British parliamentary system.
Bump
Honestly it's not a left or right agenda pushing this. It's just people in power wanting more power. And the government is just PR for the rich.
Weaken the executive branch slightly and ensure that the federal government cannot legislate on social issues
A well thought out plan, dripping in precision and specificity.
Its not a right to bear arms against the government, its a right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of maintaining state militias. It prevents the FEDERAL government from disarming the state militias through the enumerated power to define its discipline and provide them with arms.
If you look at a few state Constitutions from 1776, you will see the language first appear there with the explicit statement that standing armies are a threat to liberty.
>Virginia (1776) That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
>Amended 1971: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, [therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed]; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Compare to
> Pennsylvania 1790: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
Bump