What went wrong?

What went wrong?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

The first amendment is the bar none the best political statement ever written.

Too bad they had to fuck it all up with the 2nd

>what went wrong

Noone read it properly

The first amendment was crap until the Supreme Court decided to essentially re-write it in the 1920s.

?

I'm not American pls explain

Until the early 20th century, you didn't have what's now called Incorporation Doctrine. The Constitution was envisioned not even as a sort of law, but rather a set of guidelines and restrictions on the power of the federal government.

So while the First Amendment bans things like the establishment of an official church for the national government, the fact that 11 of the former 13 colonies had official, taxpayer supported churches wasn't viewed as a contradiction to that: the protections offered by that amendment simply don't occur if it's the smaller state pressing its boot on your neck.

That changed, bit by bit and case by case, in the early 20th century, when the Supreme Court, more or less on its own initiative, decided to extend the Bill of Rights protections to state level governance. Before that, it would be perfectly constitutional for I dunno, the State of New Jersey to torture you into confessing to the "Crime" of gathering a group of people to protest their official state church and then having you flayed for it, as long as the Constitution of the state of New Jersey was okay with that.

>more or less on its own initiative

14th Amendment bruh

This. It was so close to conforming with my milquetoast bourgeois opinions.

Now where did I put that Hamilton groupon...

The 14th amendment is a justification, not a cause. You had no push for incorporation immediately after its signing, and cases like United States v. Cruikshank went in the exact opposite direction.

The point was that the boot of the smaller state was much more likely to be under one's influence. Try boasting about your federal first amendment when specially selected judges redefine it in two decades.

Eww, Secularism.

kys

They forgot to include and appendices with commentary from the writers explaining their thoughts on them from a multitude of perspectives so it couldn't be misinterpreted like it has.

Also paper won't stop evil.

So, in other words, it's a problem that theoretically, an institution might take away a protection I wouldn't have without it? That's some interesting logic you have there. I'd also like to hear exactly how I have influence over a state's policies but not that of the federal government's.

Honestly, the founders should have killed themselves. Were they too dumb to put free healthcare in the constitution?

Lib*ralism.

The Constitution, based on writings left by the founders, was meant to be a living document. You can't make a perfect law, especially one that will remain perfect for hundreds of years. The law has to change to fit the society.

They left the journal of the constitutional convention. What the laws mean is clear to anyone with a shred of honesty.
That's what amendment is for.

Over the last century a secret government of bureaucrats has crept in and turned the government into an actual entity with virtually enough power to enforce its own will upon the people, regardless of the elected officials. It's this deep state, these entrenched civil servants, that have to be rooted out.

Civil servants now enjoy higher wages and far better benefits than the average public sector employee.

Their protection to not be fired except in extreme cases needs to be taken away from them.

Public sector unions need to be dismantled and outlawed.

The DNC needs to be imprisoned under RICO statutes.

Then maybe we can get the USA back on track.

>That's what amendment is for.
Yes. So let's cut the 2nd one, or at least go back to the pre-80's reading of it, where even the NRA was for gun control.

How about take your marxist bullshit to an already socialist country and enjoy your free shit. Leave us with our imperfect freedom, it's the last vestiges the world has.

>lets cut the 2nd one
how about we don't and you can move to canada if you're really that scared of guns

>lets cut the 2nd one
Lol good luck getting even 4 senators to go anywhere near the bill of rights, let alone actually inducing the houses to repeal any of it

>gun control
>marxist

>i lik killing kids
Well fuck you too.

I don't like killing kids, which is why I don't do it, you fucking nigger.

> neo-marxist bullshit
Better?
Who likes killing kids?

>an institution might take away a protection I wouldn't have without it?
Do you actually think you have it with the institution, in any lasting sense?
The danged of investing the federal government with a universal final say would obviously lead to less democracy and social diversity.

Consider the legal differences before the federal involvement. Certain states with public healthcare, certain states without it, , the same with respect to gay marriage and other laws. Now, it's mainly a single corrupt whim.

Examples of bureaucratic power

>Do you actually think you have it with the institution, in any lasting sense?
Yes, I do. Censorship by state level governance was VERY much a thing, and now it is not something I or anyone else needs to worry about.

>. Certain states with public healthcare, certain states without it, , the same with respect to gay marriage and other laws.
Please, point to some of this diversity in actual statutes and cases.

Universal suffrage.

The Constitution was written based on the idea that America would be aristocratic republic where only wealthy landowners could vote and the Senate was appointed rather than elected. Had the Founders known we would become a democracy, they'd have established far more specific limits on the role of the state to constrain the low quality politicians that would come to power.

Lol this retard thinks the US politicians arent all from the rich class.

It's not about the politicians being low class, it's about the politicians having to pander to the opinions of the low class.

... do you think they’re being honest when they do that?

The honest answer is money. The people no longer get what they want, the rich and the lobbyists do.

Anti-corruption measures should be written into the constitution and lobbyists should be shot.

Honestly how the fuck did people read that shit back in the day?

No, but I like keeping guns around for when brainlets like you finally snap.

>Yes, I do. Censorship by state level governance was VERY much a thing, and now it is not something I or anyone else needs to worry about.
Only censorship by the federal gov't, and then nowhere to run
>Please, point to some of this diversity in actual statutes and cases.
Are you retarded? MA healthcare vs, Texas, gay marriage in one state vs none in another, divorce laws, immigration (which the federal gov't has taken utterly out of the hands of the people) etc

kek

>What went wrong?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

Corporate personhood is the legal notion that a corporation, separately from its associated human beings (like owners, managers, or employees), has at least some of the legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by natural persons (physical humans). For example, corporations have the right to enter into contracts with other parties and to sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. In a U.S. historical context, the phrase 'Corporate Personhood' refers to the ongoing legal debate over the extent to which rights traditionally associated with natural persons should also be afforded to corporations. In 1886 it was clear that the Supreme Court had accepted the argument that corporations were people and that "their money was protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment".

the people who wrote it was angry, you need to be objetive to write law.

When the Supreme Court reinterpreted the Commerce Clause in the 1930s.

Saying that it gives the feds authority to regulate anything the effects interstate commerce, rather than just interstate commerce itself, essentially granted the federal government unlimited power to do as it pleases and destroyed the balance between state and federal power that the Constitution was meant to protect.

>Only censorship by the federal gov't, and then nowhere to run
So you'd prefer the possibility (which you by the way have offered 0 proof will actually happen, let alone it being inevitable) of censorship to actually being censored for sure like we've had in the past.

Why should I take you seriously again?

>Are you retarded?
No, but I think you are.

> MA healthcare vs, Texas, gay marriage in one state vs none in another, divorce laws,
Please, point to some of this "diversity" in actual STATUES and CASES. You'll find that it's grossly overstated. That's why, for instance, we have full recognition of marriages, drivers licenses, state citizenship/domesticity, etc across all state lines. The "Legal differences before the federal involvement" were nonexistant, because federal involvement in the Full Faith and Credit Clause has been there since day 1, and somehow, minor differences manage to grow and stay despite it.


>immigration (which the federal gov't has taken utterly out of the hands of the people)
Has never been under the control of state level governments. Please get a brain transplant. It's like I'm talking to a baboon here.

The Jews

>So you'd prefer the possibility (which you by the way have offered 0 proof will actually happen, let alone it being inevitable) of censorship to actually being censored for sure like we've had in the past.
The federal government has already censored us in the past, with the very slightest excuse.
>Why should I take you seriously again?
It doesn't matter what a downie takes seriously
>No, but I think
No you don't
>Please, point to some of this "diversity" in actual STATUES and CASES. You'll find that it's grossly overstated
I've already given you instances of it. But why should I point to it? We're already under your system, downie.
>Has never been under the control of state level governments.
In practice, it's totally different. Even certain cities have varying policies.

Hard to think isn't it, downie?

Everyone here knows that the 2nd amendment doesn't grant any rights, right?

It's a rule for the government to prevent them taking away the birthright of bearing arms from the people.

Too much freedom.

I know. I sure wish I hade a psuedo democracy ruled over by unelected bureaucratic elite class in brussels that flooded my country with third world barbarians and then used their orwellian control of all media to arrest anyone caught criticizing it :(

Lying leaders are bad. Besides, they need to put on pretenses of truth, with things that are bad in the long term.