Does the Constitution Apply Today?

[Pegandmeg 0]

I know the subject title is a very broad question, but I'm hoping for a shit-load of various responses.

The American society is based on a document that was written well over 200 years ago without any idea what sort of changes in technology, culture, morality, etc. would occur generations later. Yet time after time, I hear (or read) people argue that the founding fathers would have written this or that in the Constitution if they knew about this or that would occur 200 years later.

Did the founding fathers create a Constitution that was meant for their times or for all time? I had a history professor that said Thomas Jefferson was the sort of person that wanted a new government every twenty years or so to keep up with the times. I don't know if this is true; any historian let us know.

Automatic weapons, gay marriage, television, abortions, the internet, boogies, Easy Bake Ovens. Who could foresee such things?

So, my question is: Does the Constitution apply today or is it archaic?

Follow up: Are there PARTS of the Constitution that archaic? Which parts?

As I said, I realize it's a general question, but I want it to be to get diverse answers.

[quade 3]

The US Constitution was designed from the very beginning to be revised. See; Article Five.

It was never meant to stand unaltered for all time.

If there is anything fundamental I'd like to see changed it would be our process of elections. See; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College

If you really want to see what the US Constitution is all about you don't have to go much further than the Preamble.

Quote

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

You'll note it says nothing about God or morality. That's specifically not the job of government.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[alw 0]

The phrase that sticks in my mind is that our government was designed by geniuses and can be run by fools.

---------------------------------------------
Every day is a bonus - every night is an adventure.

[klingeme 0]

I don't think the founding fathers would think that is was alright for someone to make their own Nuclear Bomb, or own a "Personal" Bazooka, or maybe even an assault rifle. But then they were worried about the English trying to take back their land and they needed to be "Armed". I think it is much less of an issue now, and the only question is where to draw the line. I don't think that even the Die Hard NRA Supporter thinks I should be able to make my own personal Nuke, but they want to be able to own an M-60 if they want to.

I'm all for Hand Guns and Hunting Rifles, but don't see why anyone should be allowed to own an assault rifle (or a Bazooka or a "Personal Nuke").

I also don't think that they thought doctors killing babies should be a protected by the contitution.

[quade 3]

However, it's well known they did think slavery was ok and that women didn't have a say at all in who ran the government, so you can't exactly go by what you "think" they thought. The idea is presumptuous and unfounded.

Times do change and a woman's right to control her own body is about as fundamental a right as any.

If you think abortions were not a common practice in the time of our founding fathers, then you're woefully mistaken.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

but don't see why anyone should be allowed to own an assault rifle

Please explain the difference in the AR-15 used by hunters and the AR-15 that is considered an "assault rifle."

The Henry repeating rifle was the top-end "assault rifle" of its day. Wanna ban that one too?

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I also don't think that they thought doctors killing babies should be a protected by the contitution.

From the fabric of the original Constitution and its first 10 Amendments, I think it's apparent that the Framers recognized that there would be issues addressed in the future that either did not present themselves at the time of the drafting, or that were not considered, or even conceived of, by the Framers (those who drafted the original Constitution) at the time of the drafting. That's why the Framers made provisions for amendment, while at the same time making such amendment cumbersome. They also made clear that the Constitution was not the sole law of the land; there would be a Congress to enact specific laws; and a Supreme Court to interpret, in the full passage of time, both the Constitution itself and Congress's laws. I'm aware of no authority that supports a historical proposition that the Framers considered the issue of abortion, one way or the other, at the time the Constitution was debated, drafted or ratified.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I'm all for Hand Guns and Hunting Rifles, but don't see why anyone should be allowed to own an assault rifle (or a Bazooka or a "Personal Nuke").

Oh so you support the assault weapon ban.

I don't support that ban...I think I should be able to own whatever individual weapons that I may have to face from an oppressive government that is no longer following our constitution.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm all for Hand Guns and Hunting Rifles, but don't see why anyone should be allowed to own an assault rifle (or a Bazooka or a "Personal Nuke").

Oh so you support the assault weapon ban.

I don't support that ban...I think I should be able to own whatever individual weapons that I may have to face from an oppressive government that is no longer following our constitution.

A-fucking-men

AND that oppressive government doesn't want you to own shit. At least I can still buy a Springfield M1A Socom II that could satisfy my assault weapon needs.

http://www.springfield-armory.com/armory.php?version=31

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[billvon 2,407]

>I think I should be able to own whatever individual weapons that I may have to
>face from an oppressive government that is no longer following our constitution.

I don't think you have a right to own Sarin or weapons-grade plutonium.

[Amazon 7]

Nor would I want to.. and that is not quite an individual weapon that would be carried by someone with a mandate that USED to be.. to protect and to serve.

[downwardspiral 0]

which is reasonable but assault weapon bans and the high capacity magazine ban (CA) are not.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[Amazon 7]

http://www.springfield-armory.com/armory.php?model=18




OR then again... one of these might be nice


http://www.ozarkguns.com/Armalite/armalitear50.htm

[downwardspiral 0]

heheh I edited to include that link.

Those things are f'n expensive! I'll get one eventually tho.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[chuck.reilly 0]

YES! Now more than ever.

-----------------------------------
"There are two kinds of skydivers in this world, the kind that skydive to enrich their lives and the kind that skydive to define their lives. Don't be the latter."

[billvon 2,407]

>which is reasonable but assault weapon bans and the high capacity magazine ban
>(CA) are not.

I agree! So some weapons are OK and some are not.

[quade 3]

Well, this thread almost had a shot at an actual discussion, but was turned into a gun thread. Whee.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[AggieDave 6]

Meh, my AR is cooler then that.

Tricked out M4s and 1911s go together like peanut butter banana sandwiches and Elvis!

Seriously though. The Constitution as it stands is still valid for our society in this day and age; however, as previous mentioned in a different thread, case law has severely changed and limited what that document actually means. As it stands, the Constitution may not be suitable for society in another 200 years, but they will be able to change is as needed and allowed by the document (if that society is a continuous extension of our own).

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[downwardspiral 0]

that has always been my opinion.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Well, this thread almost had a shot at an actual discussion, but was turned into a gun thread. Whee.

You're kidding right. If there was one thing people would want to change, it's the 2nd Amendment. Besides, I didn't want to see this thread deteriorate into a pro-life/pro-choice thread

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

that has always been my opinion.

So it appears that you agree in principle, but have differing opinions on where the line should be drawn.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Meh, my AR is cooler then that.

Tricked out M4s and 1911s go together like peanut butter banana sandwiches and Elvis!

but your AR isn't legel where I live.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[quade 3]

Quote

If there was one thing people would want to change, it's the 2nd Amendment.

I think that's not really supported by much other than the ramblings of some people on the extreme ends of the spectrum. I think MOST people would like to see it left exactly the way it is including about half of the previously mentioned people.

On the other hand, if you ask most people if they believe their vote should count directly for whoever they want in office, I'm nearly certain you'll find a majority of support for that.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Pegandmeg 0]

Quote

Well, this thread almost had a shot at an actual discussion, but was turned into a gun thread. Whee.

That's ok. As long as it's not only about guns. C'mon, guys. Free speech, abortion, regulation, deregulation. But tie it to the Constitution.

[kelpdiver 2]

I think many people would like to see the right to privacy, as well as abortions, more formally codified as a right guaranteed (not granted, mind you) by the Constitution. At the moment we have virtually no protection in this regard.

Some would like to change the presidential election method. Not me, but I understand the appeal.

It doesn't seem necessary to protect the right of marriage for all people, but depending on how long the courts take to extend Love, it could be required, albeit difficult to pass.

Someday we might remove the natural born clause for running for President. In the modern, more global world, maybe it's not necessary.

In light of the growing power imbalance between the Executive and the other branches, might need more language to right the ship.

But for your primary question, yes, it still applies. It's one of the longest standing documents because it has worked.