6 ms·

And if you are looking to defend it, you will probably need something more compelling than a correlation between prosperity and free speech. Anyways, I'm not s

And if you are looking to defend it, you will probably need something more compelling than a correlation between prosperity and free speech. Anyways, I'm not seeking to overturn it. I said specifically in my comment "I'm not saying we should get rid of it". I just think we should be open to modifying any part of the Constitution. Many people refuse to consider this and think of parts of it as sacred doctrine. The first and second amendments, in particular.

wutbrodo 8y ago
> Many people refuse to consider this and think of parts of it as sacred doctrine. The first and second amendments, in particular. I don't know that people are unwilling to _modify_ it, but rather to _violate_ it. I honestly personally would be pretty happy with no 2A, but unless the specific majorities required for an amendment agree with me, I'm strongly against violating it ad-hoc. The rule of law is simply a lot more important than any given policy.
- wilsonnb 8y ago
  What's the difference here between modifying and violating? Whether or not the amendment process is followed or a law is passed? I fully agree that the amendment process has to be used. I would be in favor of a 28th amendment placing well thought out limitations on the 1st or the 2nd amendments. Assuming I thought that the limitations it was placing on them were good limitations.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    > What's the difference here between modifying and violating? The difference is between broad consensus and divided opinion. A Constitutional amendment requires a 2/3 vote of Congress to propose, and ratification by 3/4 of states (which means any Constitutional amendment would require support from both red and blue states). Ordinary legislation only requires a 50% + 1 majority.
    - wilsonnb 8y ago
      Technically Congress is not needed to propose an amendment but I see your distinction and agree that I would only support changes ratified by 3/4 of the states.
    - maskedSlacker 8y ago
      > Ordinary legislation only requires a 50% + 1 majority. That's not really true of any non-budgetary legislation (for now).
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Ordinary legislation only requires a 50% + 1 majority. Where that's approximately true, it's actually 50% + ½. In the Senate, though, in practice, due to cloture, it potentially takes a 3/5 supermajority for most regular legislation.
  - wutbrodo 8y ago
    > What's the difference here between modifying and violating? Whether or not the amendment process is followed or a law is passed? Yea,that's like... The entire point of the constitution. This is like saying "what's the difference between changing a law or breaking and entering after asking your friend Jeb if it's ok".
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > I honestly personally would be pretty happy with no 2A, but unless the specific majorities required for an amendment agree with me, I'm strongly against violating it ad-hoc. But we already are and have been for a very long time (the 2A has no limitation as tintypes of arms), and, more importantly, we’re violating the premise it rests on regarding reliance on the citizen militia without which it makes no sense (and we've been doing that for longer.)
  - wutbrodo 8y ago
    Yes and to the extent that we violate it, I oppose it. Growing up in a peaceful society makes us take it for granted, but glancing at a history book underscores the importance of the rule of law.
rayiner 8y ago
> I just think we should be open to modifying any part of the Constitution. Many people refuse to consider this and think of parts of it as sacred doctrine. The first and second amendments, in particular. The Constitution is hard to change precisely because it's hard to get widespread consensus on changes to such fundamental precepts of our society. Especially in a country as big and diverse in viewpoints as the U.S. Given the current level of division in our society, I'm not open to modifying any part of the Constitution right now.

wutbrodo 8y ago

> Many people refuse to consider this and think of parts of it as sacred doctrine. The first and second amendments, in particular. I don't know that people are unwilling to _modify_ it, but rather to _violate_ it. I honestly personally would be pretty happy with no 2A, but unless the specific majorities required for an amendment agree with me, I'm strongly against violating it ad-hoc. The rule of law is simply a lot more important than any given policy.

wilsonnb 8y ago
What's the difference here between modifying and violating? Whether or not the amendment process is followed or a law is passed? I fully agree that the amendment process has to be used. I would be in favor of a 28th amendment placing well thought out limitations on the 1st or the 2nd amendments. Assuming I thought that the limitations it was placing on them were good limitations.
- rayiner 8y ago
  > What's the difference here between modifying and violating? The difference is between broad consensus and divided opinion. A Constitutional amendment requires a 2/3 vote of Congress to propose, and ratification by 3/4 of states (which means any Constitutional amendment would require support from both red and blue states). Ordinary legislation only requires a 50% + 1 majority.
  - wilsonnb 8y ago
    Technically Congress is not needed to propose an amendment but I see your distinction and agree that I would only support changes ratified by 3/4 of the states.
  - maskedSlacker 8y ago
    > Ordinary legislation only requires a 50% + 1 majority. That's not really true of any non-budgetary legislation (for now).
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Ordinary legislation only requires a 50% + 1 majority. Where that's approximately true, it's actually 50% + ½. In the Senate, though, in practice, due to cloture, it potentially takes a 3/5 supermajority for most regular legislation.
- wutbrodo 8y ago
  > What's the difference here between modifying and violating? Whether or not the amendment process is followed or a law is passed? Yea,that's like... The entire point of the constitution. This is like saying "what's the difference between changing a law or breaking and entering after asking your friend Jeb if it's ok".
dragonwriter 8y ago
> I honestly personally would be pretty happy with no 2A, but unless the specific majorities required for an amendment agree with me, I'm strongly against violating it ad-hoc. But we already are and have been for a very long time (the 2A has no limitation as tintypes of arms), and, more importantly, we’re violating the premise it rests on regarding reliance on the citizen militia without which it makes no sense (and we've been doing that for longer.)
- wutbrodo 8y ago
  Yes and to the extent that we violate it, I oppose it. Growing up in a peaceful society makes us take it for granted, but glancing at a history book underscores the importance of the rule of law.

rayiner 8y ago

> I just think we should be open to modifying any part of the Constitution. Many people refuse to consider this and think of parts of it as sacred doctrine. The first and second amendments, in particular. The Constitution is hard to change precisely because it's hard to get widespread consensus on changes to such fundamental precepts of our society. Especially in a country as big and diverse in viewpoints as the U.S. Given the current level of division in our society, I'm not open to modifying any part of the Constitution right now.