6 ms·

If we're really at a point where all rights must be constitutional protected the game is already lost. Rights and freedoms are meant to default to the citizen,

If we're really at a point where all rights must be constitutional protected the game is already lost. Rights and freedoms are meant to default to the citizen, meaning anything is legal unless it specifically violates a law on the books. I.e. Laws and rights are meant to be subtractive rather than addative. You can remove my rights by law, short of that I can do whatever I want.

smabie 3y ago
This is exactly what they're doing tho? Removing rights by laws
- flagrant_taco 3y ago
  Sure, they're trying to. We're supposed to have a say in laws that get passed and who is passing them though. I was only pushing back on the idea that we need new amendments to carve out our rights when we shiuld be able to simply block laws we disagree with and replace the people trying to trample on our rights. With regards to privacy specifically, we could go a long way with the existing rights protecting us from illegal search and seizure. That should really cover any overstepping by the government and police, leaving only the need to limit what private companies can and can't do (though this should be done with laws and not amendments).
solidsnack9000 3y ago
I don't think this is the right way to look at it. Without the 1st Amendment, where would be today? Many people on this site are not fans of the 2nd Amendment, but I think they would have to acknowledge that, without it, the situation of the armed citizenry today, while not really comparable to that of colonial times, would be much shabbier than it is -- we would have lost as much of the right to bear arms as the British have, or the Canadians. One important function of laws is to delimit and codify the exercise of rights and freedoms. Another is to explicitly limit the government. We should probably be amending the Constitution to accomplish this more often, actually.
- pksebben 3y ago
  Amending hasn’t really cut it though, has it? I’m convinced we need a page 1 rewrite. Assumptions don’t age well (earth is flat and the center of the universe, diseases are caused by the humors, a weapon only marginally increases the harm a human can do, etc etc). All laws (the constitution included) are created upon assumptions and they should go through a controlled burn once in a while or else we get end-of-empire wildfires. I’m also wondering what good to see in an armed citizenry being “not shabby” - and before you say something to the effect that it “keeps our government in line” try to remember they have stratospheric death robots that think your ar-15 is just adorable.
  - nverno 3y ago
    Which assumptions from the constitution do you think need to be rewritten? They seem to have aged astonishingly well to me, although I think they should be extended in many cases, eg. limiting government ability to mess with encrypted communications. Rewritting them in this day and age would surely limit our rights further.
    - pksebben 3y ago
      Article 1 Section 1 is a good place to start. The system of checks and balances and the concept for the structure and format of representative government has proven itself incapable of being effective in the modern era. We get nothing done, and what we do get done is exclusively to the benefit of those that can afford to finance campaigns. Our legislative branch is an absolute joke (life terms, like, really?) and the whole idea behind the senate is meaningless in a world where we can fly from one end of the country to the other in a day, and have instantaneous communication. Our systems of voting are similarly backwards, designed in a time when you had to send a dude on a horse to communicate. Seriously, page 1 rewrite. The whole damn thing.
  - flagrant_taco 3y ago
    What would you like to see added or removed from the constitution? Personally I'd love an amendment declaring our right to privacy, though we really just need to better enforce illegal search and seizure. > I’m also wondering what good to see in an armed citizenry being “not shabby” - and before you say something to the effect that it “keeps our government in line” try to remember they have stratospheric death robots that think your ar-15 is just adorable. So are you saying we shouldn't have the right to arm ourselves because we're already so outmatched by our own government? And to clarify here, the goal of an armed citizenry and armed militias was extremely important when we didn't have a standing military. The original goal was much less about actually making sure citizens come uld overthrow their own government, that's a modern view usually held by those who don't realize how terrible a civil war would actually be. I'm of the opinion that we should get rid of this farce that we must have a permanent, massive standing army rather than attempting to disarm all our citizens. Our military needs something to do as long as it's there, we're always going to be looking for a fight to prove why they exist.

smabie 3y ago

This is exactly what they're doing tho? Removing rights by laws

flagrant_taco 3y ago
Sure, they're trying to. We're supposed to have a say in laws that get passed and who is passing them though. I was only pushing back on the idea that we need new amendments to carve out our rights when we shiuld be able to simply block laws we disagree with and replace the people trying to trample on our rights. With regards to privacy specifically, we could go a long way with the existing rights protecting us from illegal search and seizure. That should really cover any overstepping by the government and police, leaving only the need to limit what private companies can and can't do (though this should be done with laws and not amendments).

solidsnack9000 3y ago

I don't think this is the right way to look at it. Without the 1st Amendment, where would be today? Many people on this site are not fans of the 2nd Amendment, but I think they would have to acknowledge that, without it, the situation of the armed citizenry today, while not really comparable to that of colonial times, would be much shabbier than it is -- we would have lost as much of the right to bear arms as the British have, or the Canadians. One important function of laws is to delimit and codify the exercise of rights and freedoms. Another is to explicitly limit the government. We should probably be amending the Constitution to accomplish this more often, actually.

pksebben 3y ago
Amending hasn’t really cut it though, has it? I’m convinced we need a page 1 rewrite. Assumptions don’t age well (earth is flat and the center of the universe, diseases are caused by the humors, a weapon only marginally increases the harm a human can do, etc etc). All laws (the constitution included) are created upon assumptions and they should go through a controlled burn once in a while or else we get end-of-empire wildfires. I’m also wondering what good to see in an armed citizenry being “not shabby” - and before you say something to the effect that it “keeps our government in line” try to remember they have stratospheric death robots that think your ar-15 is just adorable.
- nverno 3y ago
  Which assumptions from the constitution do you think need to be rewritten? They seem to have aged astonishingly well to me, although I think they should be extended in many cases, eg. limiting government ability to mess with encrypted communications. Rewritting them in this day and age would surely limit our rights further.
  - pksebben 3y ago
    Article 1 Section 1 is a good place to start. The system of checks and balances and the concept for the structure and format of representative government has proven itself incapable of being effective in the modern era. We get nothing done, and what we do get done is exclusively to the benefit of those that can afford to finance campaigns. Our legislative branch is an absolute joke (life terms, like, really?) and the whole idea behind the senate is meaningless in a world where we can fly from one end of the country to the other in a day, and have instantaneous communication. Our systems of voting are similarly backwards, designed in a time when you had to send a dude on a horse to communicate. Seriously, page 1 rewrite. The whole damn thing.
- flagrant_taco 3y ago
  What would you like to see added or removed from the constitution? Personally I'd love an amendment declaring our right to privacy, though we really just need to better enforce illegal search and seizure. > I’m also wondering what good to see in an armed citizenry being “not shabby” - and before you say something to the effect that it “keeps our government in line” try to remember they have stratospheric death robots that think your ar-15 is just adorable. So are you saying we shouldn't have the right to arm ourselves because we're already so outmatched by our own government? And to clarify here, the goal of an armed citizenry and armed militias was extremely important when we didn't have a standing military. The original goal was much less about actually making sure citizens come uld overthrow their own government, that's a modern view usually held by those who don't realize how terrible a civil war would actually be. I'm of the opinion that we should get rid of this farce that we must have a permanent, massive standing army rather than attempting to disarm all our citizens. Our military needs something to do as long as it's there, we're always going to be looking for a fight to prove why they exist.