The FBI is re-opening its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server

[smilesammich 10,727]

Right after Sandy Hook when there was a strong push for an assault rifle ban by Obama, there wasn't enough support from the dems in congress to pass it, let alone the republicans.

i think it's quite rich, how trump supporters seem to think their man king is going to want the poor/middle class masses armed to the teeth when they all figure out what a con he is.

[Teddy B 17,251]

i think it's quite rich, how trump supporters seem to think their man king is going to want the poor/middle class masses armed to the teeth when they all figure out what a con he is.

Something tells me Trump hasn't given that aspect much thought, or any aspect of winning the election for that matter. He's in so far over his head, I still believe that his run for the presidency was originally meant as nothing more than a publicity stunt.

[smilesammich 10,727]

Something tells me Trump hasn't given that aspect much thought, or any aspect of winning the election for that matter. He's in so far over his head, I still believe that his run for the presidency was originally meant as nothing more than a publicity stunt.

i think most of us underestimate just how affluence affects a person's world view, a person's reality. trump has never existed on the same plane as regular americans and his intentions will forever be small minded and self serving. he's incapable of anything more.

[yuna628 9,540]

The Constitution is the law of the land and I accept it as it's written, but I do believe that the 2nd needs to be rewritten to reflect modern times. I also believe the entire constitution should be reviewed periodically (every 25 or 50 years) and changed as necessary with a ballot vote of the people (not voted on by congress), to reflect the time period we are in. To expect a document that was written over 200 years ago to hold true in today's world is kinda ridiculous imo.

I too am tired of persons claiming they wish to protect the Constitution, but really seemingly just want to care about the 2nd only. However, I'm going to have to differ with you on ballot votes to change the Constitution. There is a reason why the Constitution is supposed to be hard to change, and amendments are changed and added slowly, over time, and in a certain way. Ballot Constitution change is a part of what I'd call ''referendum democracies'', and while it may seem good on the surface, can lead to some very dangerous prospect of mob rule, and stripping the rights away of some in favor of others. This is exactly the reason why Brexit happened, and it is exactly why this has created huge problems (without very clear boundaries) in a whole host of other countries. On a small scale ballot votes for issues relating to the state have also been problematic, and some are even ruled illegal eventually by the court system. You can see many examples of this historically. So yes, I get it. For a logical person it is hard to believe a document written over 200 years ago could reflect the times we live in, and historically (women's rights, slavery etc) was a festering example of our nation/founder's hypocrisy and had we/they really believed in the principles of freedom of all instead of freedom for some, we'd been in a lot better place. We have a process in place to make changes when changes are needed, it would be helpful if we start electing persons that work for us, instead of for themselves. This is how we have a 'do nothing' system right at the present.

[Teddy B 17,251]

I too am tired of persons claiming they wish to protect the Constitution, but really seemingly just want to care about the 2nd only. However, I'm going to have to differ with you on ballot votes to change the Constitution. There is a reason why the Constitution is supposed to be hard to change, and amendments are changed and added slowly, over time, and in a certain way. Ballot Constitution change is a part of what I'd call ''referendum democracies'', and while it may seem good on the surface, can lead to some very dangerous prospect of mob rule, and stripping the rights away of some in favor of others. This is exactly the reason why Brexit happened, and it is exactly why this has created huge problems (without very clear boundaries) in a whole host of other countries. On a small scale ballot votes for issues relating to the state have also been problematic, and some are even ruled illegal eventually by the court system. You can see many examples of this historically. So yes, I get it. For a logical person it is hard to believe a document written over 200 years ago could reflect the times we live in, and historically (women's rights, slavery etc) was a festering example of our nation/founder's hypocrisy and had we/they really believed in the principles of freedom of all instead of freedom for some, we'd been in a lot better place. We have a process in place to make changes when changes are needed, it would be helpful if we start electing persons that work for us, instead of for themselves. This is how we have a 'do nothing' system right at the present.

The way our congress is situated today it is nearly impossible to get a 2/3 vote on any proposed ratification to the Constitution. Add to that the corruption of our elected officials by big business, and the chances of getting any major changes through that would reflect the desires of the average citizen are slim to none. All of our politicians are in someone's pocket and they vote accordingly. There are many polls that show approx. 70% of the US population would like to either ratify or remove the 2nd amendment, but due to the way our system is set up and the corruption in our congress, there will never be a 2/3 vote to do so.

I don't buy into the theory that a "ballot constitution" would lead to mob rule. Our country is very diverse and split on most of the major issues, there really isn't any "mob" in the US that would or could take control. Oddly enough the people who wrote the constitution (white European males) are slowly losing their majority in the US and the country should change along with it.

I do agree with your statement that it may be possible that some people may lose some rights with this type of ballot system. I would propose that all of the basic human rights amendments such as the 1st, 4th, 13th, 15th & 19th etc. could not be ratified in any way.

Brexit may not have been the right move for England, but it's what the people voted for and they will adjust accordingly. The country is not going to fall off the face of the earth because of it.

There is no perfect system, but there has to be something better than what we have in place today.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

The Constitution is the law of the land and I accept it as it's written, but I do believe that the 2nd needs to be rewritten to reflect modern times. I also believe the entire constitution should be reviewed periodically (every 25 or 50 years) and changed as necessary with a ballot vote of the people (not voted on by congress), to reflect the time period we are in. To expect a document that was written over 200 years ago to hold true in today's world is kinda ridiculous imo.

If we change the 2nd then ok.

Btw there are two ways to ammendment the constitution. Neither of which you covered.

[Teddy B 17,251]

If we change the 2nd then ok.

Btw there are two ways to ammendment the constitution. Neither of which you covered.

I did mention the only process that has ever been used in my post above yours, a 2/3 vote by congress and then a 3/4 vote by the states. The other, a congressional convention has never been used.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

I did mention the only process that has ever been used in my post above yours, a 2/3 vote by congress and then a 3/4 vote by the states. The other, a congressional convention has never been used.

There is no such thing as a congressional convention in this context. If you are trying to say constitutional convention, it has indeed been used bedore.

[Teddy B 17,251]

There is no such thing as a congressional convention in this context. If you are trying to say constitutional convention, it has indeed been used bedore.

Yes constitutional convention, sorry for the mistake.

Okay, I found one instance in which it was used, thanks for the correction.

Use of the convention ratification option

Ratification of a proposed amendment has been done by state conventions only once—the 1933 ratification process of the 21st Amendment.^[1] The 21st is also the only constitutional amendment that repealed another one, that being the 18th Amendment, which had been ratified 14 years earlier.

As is true for a state legislature when ratifying a proposed federal constitutional amendment, a state ratifying convention may not in any way change a proposed constitutional amendment, but must accept or reject the proposed amendment as written.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Yes constitutional convention, sorry for the mistake.

Okay, I found one instance in which it was used, thanks for the correction.

I don't get to be right and sparky about it much. Thanks for my brief dash thru the happy spot light.

[Teddy B 17,251]

I don't get to be right and sparky about it much. Thanks for my brief dash thru the happy spot light.

And I'm very rarely wrong. So it's kinda like getting hit by lightning twice.

[yuna628 9,540]

The way our congress is situated today it is nearly impossible to get a 2/3 vote on any proposed ratification to the Constitution. Add to that the corruption of our elected officials by big business, and the chances of getting any major changes through that would reflect the desires of the average citizen are slim to none. All of our politicians are in someone's pocket and they vote accordingly. There are many polls that show approx. 70% of the US population would like to either ratify or remove the 2nd amendment, but due to the way our system is set up and the corruption in our congress, there will never be a 2/3 vote to do so.

I don't buy into the theory that a "ballot constitution" would lead to mob rule. Our country is very diverse and split on most of the major issues, there really isn't any "mob" in the US that would or could take control. Oddly enough the people who wrote the constitution (white European males) are slowly losing their majority in the US and the country should change along with it.

I do agree with your statement that it may be possible that some people may lose some rights with this type of ballot system. I would propose that all of the basic human rights amendments such as the 1st, 4th, 13th, 15th & 19th etc. could not be ratified in any way.

Brexit may not have been the right move for England, but it's what the people voted for and they will adjust accordingly. The country is not going to fall off the face of the earth because of it.

There is no perfect system, but there has to be something better than what we have in place today.

I actually do think Brexit is a good example. It's a case of where a tiny majority overrules the general public good, and very quickly suffered from regret that they voted the way they did, and believed some extremely bad lies that swayed them to do so. In this vote the prevailing citizenry voted to strip away Constitutional rights to not only themselves and their children, but for generations. They voted to give themselves less freedom against their best interests out of the fear of someone they don't like having those same freedoms. It is a very grave example of only two countries in a kingdom voting to strip away the rights of the rest of the countries (who voted no) in the kingdom. Let us say, for instance that you wanted a ballot vote for removing the 2nd. Let us say, hypothetically that all states in the blue column overwhelmingly voted yes beating out the rest of the states in red who lost by a tiny minority. I believe you would have the next greatest civil war on your hands. This is largely why, the breakup of the UK will most likely eventually happen - when Scotland, who feels strongly under-represented, and now absolutely feels their rights as a people have been trampled upon, may split. They threatened it before, and it may be the next push they need.

Elected representatives have a job to do, as do Presidents and Prime Ministers. Overall, I'd argue that the UK in this regard doesn't do very well with the people having full control over whom is elected to represent them, compared to the US... (but that's another kettle of fish). That being said though, there was no need to put Brexit on a ballot, if those officials actually did their jobs - comparatively, there is no need for ballot Constitution changes (or even getting on SCOTUS' case as the end all and be all) if those officials did what they were elected to do. If the risk of possibility of rights being lost or rights given to some and being taken from others is there with a ballot Constitutional change, it feels like it is an eroder of this republic to me. That risk is not worth it. You will have some arguing why are those rights more special and not allowed to be change compared to others. People routinely make self-destructive decisions and ride waves of sentiment (that's why Trump exists sadly), the idea was to protect against that. When I say mob rule, I suppose I refer to the concept of ''pure democracies'' or ''direct democracies'' which, America is not and our system is not compatible to this way of thinking as it stands now. What other ground rules would there be? Take ballot referendums that happen in individual states. Prop 8 is a good example. Here we had gay people once married, being told they were no longer married - that they did not have the same rights as anyone else. This nonsense went on for years, through the legal process, before SCOTUS stepped in. California is just one example of a state that has had some very bad referendums and it's people have made some really bad choices in deciding for and against things their government should be doing on their behalf. Put a referendum on a large scale impact federally, and it's opening up Pandora's box. There is no check-and-balance anymore. When the government does something wrong, we can challenge it through the courts, up to SCOTUS and it is their job to 'correct' the error. But if the Constitution changes at whim of vote (a right given by vote one year and changed in the next few) there is no way to 'correct' such errors of the electorate. Let's say we voted to restrict the 2nd. But the next election cycle we voted to un-restrict the 2nd. How would this work exactly? How would a people feel like their rights aren't on a constantly rocking boat, that were never truly a guaranteed thing - but an evolving thing at whim?

I do understand how you feel on this, and how frustrating it is, when it seems like all of our other rights take a back seat next to the 2nd. Sometimes I wonder if republicans actually understand what type of government we have, rather than that capitalism is king and that the rights of some than the rights of all should be protected. I don't feel like America has quite the right and perfect way of getting ourselves out of an increasing quagmire politically speaking, but I feel we are better off using the tools that we have at hand as it's supposed to work, rather than starting something else different. I know some would say what we've been doing isn't working, so it's time to try something new.. but that's the thing. No one has actually tried anything at all. Our officials are do-nothings instead of do-your-gd-jobs. On the surface, giving more power to the people seems like a very attractive thing, but it does cause very big problems. I'd be happy to provide some more in-depth examples on the subject if you'd like.

Edited November 2, 2016 by yuna628

[Teddy B 17,251]

I actually do think Brexit is a good example. It's a case of where a tiny majority overrules the general public good, and very quickly suffered from regret that they voted the way they did, and believed some extremely bad lies that swayed them to do so. In this vote the prevailing citizenry voted to strip away Constitutional rights to not only themselves and their children, but for generations. They voted to give themselves less freedom against their best interests out of the fear of someone they don't like having those same freedoms. It is a very grave example of only two countries in a kingdom voting to strip away the rights of the rest of the countries (who voted no) in the kingdom. Let us say, for instance that you wanted a ballot vote for removing the 2nd. Let us say, hypothetically that all states in the blue column overwhelmingly voted yes beating out the rest of the states in red who lost by a tiny minority. I believe you would have the next greatest civil war on your hands. This is largely why, the breakup of the UK will most likely eventually happen - when Scotland, who feels strongly under-represented, and now absolutely feels their rights as a people have been trampled upon, may split. They threatened it before, and it may be the next push they need.

Elected representatives have a job to do, as do Presidents and Prime Ministers. Overall, I'd argue that the UK in this regard doesn't do very well with the people having full control over whom is elected to represent them, compared to the US... (but that's another kettle of fish). That being said though, there was no need to put Brexit on a ballot, if those officials actually did their jobs - comparatively, there is no need for ballot Constitution changes (or even getting on SCOTUS' case as the end all and be all) if those officials did what they were elected to do. If the risk of possibility of rights being lost or rights given to some and being taken from others is there with a ballot Constitutional change, it feels like it is an eroder of this republic to me. That risk is not worth it. You will have some arguing why are those rights more special and not allowed to be change compared to others. People routinely make self-destructive decisions and ride waves of sentiment (that's why Trump exists sadly), the idea was to protect against that. When I say mob rule, I suppose I refer to the concept of ''pure democracies'' or ''direct democracies'' which, America is not and our system is not compatible to this way of thinking as it stands now. What other ground rules would there be? Take ballot referendums that happen in individual states. Prop 8 is a good example. Here we had gay people once married, being told they were no longer married - that they did not have the same rights as anyone else. This nonsense went on for years, through the legal process, before SCOTUS stepped in. California is just one example of a state that has had some very bad referendums and it's people have made some really bad choices in deciding for and against things their government should be doing on their behalf. Put a referendum on a large scale impact federally, and it's opening up Pandora's box. There is no check-and-balance anymore. When the government does something wrong, we can challenge it through the courts, up to SCOTUS and it is their job to 'correct' the error. But if the Constitution changes at whim of vote (a right given by vote one year and changed in the next few) there is no way to 'correct' such errors of the electorate. Let's say we voted to restrict the 2nd. But the next election cycle we voted to un-restrict the 2nd. How would this work exactly? How would a people feel like their rights aren't on a constantly rocking boat, that were never truly a guaranteed thing - but an evolving thing at whim?

I do understand how you feel on this, and how frustrating it is, when it seems like all of our other rights take a back seat next to the 2nd. Sometimes I wonder if republicans actually understand what type of government we have, rather than that capitalism is king and that the rights of some than the rights of all should be protected. I don't feel like America has quite the right and perfect way of getting ourselves out of an increasing quagmire politically speaking, but I feel we are better off using the tools that we have at hand as it's supposed to work, rather than starting something else different. I know some would say what we've been doing isn't working, so it's time to try something new.. but that's the thing. No one has actually tried anything at all. Our officials are do-nothings instead of do-your-gd-jobs. On the surface, giving more power to the people seems like a very attractive thing, but it does cause very big problems. I'd be happy to provide some more in-depth examples on the subject if you'd like.

You're correct in that Brexit is a good example of majority rule(I wasn't inferring that it wasn't a good example), but I'm not so sure the majority of people who voted in favor of it are regretting that they did. I have a few friends in England that voted in favor of Brexit and are steadfastly in favor of it still today. They say there are going to be some rough times before it pays dividends. Are they correct? I really don't know. It does appear up front that Brexit is a mistake in the short term economically and will have further complications down the road. My point was that the people voted for it and they will deal with it accordingly. Whether it proves to be a mistake or not, the people had the right to chose it.

As for voting down the 2nd and the results thereafter, I'm sure there would be some type of uprising, especially in the southern states, but I don't believe it would equate to a civil war. I personally do not believe the 2nd should be removed, I am in favor of the right to bear arms, but I would like to see more restrictions in place as to who can own guns and what kinds of guns can be possessed by the general public.

As for the ground rules, I did mention that the constitutional review would be every 25 to 50 years, so it wouldn't be something that could change with each election cycle.

You do make some very good points and are correct that if our elected officials actually did what they are elected to do, conversations like this wouldn't need to be had, although it can be fun to have them. The system is set up to work well when used properly, but I do believe that as time and people change, the written law should be able to adapt as necessary without the outside interference of big corporations and special interest groups like the NRA that have a stranglehold on our politicians.

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

I'm afraid you are trying to turn the simple into the complicated. But considering I have been parsing government legalese for over 20 years, I doubt very seriously you are better at it than I. Good attempt at ignoring the USC and trying to deflect, however. Plus 1 for you.

Dude, if you don't understand why this statute is inapplicable, I really can't help you.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Dude, if you don't understand why this statute is inapplicable, I really can't help you.

You could but you will not. Werds mean things counselor