- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What would the Constitution Look Like if the Founding Fathers could see 2022?
Posted on 6/7/22 at 8:08 am to CU_Tigers4life
Posted on 6/7/22 at 8:08 am to CU_Tigers4life
I think a much more clear definition on immigration would have been written.
1
Posted on 6/7/22 at 8:21 am to CU_Tigers4life
I don't know that they could have written it much better. The problem is, we have transitioned to being post-Constitutional. We have our delusions, but this nation hasn't followed the Constitution for a while now. When the words "living, breathing document" were first uttered, it was the beginning of the end.
Posted on 6/7/22 at 8:54 am to NineLineBind
Seeing how Lincoln and the 17th Amendment essentially ended State's rights on the federal scale, I am sure they would want to spend a good deal more time on that.
Posted on 6/7/22 at 8:56 am to mmcgrath
quote:
The 2A would look a lot different. You can't for a minute think they would look at all the mass shootings and not write it differently.
they had literally just finished overthrowing the (at the time) most powerful government on the planet by way of war.
No way in hell do they write it in any way that would restrict weapon ownership.
Just in case they ever had to do it again.
Posted on 6/7/22 at 8:58 am to CU_Tigers4life
Nothing that is going on right now is new. Convincing yourself otherwise implies we need new solutions. Get back to limited government and individual liberties and this all goes away.
Posted on 6/7/22 at 11:06 am to Wally Sparks
quote:
How? Anything of that nature could still be amended.
Not if they said no backsies.
Posted on 6/7/22 at 11:30 am to CU_Tigers4life
Address the immigration issue. Stop allowing pregnant non-citizen women to give birth to US citizens just by virtue of being on US soil. If both parents are non citizens, the kid is not a US citizen.
Posted on 6/7/22 at 11:34 am to CU_Tigers4life
How do you write instructions if truth no longer matters?
Posted on 6/7/22 at 11:38 am to mmcgrath
quote:
he 2A would look a lot different. You can't for a minute think they would look at all the mass shootings and not write it differently.
if you honestly think this, you still, 250 years later, have absolutely no clue at the goal of the 2A
its sad really.
Posted on 6/7/22 at 11:42 am to Bearcat90
quote:
I think it would look exactly the same.
I agree. No constitution written by man can survive the theory that 'It's a living, breathing document that means whatever the frick I say it means.'
Posted on 6/7/22 at 12:05 pm to CU_Tigers4life
Everything related to the term "property" they used to disguise slavery would have been struck. Once seeing all the problems it created from the civil war, civil rights movement, and the various movements today they would have collected every slave on the continent and shipped them back to Africa. Then an amendment to outlaw slavery.
Once seeing how fast the country grew they would have implemented something about limiting immigration. Originally this was kind of left to the states to decide. Some areas needed all the bodies they could get back then because there was so much untamed land and work to be done.
2nd amendment would be more definitive. Along the lines of all citizens will have the right to arm themselves with any weapon for hobbies or protection from threats foreign and domestic.
Amendment to make sure a peace time standing military would be smaller. Amendment to make it difficult to involve the US in overseas conflicts.
Amendment about term limits. I doubt any of the founding fathers thought that politics would become a full time career for many who get involved in politics. It was seen as a sense of community service at the house level until the 1950s.
Just looking at the district I'm currently living in for a representative of the House only 1 person held the office for more than 6 years From 1813-1953 42 men held the office during that time.
From 1953 to now 5 men have held that office.
1953-1963
1963-1981
1981-2003
2003-2019
2019-current
Once seeing how fast the country grew they would have implemented something about limiting immigration. Originally this was kind of left to the states to decide. Some areas needed all the bodies they could get back then because there was so much untamed land and work to be done.
2nd amendment would be more definitive. Along the lines of all citizens will have the right to arm themselves with any weapon for hobbies or protection from threats foreign and domestic.
Amendment to make sure a peace time standing military would be smaller. Amendment to make it difficult to involve the US in overseas conflicts.
Amendment about term limits. I doubt any of the founding fathers thought that politics would become a full time career for many who get involved in politics. It was seen as a sense of community service at the house level until the 1950s.
Just looking at the district I'm currently living in for a representative of the House only 1 person held the office for more than 6 years From 1813-1953 42 men held the office during that time.
From 1953 to now 5 men have held that office.
1953-1963
1963-1981
1981-2003
2003-2019
2019-current
Posted on 6/7/22 at 12:52 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
The 2A would look a lot different. You can't for a minute think they would look at all the mass shootings and not write it differently.
They'd add an amendment to shoot low-grade morons like you out of trebuchets across the southern border.
Posted on 6/7/22 at 1:04 pm to CU_Tigers4life
quote:I don't see a lot of substantive change, because the things that "need doing" the most are already there, but 200 years of central authority have tended to ignore them. To prevent that, they would be more explicit.
What would the Constitution Look Like if the Founding Fathers could see 2022?
For starters, I think they would have been MUCH more explicit about the limitations on federal power. As an example, they would be appalled at the way the Commerce Clause has been abused by Congress. Maybe a requirement that each statutory enactment include a clause explaining the Constitutional authority for the statute, with subsequent courts limited to the validity of THAT explanation when deciding whether Congress exceeded its authority.
I also think they would have been much more explicit about the areas of authority retained by the States, because (apparently) just saying that "everything else stays with the States" did not convey the simple message.
Whether handled as Amendments or incorporated into the body, they would have made it VERY explicit that the Bill of Rights was a limitation on the federal government and NOT on the States.
This post was edited on 6/7/22 at 1:13 pm
Posted on 6/7/22 at 1:07 pm to swolverine
quote:As good as they were, they were a bit naive in some ways. They were civic-minded, and they expected their governing progeny to be the same, rather than self-serving. Oops.
Term and age limits would have been included.
Posted on 6/7/22 at 1:28 pm to mmcgrath
quote:I disagree. I think they would see that as a criminal matter, and most of them were VERY strong advocates of having the States the retain law enforcement role.
The 2A would look a lot different. You can't for a minute think they would look at all the mass shootings and not write it differently
Their concern regarding the "right to bear arms" was making sure that the federal government did not interfere with the States' ability to raise their militias from the citizenry. I just don't see a good way to have done that other than protecting an individual right to gun ownership. They CERTAINLY would not have had the Constitution dictate to the States that (for example) the States must arm its militia (rather than having the citizenry provide the arms). That just is not how people saw the world in the 18th century.
Posted on 6/11/22 at 6:03 pm to GhostOfFreedom
quote:
This is very important. If a state could peacefully leave the union, Alaska wouldn't be jacked around about drilling their oil. Also, the farm states wouldn't be threatened with losing representation via electoral college or various other crap that is forced on them by the communist utopias.
Yes, yes, yes.
If the battered spouse can bail out, you lower the chances that they might be abused in the first place.
Posted on 6/11/22 at 6:04 pm to CU_Tigers4life
quote:why would there be any amendments at all? Wouldn’t they have included all of that in the original body?
We would probably have 50 amendments at least worded in a very clear cut way.
Posted on 6/11/22 at 6:09 pm to Bearcat90
quote:and anyone interfering in the free dissemination of elections through fraud would be treated as a treasonous act.
I think it would look exactly the same. May have one extra provision about politicians intentionally breaking them to be tried for treason.
Posted on 6/11/22 at 6:10 pm to AggieHank86
quote:You know, even corporations amend their charter and by-laws from time to time.
why would there be any amendments at all? Wouldn’t they have included all of that in the original body?
Posted on 6/11/22 at 6:19 pm to CU_Tigers4life
The things the government is infringing on are currently worded in very direct ways. The Filth has used mental gymnastics to overcome many of the blacks the Founders put on the Fed. The Fed is the enemy of the People.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News