Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by tug_boat, Apr 26, 2013.
You will enjoy this!!!
Push Hard, Press Forward!!
Posting "Look at this!" or "A must see!" without any description of the link is bad forum etiquette.
You should a description or at least some some indication of what the video link is about when you post links.
FYI to everyone else - it is a "pro" firearms video from a rightwing gun-advocacy group.
If thats what you got of it...But for meeee....is if change the constitution to fit todays needs then what will be changed next. Should we change it?
Push Hard, Press Forward
We should definitely not change the Constitution in any way to fit current beliefs. Ever.
I'm pretty sure this whole racial equality thing is a fad and those darn colored folk will be back to being 3/5 of a person in no time.
I don't remember the 3/5 Compromise being in the Constitution....
Pro-gun eh? Maybe it is for a military forum.
I certainly appreciate it.
You were probably being facetious, LITs, but you happened to hit my "former lawyer current history teacher sweet spot."
The Three Fifths Compromise was one of the major compromises of the Constitutional Convention -- the states with high slave populations wanted some assurance that their current economic power/contributions would be reflected in the political balance of power. This compromise made it into the Constitution in Article I, section 2, paragraph 3. It is a little hard to spot because the framers never used the word slavery in the Constitution, although there are three instances in the Constitution (including the Three Fifths Clause) in which slavery is explicitly dealt with in the Constitution. (Identifying the three instances often pops up as a multiple choice question on the A.P. U.S. History exam.)
Here's the language in question -- so lawyerly as to be almost totally unremarkable: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution has the 3/5s Compromise. .
EDIT: Dang, AcademyFriend1 beat me to it!
Without opining on gun control, I would say that, historically speaking, changes such as the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10), 13th Amendment (banning slavery), 14th Amendment (equal rights under the law for all citizens), 15th Amendment (granting the vote to blacks), and 19th Amendment (granting the vote to women) are all good examples of positive changes to the Constitution.
To put on my boring history teacher hat again, the framers built in the amendment mechanism to encompass changes. One of the major complaints about the Articles of Confederation, which preceded the Constitution from 1781-1787, was that functionally they were impossible to change because they required unanimous consent of all the states. When they scrapped the Articles of Confederation, the framers did so in part because they wanted to create a more flexible framework of government that was susceptible to change.
Okay, enough with the teacher stuff . . . it's outside to enjoy the beautiful day. Nice to have the forums back up for a little cyber-water-cooler action, though!
You get an A plus anyway for knowing your Constitution!
I am simply reminding you that posting a link "blind" without any description except "A Must See!!" is bad forum etiquette, in any forum, regardless of the content.
HAHA, I try!
And yet, there it is...
I do not own guns. The police in my town respond within 45 seconds anywhere in town, anytime. I live in an area without grizzly bears or mountain lions. If i did I would not only own but carry guns.
So many aspects of gun control. I do think that there will ever be enough states to support overturning the second amendment. There can be executive and legislative action to control guns. Such as the current ammo run by the government. There was the National Firearms Act in 1934 which taxed guns it cited as banned.
And it got its test as constitutional law thanks to Jack Miller, a member of the O'Malley Gang, famed for pulling off one of the few simultaneous heists of two banks. After the gang was finally broken by law enforcement in 1936, Miller was picked up with an unregistered short-barreled shotgun, one of the weapons so heavily taxed by the NFA. So the U.S. attorney brought him up on charges of what amounted to tax evasion. The case made it to the Supreme Court as U.S. v. Miller, in which it was decided:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
There can be action or taxation without constitutional change. It would be good for both sides to work it out.
Oops, I do think that there will never be enough states to support overturning the second amendment.
The gun control thing is really secondary to me. I feel AK-47, M-16, M-4, AR-15 and the like are designed for combat use. I also feel owning a Lamborghini Gallardo is a waste; speed limits are set way below the minimum enjoyment factor of a fine machine. You’ll never enjoy it at 65 miles per hour. But don’t take away my ability to own a firearm I want to take to the range or a Lamborghini to enjoy at the track. I should be able to choose what I want instead of my mother (government) telling me don’t take the Lambo you’ll shoot your eye out!
I see things change today just because a group may feel excluded and say you need to come out of the Stone Age. For example: The largest peace movement ever, Boy Scouts of America, change a 100-year-old policy. Is it good? Is it bad? Only time will tell. But scouting has prepared many students for the Service Academies.
So changing the constitution for the sake of updating it may or my not be good for our core values as a nation.
The 3/5s was the result of a Civil War. Would we as a nation want to repeat this again for a change in our values?
I really do appreciate the debate this has created. I feel the SAF has some very fine thinkers who understand the value of our service academies. Its just not a free education, being in the military, wanting to be a war hero, but rather developing leaders who will have the will, education and fortitude to make decisions as such for the “preservation of the right, to change or follow the constitution.”
I look forward to your opinion and debate. I do value it!
Push Hard, Press Forward
Luigi-got ya on the teaser…hehe
No it wasn't. The 3/5's Compromise was established long before the Civil War.
What national core value, exactly, is protected by the Boy Scouts excluding people based on their sexual orientation?
The one that says a private organization don't have to do everything for everyone. Something about a limitation of the government?
What, exactly, "says" that?
Separate names with a comma.