Federal Judge: U.S. Constitution Is Outdated, Judges Should Stop Studying It

a reply to: xuenchen

Well since the constitution is 'outdated'.

There is no need for religious FREEDOM, and their certainly no need to have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

The STATE gets to make it up as they go along.

All it takes is a simple 51 votes.

The funny part there is.

NO ONE is talking about 'amending' anything.

They are straight up ignoring it.

originally posted by: Arizonaguy

This is silly. The reasons that the amendment processes were written into the Constitution were well documented.
#1. They wanted to secure the support of the Anti-Federalists
#2 They knew a rigid Constitution would not stand up to future unknown issues and needed to be flexible in order to meet future needs

Number two is exactly my point. It was applicable & worked at the time, then it did not. It was reworked to be suitable.

a reply to: Annee

So where did this "Judge" say he wanted to make changes?

He says the whole thing is trash.

I say he is in favor of no Constitution at all.

NWO his way.

a reply to: Nyiah

He also said the 14th is useless.

Hmmm.

This guy is 100% Authoritarian.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: neo96

Anyway, you are the last person to lecture anyone on constitutional principles. You believe the 2nd amendment right depends on one's religion

And people that is an outright LIE which is in violation of ATS TC.

I don't go around PUSHING no fly,no buy.

It is not a lie. You refuse to admit that all people in this nation have a 2nd amendment right. Specifically, you will not admit Muslims have the same right. I've given you multiple chances and you always avoid it.

Absolute LIE.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

1. I am not a dog.
2. There is no IF I support the second. That's a fact.

Any person.

Black,white,man or woman, rich or poor.
So how about stop TROLLING.

15). Posting: You will not Post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate. You will not solicit personal information from any member. You will not use information gathered from this website to harass, abuse or harm other people.

ATS TC

a reply to: neo96

But in that same thread you were specifically asked about Muslims, didn't asnwer and still refuse to simply say they have the same rights.

Do Muslims have the same right to bear arms? A simple yes will shut me up.

On topic:

To amend the consitution you have to have a 3/4 majority vote by the states.

If you actually read what he says, he has a valid point. He is saying the Courts use the Constitution and its archaic vagueness and interpret it through modern ideals. For example, nobody has to be in a well regulated militia to own a gun, why? Because the Courts said so. Where are gay rights in the Constitution? No where but, like with guns the courts use modern ideals to interpret it. He is saying you wasting your time studying the history of the Constitution because the Founders had no clue what the future would bring. Because when it comes down to it, the Courts are pretty much making it up as they go and not trying to guess what somebody in the 1700s would think of Abortion, Gay rights, assault rifles, the death of militias in modern warfare etc. Washington himself ignored the Constitution and let the courts down the road catch up with him and reinterpret it to fit the needs of the times. Lets face it the founders had no clue about the future and we have been pretty much making it up as we go reinterpreting the Constitution to fit our needs as we go.

a reply to: introvert

Anyone with common sense knows what arms are when referring to defense or a militia. it means weapons. i know lets go back and edit the amendment to say weapons. would that be better?

a reply to: Nyiah

Which is why it indeed works. If there is an issue, we can correct it. It was a matter of great foresight

It would appear this judge's beliefs have been around for a very long time among judges.


iTruthSeeker

a reply to: Nyiah

It's not that he shouldn't have an opinion. It's that his business is intimately bound up with making legal judgements based on the very same document he thinks is trash. Do you or do you not see how this might be problematic given his job description?

It would be a bit like me being a surgeon or other type of doctor and having the opinion that I think that the entire field of medical ethics is completely outdated and thus shouldn't be studied by anyone wishing to get into the medical field.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: introvert

Anyone with common sense knows what arms are when referring to defense or a militia. it means weapons. i know lets go back and edit the amendment to say weapons. would that be better?

"Anyone with common sense"? That is a logical fallacy. Doesn't fly.

In the modern world, definitions have to be very specific in terms of laws and interpretation. The 2nd amendment, specifically, does not define those terms and that is what has allowed the states and courts to define and restrict our right as they see fit.

That is why the "shall not be infringed" nuts are wrong. They are a detriment to our 2nd amendment rights.

originally posted by: MrSpad
Lets face it the founders had no clue about the future and we have been pretty much making it up as we go reinterpreting the Constitution to fit our needs as we go.

Much like religion, but who here wants to rewrite the entire bible to fit modern philosophy?
Should we have the "New Testament Constitution?

Better question: Who would write it and do you have faith in the current two party system that ANYTHING would get accomplished in the next 100 years?

I really think working with what we got is the better option.

he's kinda right. the framers included an amendment process for the very reason that the constitution will be out of date at some point, but a large part of the constitution is the very basis or our republic and is our identity

it is a document loaded with irony, contradiciton and just plain arrogance as well

a reply to: MrSpad

None of that indicates a failure of the Constitution as a document. The ways and means and measures on how to deal with these issues are all contained within that document. The Supreme Court has a duty to either reject to hear a case or to rule whether or not it is Constitutional. That's it. The States and Congress were granted power to change the Constitution. I can't see an amendment happening any time soon , to be honest. If Party A proposed one, Party B would oppose it on general principles. The States are weary to take needed action because if they fall short they are worried about repercussions. It's actually a hopeless situation at this point. But that isn't the fault of the Constitution. I blame both political parties and the media for that.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: introvert

Anyone with common sense knows what arms are when referring to defense or a militia. it means weapons. i know lets go back and edit the amendment to say weapons. would that be better?

"Anyone with common sense"? That is a logical fallacy. Doesn't fly.

In the modern world, definitions have to be very specific in terms of laws and interpretation. The 2nd amendment, specifically, does not define those terms and that is what has allowed the states and courts to define and restrict our right as they see fit.

That is why the "shall not be infringed" nuts are wrong. They are a detriment to our 2nd amendment rights.

The Supreme court has ruled on this already and to them it was clear. They are also judges,and have more intelligence than the one you are arguing for."the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" thats pretty damn clear.

a reply to: introvert

First someone says this.

In the modern world, definitions have to be very specific in terms of laws and interpretation.

Then they say this.

That is why the "shall not be infringed" nuts are wrong.

The dictionary says this.

Simple Definition of infringe : to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( chiefly US ) : to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)

www.merriam-webster.com...

Someone is definitely WRONG.

a reply to: yuppa

Not really. It's not very clear. That's why states have been able to impose restrictions.

a reply to: neo96

So your ok with our rights being further restricted as long as that restriction is passed in to law? By definition, if it's law, it's not an infringement.

The second updated so the 21st century American can understand.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a FREE state, the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be RESTRICTED.

An updated 9th because it practically means the same thing.

The LAWS listed that come before this one, of certain RIGHTS, shall not be interpreted to deny or restrict other RIGHTS retained by the people.