Hunting Forum

That's entirely up to you guys... but, personally, I'd start off by ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment. That's a gimme... you can't really hold yourselves up as bastions of freedom if women don't have the same consideration from government that men do.
Any other changes would need to be made through a public consultative process. It needs to, naturally, be totally transparent. Your existing Constitution is a beautiful document, and needs to form the basis for your next one. The Bill of Rights needs to be expanded, IMHO. The Second Amendment should probably be updated- not removed. I like the Blaine Amendment, to keep the separation of Church and State. A balanced budget amendment, while fantastic in theory, is probably not a realistic option. Personally, I'd abolish the electoral college- he who garners the most votes wins.
While there is, in fact, a process to amend the current Constitution, it's brutally onerous.
A quick quote from the article I posted earlier...

Americans should wake up, stop their delusional thinking and recognize that the US Constitution needs to be updated through reform amendments. We the people must pressure Congress to convene the first Article V convention. Otherwise the Supreme Court will continue to make interpretations that are more political than legal in nature and the federal government will continue to erode personal freedoms and liberties. And more and more other democracies will operate under better constitutions.

Minus serving in infantry units in our military, women have the same rights men do.

Why should we update the Second Amendment? So we can't have military STYLE firearms? Civilians have had military style firearms ever since the Constitution was drafted. Think about it. Our military had muskets during the American Revolution, civilians had muskets. Get into the Civil War and you see repeating rifles and lever actions; civilians had these same firearms. WWI saw bolt actions; guess what? Here comes the same style of rifle for civilian use. WWII; the M1 Garand--a semi-automatic that paved the way for civilian semi-auto rifles. Now our military has the M16 and M4. So, why can't we have a rifle similar to it in our AR-15's?

If we start updating our Constitution, the government will then start making Amendments and/or revisions that puts it in more control of our lives than it already has.

But their rights are not guaranteed in your Constitution...
Being the good Union man that I am, I am a HUGE supporter of Majority Rules... even if I don't personally agree with it. Doesn't matter. When it comes to your Second Amendment, ask the American people for their opinion.
As for the amendments giving the government more control... I suppose that depends on the amendments.

I would posit this question. If the Ultra Conservative religious right were to come to power, and our Constitution had been changed as YH has suggested, what type of Amendments or changes could be expected? I have no doubt that the liberals, both extreme left and left of center, would then be up in arms over any attempts at those changes. That's the true beauty of the stodginess of our Constitution.......the fact that it is a long and drawn out process involved in making changes. This eliminates any one particular political climate from instilling a one sided set of rules for the country. Right now, we are being faced with an ultra left wing liberalism movement, and for those of us who are moderately to strong Conservatives must depend on that difficulty of change to preserve the freedoms we have always had. Change has to be considered a two headed monster that is only controlled by whichever party is in power, which is exactly why our Constitution exists in it's present form.

"Ultra left wing liberalism"?
Pffft....

Regardless of the extremes of either side, I believe you have to agree with the overall validity of the situational analysis.

Busy right now, just popped in to see what is going on. Yh I think your artical is slightly out of context.

RT-
Yes and no. I don't believe that amending your Constitution should be a century-long process. Times change. I do agree, however, that no one political party should have the right (or the audacity) to change it to meet their agenda.
ck-
How so?

You are talking about Jefffersons philosophy of Usufruct, and his feelings on government and Intergenerational Issues. Should one man have the right to despose of land as he sees fit, depriving the next generation, of its top soil, fruits. Or leave dept for the next generation. Yes he did beleave the Constitution should be changed to meet the needs of the living generation, but he was refering to the Governmet and how it ran. And he would have issue with both sides Democrat and Republican, now. Our National dept would really pizz him off.

But the bill of rights was a list if you will of Inalienable rights . Inalienable rights are rights, things, that could not belong to any other man, but to each his own. The right to life , Liberty, secure in his own body, freedom. And Jefferson believed in that as well, and as far as gun rights go, he beleaved every man should be requiered to own a gun, to protect his Inalienable rights. So if you are attempting to say the Constitutions 2nd Amendment should be changed or abolished, base on Jeffersons Usufruct Philosophy, I would say yes it is out of context, in that reguard.

Totally NOT what I was saying. I merely pointed out that TJ felt that the average life span of a Constitution was 19 years.

Our biggest problem is that our constitution allows to many from other countries that come here ,and are not assimilating like people use to .They keep trying to change our way of life .Look at the Islamic s coming here .Yes they are trying to impose Sharia law on us ,and to be used in our courts .They don't wish to live under our laws that are well established here .

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/ameri...t_id=87651

Liberal Progressives would like to get rid of that restrictive thing, plus you get to watch Megyn Kelly

YH you asked what one change that I will say should be changed .Not anybody born here is a citizen ,to at least one parent must be a citizen .That would get rid of all those anchor babies .They are just as illegal as their parents .

Posted By holly on 05 Jan 2013 12:27 PM
Our biggest problem is that our constitution allows to many from other countries that come here ,and are not assimilating like people use to .They keep trying to change our way of life .Look at the Islamic s coming here .Yes they are trying to impose Sharia law on us ,and to be used in our courts .They don't wish to live under our laws that are well established here .

I'm afraid that's pretty much the story of America, Holly... otherwise, you'd all be living in teepees, and following Native Tribal laws.

I am native American so .

YH, that was the story of a fledgling America as it expanded and grew. New immigrants were needed to help the country achieve the growth and build the economy. That isn't the case today. We have no need for immigrants to come to this country, and we receive no benefits from immigrants. We now have a reversal of the basics, in that the immigrants need the country and the financial benefits they can receive from coming here. Yes, America used to be a melting pot; but that term in and of itself describes exactly how all of those different nationalities and societies "melted" into being Americans. That ceased to be the case, with the commonality of hyphenated distinctions such as African-Americans, Latin-Americans, Asian-Americans, and now Muslim-Americans and Arab-Americans. The melting pot has dissolved into a splintered America and that is destroying everything that all of those years of welcoming immigrants tried to build. I often wonder what this country would have been, if the Native Americans had managed to hold off the "white hordes", and had been able to save their culture and beliefs instead of being forced to abandon them and adopt the "white man's" laws and religions. Perhaps, if we eliminate the current immigration policies and the changes being pushed for by this new class of immigrant, we can retain some vestiges of what our actual heritage used to be, and the country can once again be viewed as the results of having been a "melting pot" that has accomplished it's goals and achieved the maximum heights it was designed to reach. I fail to see how all of the hyphenated classifications will ever allow us to become one united citizenry as we once were. The golden age of America as a nation of Americans ended sometime in the 60's and 70's and if immigration is allowed to continue, we will continue our descent into a disjointed American society without a common identity.

Posted By YH on 07 Jan 2013 05:58 AM

Posted By holly on 05 Jan 2013 12:27 PM
Our biggest problem is that our constitution allows to many from other countries that come here ,and are not assimilating like people use to .They keep trying to change our way of life .Look at the Islamic s coming here .Yes they are trying to impose Sharia law on us ,and to be used in our courts .They don't wish to live under our laws that are well established here .

I'm afraid that's pretty much the story of America, Holly... otherwise, you'd all be living in teepees, and following Native Tribal laws.

I would like to know .Are you a native of Canada ,or a French invader .

I was born and raised in Canada. My father was also born and raised here. My mother was born in Detroit, then improved.

At least you got the part about your mother, correct! Any one who get's the hell out of Detroit is going to make a major improvement, even if they only go to Chicago!!!!!!!

I was just asking a simple question and you talked around it .Is your ansestery from Canada or from some other country .That's all I am asking .