14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting

[B.D.F.]

I <think> everyone 'gets it' and we know it can be changed. All I am saying is that it is not going to actually happen in the foreseeable future, at least not to the actual document and Bill of Rights (the Bill of Rights was actually part of the Constitution sent to the states and both were ratified together BTW; our southern states would not ratify the Constitution without the first ten Amendments and that was a wise policy indeed).

A method to add an amendment to our Constitution, and the only one to ever actually be used is: a bill is introduced to both the House of Representatives and the Senate. A 'Super majority' of both houses must vote Yes on each bill. That is 75% or 3/4 of each house. (not bloody likely in your vernacular) Then, the amendment is passed onto each of "the several" states, and they must ratify it again by the 3/4 margin either through the state legislature of a specially convened ratification convention in each state. (not bloody likely.... squared)

In the past, the state ratification process was open- ended regarding time but for quite some time now, they have had an installed time- limit of seven years after which time they vaporize if not ratified. This is what happened to our Equal Rights Amendment.... it could not reach the 38 state ratification requirement and so it just timed out.

There is just no possibility to alter the second Amendment through this process, again at least for the foreseeable future.

I get that it's unlikely but some people need to accept that the mechanism is in place and that it could in theory be changed.


I  believe (to summarise)  one method is by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures" and then that  a proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States)

As you say, there's a bit of a sea change at the moment with various states bringing in their own legislation and I'm sure people will be keeping count to see if  the number of states starts to approach that critical mass required for a constitutional convention (33 from 49).

[mikeyw64]

That's the other method however the way things *seem* to be going it's more likely that the method I postulated is more likely to happen (nb that's only "more likely"  as opposed to probably will)

I <think> everyone 'gets it' and we know it can be changed. All I am saying is that it is not going to actually happen in the foreseeable future, at least not to the actual document and Bill of Rights (the Bill of Rights was actually part of the Constitution sent to the states and both were ratified together BTW; our southern states would not ratify the Constitution without the first ten Amendments and that was a wise policy indeed).

A method to add an amendment to our Constitution, and the only one to ever actually be used is: a bill is introduced to both the House of Representatives and the Senate. A 'Super majority' of both houses must vote Yes on each bill. That is 75% or 3/4 of each house. (not bloody likely in your vernacular) Then, the amendment is passed onto each of "the several" states, and they must ratify it again by the 3/4 margin either through the state legislature of a specially convened ratification convention in each state. (not bloody likely.... squared)

In the past, the state ratification process was open- ended regarding time but for quite some time now, they have had an installed time- limit of seven years after which time they vaporize if not ratified. This is what happened to our Equal Rights Amendment.... it could not reach the 38 state ratification requirement and so it just timed out.

There is just no possibility to alter the second Amendment through this process, again at least for the foreseeable future.

[mikeyw64]

BTW am I correct in saying that the USA doesn't have the ability/due process to allow for a national referendum (as we had with Brexit) where each person gets to vote on something at a national level?

[B.D.F.]

I believe that is correct. We cannot even vote on a national level for national things such as the office of the President. It is always 'the several states' that actually control our 'national' votes.

Brian

BTW am I correct in saying that the USA doesn't have the ability/due process to allow for a national referendum (as we had with Brexit) where each person gets to vote on something at a national level?

[VirginiaJim]

BTW am I correct in saying that the USA doesn't have the ability/due process to allow for a national referendum (as we had with Brexit) where each person gets to vote on something at a national level?

Typically this happens in individual states and never on a national level.

[mikeyw64]

Typically this happens in individual states and never on a national level.

ta, that's pretty much what I said/thought

[mikeyw64]

Ta,

maybe someone should Propose  an Amendment

I believe that is correct. We cannot even vote on a national level for national things such as the office of the President. It is always 'the several states' that actually control our 'national' votes.

Brian

[B.D.F.]

OFFTOPIC: Very quickly, we elect our presidents through the states voting. The state vote (called the Electoral vote) and the popular vote usually coincide. But every now and then, they do not; the popular vote is for the other candidate but the electoral (states) vote is the one that is always used. This happened in 2000 and again in 2016. When it does happen, a huge ruckus starts because 1) most Americans do not know how the system works and are surprised that this can even happen and 2) the losing side is REALLY riled up because they actually carried the popular vote. So there is a flurry of action to 'fix' this problem (alter our system). But that takes a lot of work that no one wants to do and the public is fickle and soon enough is not interested in that anymore. So it fizzles out and we carry on.... until the next time it happens.

It would be very straightforward to alter so we can actually do a national majority vote for some, limited federal- level things such as the office of the President but that is not likely to ever happen.

And fixing the electoral system would be hugely easier than altering any of the first ten amendments to the Constitution..... 

Brian

Ta,

maybe someone should Propose  an Amendment

[gPink]

Is the electoral system broken?

[maxtog]

Back to your idea of altering the Constitution for a moment; yes, it is possible and has been done in the past but never for such fundamental things as already specified rights w/in the Constitution or existing Amendments. With the one glaring exception of prohibition but that was really just a bad idea being erased a mere 13 years after it was passed in teh first place. I do not believe we will see the removal or even alteration of any of the first ten Amendments (often called The Bill of Rights) in the foreseeable future.

Although it is possible, it is inconceivable that any admendment would ever pass that would interfere with the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments, that are practically part of the original document).  Personally, I think that would indicate a total failure of the whole American experiment.

BTW am I correct in saying that the USA doesn't have the ability/due process to allow for a national referendum (as we had with Brexit) where each person gets to vote on something at a national level?

I don't believe such a thing exists.  Although there is nothing to prevent legislation that could call for a referendum of that type.  Still, not sure it would be a great idea.  Direct government by the people is historically a disaster.  Most "normal" people typically do not have the time, skills, or knowledge to really understand a problem to the point of voting intelligently about it.  That is why we have a representative republic.

[maxtog]

And fixing the electoral system would be hugely easier than altering any of the first ten amendments to the Constitution..... 

What is far, far more broken here is not the electoral system, but the actual "first past the post" voting system.  If there was ever any ONE thing that needs changing, that would be the thing.  And it can be done, because States can choose to do it without any need for swaying the whole country.  We wouldn't need any change to the Federal Constitution, either.  I don't think it would even touch most of the States' Constitutions.

http://fairvote.org
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

Before computers, such a system of instant runoff voting would not have been practical.  But now it would be trivial.  And it is needed in primaries just as much as in actual elections.

[B.D.F.]

OFFTOPIC: The Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments to the US Constitution, were ratified at the same time as the Constitution itself and so are, in reality, part of the Constitution, at least in my [unlearned] view and understanding.

Going by memory here: it was part of a deal between the northern and southern states to ratify the Constitution in the first place. Some very powerful Southerners (Virginians I believe) were opposed to the Constitution as written because there were no or insufficient guarantees in it to prevent the reforming of a monarchy, or to prevent a handful of heavily populated states (the northern states at that time) from gaining control of the entire federal gov't. An additional provision of this 'deal' was locating the capital of the US in the southern states as it was originally in New York (a northern state). The northern states would not agree to the 'southern state' placement, hence the creation of Washington, DC, which while an independent district of the US, was originally part of Virginia and clearly in "the south".

As any of this applies to the topic at hand: I think we can all agree, there will be no alteration of The Bill of Rights in the foreseeable future.

Brian

Although it is possible, it is inconceivable that any admendment would ever pass that would interfere with the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments, that are practically part of the original document).  Personally, I think that would indicate a total failure of the whole American experiment.

<snip>

[maxtog]

Apologies, there was me stating quire clearly that you do have a Constitutional right to bear Arms for the purposes of maintaining a well regulated Militia

The reason we are reacting negatively is that you have essentially said the ONLY reason to have gun rights is to maintain militias.  And that is not what the Amendment says (to those who understand the context of what was written).

"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 infringed."

The first sentence is not a directive nor a requirement for the second sentence.  It is just a preamble that seeks to give a reason why the second sentence is so important.  The key word here is "people."  Not militia.  "People" are all the citizens.  Had they meant it otherwise, it might have been worded more like:"

"A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

How does that make me anti gun?
#confused

If you believe what I interpreted is what you said, then you believe that gun rights exist ONLY and SOLELY for militia use.  And that is in direct conflict with the rights of individuals to be armed outside of a militia.  And that is, most assuredly, an anti-gun-rights stance.

[mikeyw64]

OFFTOPIC.Speaking of the South, you guys still have the Corwin Amendment, which would have forever preserved slavery in those states where it was legal in 1861 and which was tabled to try & prevent the Civil War, on the books.

Now as stated there is no time limit on Ratification and whilst I accept the 27th was an exception (taking 200+ years to ratify and then only following a schoolkids essay which brought it to peoples attention) in theory this Amendment could still be passed even today.

OFFTOPIC: The Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments to the US Constitution, were ratified at the same time as the Constitution itself and so are, in reality, part of the Constitution, at least in my [unlearned] view and understanding.

Going by memory here: it was part of a deal between the northern and southern states to ratify the Constitution in the first place. Some very powerful Southerners (Virginians I believe) were opposed to the Constitution as written because there were no or insufficient guarantees in it to prevent the reforming of a monarchy, or to prevent a handful of heavily populated states (the northern states at that time) from gaining control of the entire federal gov't. An additional provision of this 'deal' was locating the capital of the US in the southern states as it was originally in New York (a northern state). The northern states would not agree to the 'southern state' placement, hence the creation of Washington, DC, which while an independent district of the US, was originally part of Virginia and clearly in "the south".

As any of this applies to the topic at hand: I think we can all agree, there will be no alteration of The Bill of Rights in the foreseeable future.

Brian

[mikeyw64]

The reason we are reacting negatively is that you have essentially said the ONLY reason to have gun rights is to maintain militias.  And that is not what the Amendment says (to those who understand the context of what was written).

"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 infringed."

The first sentence is not a directive nor a requirement for the second sentence.  It is just a preamble that seeks to give a reason why the second sentence is so important.  The key word here is "people."  Not militia.  "People" are all the citizens.  Had they meant it otherwise, it might have been worded more like:"

"A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

If you believe what I interpreted is what you said, then you believe that gun rights exist ONLY and SOLELY for militia use.  And that is in direct conflict with the rights of individuals to be armed outside of a militia.  And that is, most assuredly, an anti-gun-rights stance.

Let's be honest, nobody knows what was in the minds of the people who drew up the original US Constitution other than the words they left behind and they're open to interpretation.

If the same thing was drawn up today , in a world where public opinion and communications are so much different then would the wording have been made more precise? (although that leads to it's own problems)

Yes it may be classed as preamble but it sets the scene. It doesn't start off by saying " For the purposes of allowing home defence," or  "For the purposes of preventing the Government suppressing the People,"

NB its not a separate sentence, its part of the bigger sentence as it is separated by a comma not a full stop (or period). The Second amendment is one sentence.