[Maelstrom]

Here's the scenario:

You have the opportunity to tell the Founding Fathers how badly their Bill of Rights have been butchered in modern times, what would be a recommendation for rewording it to take a crack at getting it right?

Put simply, how specifically would our rights have to be laid out before a judge or senator could stop arguing against it?

Try to keep focused on the Second Amendment but I admit that I might mention things such as Jesus on display at a museum covered in cow crap as suddenly being "protected" by the 1st.

Incidentally, before blowing this off, this isn't an exercise in futility, as there is an amendment process, and so, in theory, the Constitution can be made more specific.

[mbt2001]

While I understand your point, I actually think the Founders did a eerily good job. Think of this, lawyers will ALWAYS wrangle over this and that. THANK GOD, we have them wrangling over these things instead of (like England and other Euro countries) wrangling over how "deep" our slavery to the state goes.

Honestly, the 2nd Amendment DOES need some regulation. I think we can all agree that even IF an honest citizen could be trusted with an atomic device, there is little chance that he could afford to properly store, maintain and secure the device... I am sure that the same can be said to a lesser or greater degree with chemical and biological weapons. I think the time is coming when we have to identify "technological" weapons (nano-probes, robotic killing machines) and the like as well.

So where do you draw the line?? I am very very pro RKBA, but you would have to be an idiot NOT to see some of the complications that exist out there. While I don't agree with A LOT that .gov and .gov states have done, I can still own a gun and we are making headway!

[Tommygunn]

I wouldn't change it.
"How strangely will the tools of the tyrant pervert the plain meaning of the words," wrote Samuel Adams over two centuries ago.
It wouldn't make a difference -- the politicians who wish to find a method to abridge a right will find a way.
They will claim "public safety" or any other canard.

Or only real guarantee is our willingness to uphold the Constitution as the founders intended.

[Buck Snort]

Well let's face it. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight we can see the wording of the 2nd Amendment leaves WAY too much wiggle room. The last sentence is all that's needed.

[DHJenkins]

It's worded perfectly the way it is. It's people who twist the meaning of words that are the problem, not the words themselves.

[eye5600]

I might try to squeeze in a right to self defense. I think the only reason that it's not there is that it did not enter the minds of the Founders than anyone would deny it.

[BTR]

Well, they should have plainly addressed if or how states could leave the union... leaving that out was a huge mistake.

Since slavery was such a charged issue then, I doubt they really could have done anything about it, but we would all have been much better off if they had addressed it in the constitution in a better manner.

They should have cut the interstate commerce clause or re-worded it in some fashion.

[Tiomoid]

I think Jefferson and the rest did a damn fine job. I'd keep it the same.

[TX1911fan]

Unfortunately, the meaning of words changes. They could not have foreseen how the definition of "militia" is different now than it was then, or the meaning of "well-regulated". Any other words they attempted to use could just as easily have had their meanings change, so I don't think we can really suggest any better alternative. What it all boils down to is how Justice Scalia and the conservative wing of the Court say about the Constitution. We need to know what THEY meant when they WROTE it, not what the words mean today. It's just plain stupidity to use modern meanings for words written 200+ years ago.

[Phatty]

Include term limits on all elected officials.

[JImbothefiveth]

The right of the citizens to own guns shall not be infringed.

As for the other amendments
the 1st :congress shall not merge with a church and will not prohibit the free exercise of religion, except for prohibiting events where someone is severely physically injured, or killed. Unless it invokes immediate harm, people shall be able to say what they want.

The 9th amendment is the other one : People have certain other rights not mentioned in the constitution. This is not to be twisted to imply we supported something unless there is sufficient historical evidence and all court cases regarding this amendment must be decided by 2 thirds majority.

[mljdeckard]

I don't know that I would have them change anything.

Those who dispute the wording of the Second Amendment only do it because they WANT it to say something other than it does. They develop selective bad grammar. The founding fathers didn't get anything wrong.

[Maelstrom]

If I was to say to my son "Don't cross the street without holding my hand" he could technically run into a lane of traffic and stop and he'd still be following my instructions.

But there is a level of wording even simpler and more encompassing that might suffice. Something like "Don't ever go into the street without holding my hand."

Perhaps a simpler text in the Second Amendment would have eliminated some of the confusion.

How about, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of their nation or themselves is absolute."

[Cohibra45]

Include term limits on all elected officials.

I use to think the same things a while ago. It made me so mad that those so and so politicians.............

Now I realize that we are just being lazy. We have the means to limit their terms. It's called voting. A lot of people don't vote. Just look at the polls and you will see that most elections have an extremely poor turnout. That's just really sad.

Back to the OP's original question, I vote for leaving the wording alone. We have some very smart lawyers/politicians out there today and they still have a very hard time getting things changed because of the wording used in the Constitution. Our forefathers were a lot smarter than I believe most give credit!!!;)

[Phatty]

We have the means to limit their terms. It's called voting.
Voters have a huge incentive to keep voting incumbents back into office, because the more senority their rep or senator accrues, the more power that rep or senator will obtain (which means more pork coming home). But, why is it fair that a state with rookie senators has much less leverage than a state with senators who have been serving for 30 years? Term limits don't just protect citizens from their own state representatives, they also protect citizens from the representatives of other states.

The idea of a career politician absolutely disgusts me. I think every elected official should be a person who has a non-political career that takes 2-4 years out of his life to serve his country. Once his term is over, he goes back to his regular life and somebody else takes his place. Even a well-meaning rep at the start of his first term will likely get sucked in by the influence of power, and will slowly progress towards working to shore up their own interests rather than working for the people.

Additionally, it's not a secret that the people currently in power have a tremendous advantage over challengers, because the incumbents get to set the rules once they are in.

[DammitBoy]

At another forum I post at - we have a left-winger ranting that the 2nd amendment only applies to the federal government and that states have a right to gun control.

I wish the 2nd amendment was simpler and more straight forward.

[Bobarino]

i would only change the word "militia" to "citizenry". that's all.

Bobby

[PershingRiflesC-7]

It is likely that an attempt by a 21st century American to talk to an 18th century American would be an exercise in futility as much as two people speaking different languages. It is further likely that the 21st century American would not be believed if he could even be understood. We are not living in the America envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

[ArmedBear]

Specific means by which limits in the Constitution are to be enforced against the government.

Specific, and extremely harsh, punishments, including long-term imprisonment, confiscation of corrupt wealth, and the death penalty in some cases, for violations of the Constitution by anyone in government. Right now, there's ZERO incentive for anyone in government to choose less power instead of more.

Personal civil and criminal liability for all government employees and officials acting in their official capacities. Again, look at the desired outcome, and make sure the incentives are there.

Burden of proof to be on government, not citizens, when there is a Constitutional question. Any citizen has "standing" to challenge a law. No law takes effect until a SCOTUS trial has decided that it's Constitutional.

"Equal protection" for taxation. No use of tax policy to encourage or discourage any behavior, nor to favor any group over another. This also means no "progressive" or "regressive" taxation. No tax revenue to be distributed to any private entity, including individuals, charities, and corporations "too big to fail."

[shdwfx]

I think Jefferson and the rest did a damn fine job.
Jefferson was in Paris during the Constitutional Convention.

[kludge]

Honestly, the 2nd Amendment DOES need some regulation. I think we can all agree that even IF an honest citizen could be trusted with an atomic device, there is little chance that he could afford to properly store, maintain and secure the device... I am sure that the same can be said to a lesser or greater degree with chemical and biological weapons.

I disagree.

If you want to regulate weapons then you should follow the constitution and get an amendment.

How hard would it be to get an amendment ratified that said "Nuclear weapons are not protected under the Second Amendment"???????

The reason they don't is that they are therby ADMITTING that ALL gun control legislation is unconstitutional.

NFA1934, GCA1968, 922(o) and all the rest of it.

BTW - we do trust normal citizens with nuclear weapons, we just happen to employ them in our armed forces.

[Gunnerpalace]

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms and the (small) arms of the army shall not be infringed"

Hows that? (small can stay or go)

[bigalexe]

2nd Amendment: The individual citizen either born or immigrated may own any firearms, ammunition, and related accessories for sporting and as needed for protection of themselves, or their community. They can also freely distribute, modify or transfer these weapons to another qualified citizen at their own discretion.

[wrxguyusa]

nd Amendment: The individual citizen either born or immigrated may own any firearms, ammunition, and related accessories for sporting and as needed for protection of themselves, or their community. They can also freely distribute, modify or transfer these weapons to another qualified citizen at their own discretion.

antigun response: You don't need <insert desired firearm> to <insert activity/use>. Only the government is qualifed.

[General Geoff]

Add a clause to the constitution appointing an elected federal official as a "constitutional prosecutor." Include as his duties the REQUIREMENT to formally charge any politician who submits or votes for, any legislation which would infringe on any right protected by the Constitution. And also specify the power of any US senator to start impeachment hearings for said constitutional prosecutor, should he fail to perform his duties.

[kludge]

+1 Geoff

[CoRoMo]

If I were to 'tweak' the 2A, I might remove the first four words and add the words "restricted, regulated, taxed, inhibited, or otherwise dabbled with, by any level of government.", after the word 'infringed'.

Other than that, I'd add more specific, and severe, restrictions on the federal government. I'd specifically state...


that no federal level elected official shall receive any wage, income, or benefit for their public service.
that the federal government shall cease with all operations, other than military defense, for the remainder of the fiscal year, if it exceeds its annual budget.


I could go on all day, but I'll stop there because none of my additions are on topic for a firearms forum. They all focus to correct the corruption aspect of our federal gov.

[Prion]

I don't have the hubris required to think I could improve this sacred document.

It's sheer brilliance is stunning, it's the modern interpeters that lack such wisdom.

[Maelstrom]

It's sheer brilliance is stunning, it's the modern interpeters that lack such wisdom.

It is undoubtedly brilliant, but Geoff's idea is actually really good.

The biggest problem with our government is that it is grown so large that a "mob mentality" has set in. Everyone tramples on our rights but no one takes responsibility because everyone else is doing it to. It's the exact same logic that leads to riots.

[ilbob]

There is some wiggle room in a lot of the Constitution. You can't create a government that is perfect.

[shdwfx]

I would want explicit verbiage requiring that at least the Bill of Rights preempt state law - all states must incorporate it into their constitutions. Arguably, there is an implicit directive for incorporation in the 10th Amdendment, but it should be made more explicit.

[Bookworm]

I'm another for the camp that the Constitution doesn't need to be reworded.

As far as I can see, we have several different problems with the laws now. We have the obvious problem of Congress and the Presidency overstepping their authority, true.

What most don't realize is the Supreme Court does as well. I read an interesting article lately that explained how SCOTUS has a tendancy to write too much, when all they must do is judge the constitutionality of what is brought before it, and their sources. Nowadays, they do little more than read over past decisions and ruling based on those, and in doing so are modifying the Constitution beyond its original intent, and circumventing the process written in for changes.

[DHJenkins]

The thing is, it would have been "reworded" in the verbiage of the times. Basically, the lawyers would still be arguing over semantics, they'd just be different arguments. It wouldn't solve a thing.

[ArmedBear]

specify the power of any US senator to start impeachment hearings for said constitutional prosecutor, should he fail to perform his duties.

Impeachment is too good for 'em!:)

[BaltimoreBoy]

The old boys did all that could be done with words. Our failure over the last hundred plus years is not their fault.

The lack of a 'self defense' right is really because of the ninth amendment.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

It was not even considered necessary to stipulate a right of self defense.

The second amendment is about access to regular military arms - with the express intent that the citizen militias will keep the government honest.

[rbernie]

Every citizen shall have the absolute right to own weaponry equal to that of the Government.At least, I think that's what they THOUGHT they were sayin'...

[t165]

I absolutely agree with Phatty. Term limits, (2) 4 year cycles at most. Some of these Federal Senators and Congressmen are like little dictators in their respective jurisdictions. And also for Federal Judges. A Federal Judge in Southern Illinois just presided over a large new car dealers bankruptcy a year or so back. It looks awful funny (2) new cars bearing the same dealerships sales sticker is now sitting in that Judges driveway. CORRUPTION! If you think I am wrong then I have a bridge I want to sell you! Crooked B*******!

[61chalk]

My former pastor said it best....

[RangerHAAF]

I would have written: A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the individual and collective right to keep and bears arms shall not be infringed or distinguished.

[ar10]

Jefferson was in Paris during the Constitutional Convention.

Absolutely, and you know why? He loved his women, just like Franklin when he was there. From what I've been reading the signers did not intend for the constitution to be static. Both Jefferson and Franklin were inventors and innovators, they came up with new things all the time. Both had a great deal of influence in the Colonies and the drafting of the Constitution/Bill of Rights were written to be dynamic.

I think one point that was brought out in the Heller case was the majority of the American population knew that disarming their population allowed them to control every aspect of their daily lives.

[Harve Curry]

Don't change the 1st or 2nd Amendments.
General Geoff said it best in his post #25
quote:
" Add a clause to the constitution appointing an elected federal official as a "constitutional prosecutor." Include as his duties the REQUIREMENT to formally charge any politician who submits or votes for, any legislation which would infringe on any right protected by the Constitution. And also specify the power of any US senator to start impeachment hearings for said constitutional prosecutor, should he fail to perform his duties. "
__________________

[JoeSlomo]

If I could go back in time I would shake their hands first, then slap the begeezis out of them second.:evil:

I would have them make many of our amendments more idiot resistant. While you CAN'T make something idiot PROOF, you CAN make it more resistant.:D

[Harve Curry]

In regards to the RTKBA's:
I think that some of the Founders were reluctant to put into words the RTKBA's because they didn't think they could do it justice, that this Right was so self evident. Words coudn't do it justice and they'd be leaving something out. Some thought it better to write nothing at all, then to risk infringing upon the Right.
Concerned that no matter how they wrote it, something or someone would try to usurp the RTKBA's.
Luckily for us they did write it as the 2nd Amendment, short and sweet.
I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said words to the effect that; it wasn't a perfect document but it was as close as they were going to get, and it needed to be signed.

[RoostRider]

I see as many holes in the new suggested wordings as there are in the original..... many more in some instances.... which were obviously meant to be as straightforward as possible about the subject...

This points to the route of the problem, which is that anyone can pick apart anything to try to convolute it.... share that with the fact that people tend to change the meanings of words to mean what they want it to mean, and you have a no win in the rewording department......

[Animal Mother]

I'd suggest that they leave out the Commerce Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause) and the Necessary and Proper Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause). :D But that's just my opinion.

[MisterMike]

Keep the discussion of the militia separate: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed or limited by the Congress or by any state."

This, of course, presupposes that the Second Amendment is not clearly incorporated under the 14th Amendment.

In spite of my admiration for the founding fathers, I do think that they created a bit of a morass in the Second Amendment by adopting wording that allows for an alternative interpretation, albeit one that requires the application of somewhat tortured logic. And, as with the entire Bill of Rights, they failed to come to grips with the fact that a right guaranteed under the Constitution could be rendered meaningless if the states remained free to trample on that right.

Of course, the problem raised by my proposal is that it confers an unlimited right to keep and bear arms--in theory, anyone who wanted to do so could own bombs, nukes, WMDs, etc. Even most ardent gun-rights supporters might cringe at that thought.

[catspa]

Cohibra45 and Phatty, on term limits:

If you intend to use voting as a means of limiting terms, you need to provide a level playing field between the incumbent and a challenger. One step in this direction would be to end the ability of an incumbent to bribe voting blocks (say, welfare recipients) to vote for him with money he has taken from hard-working taxpayers. Until that happens, the only way a challenger can get into those voting blocks is to make more and more outrageous promises of handouts (which turn the hard-working taxpayers against him).

A poster in another thread (um, I guess it was on the .us site) suggested that voting rights should be suspended for anyone taking benefits from a government program they hadn't paid into. I kinda like the idea.

DammitBoy, your left-winger should look up the Supreme Court rulings on incorporation of rights, issued in the first half of the 20th century. As a practical matter, the federal and state governments are now so intertwined in many ways, they might as well be identical...

You've got some good ideas there, ArmedBear, and if the founding fathers had anticipated federal wrongdoing on the level we see it today, I bet they'd have thought so too.

Jefferson was indeed absent from the constitutional convention, but I'd like to join Timoid in admiring the Declaration of Independence, which I have to think was well known by the state delegates.

Really, isn't it the spirit and intent of the Constitution that we uphold rather than the specific wording?

Parker

[Flyboy]

Phatty is on to something. Term limits are close, but not quite, a possible solution.

The solution isn't term limits, but lifetime limits. Limit people to, say, twelve years' total service as an elected or high-government official. If you only limit the office, you end up with a representative-cum-senator-cum-president-cum-Cabinet secretary. After two terms as a Senator, a man has to return to honest work.

I would make an exception for the Judiciary, for the same reason the Founders gave them lifetime appointments, but in exchange, I'd require that the judicial appointees be people who have never served in either of the other branches. Actually, that might be an interesting idea for the other branches as well: no crossing tracks. Might prevent people from feathering their future nests.

[30mag]

I like:
"The right to own and bear arms shall not be infringed; the Federal government may not regulate firearms in any manner."

[t165]

I would ask the founding fathers why they did not state the United States Constitution shall not be modified. Oh wait...the Bill of Rights was a modification. Perhaps the founding fathers meant for the Constitution to live, breath and grow with our country? This debate has, is, and will be debated in the years to come...or at least as long as there is a United States of America.

I guess if one thinks only white males should be the only segment of our population allowed to vote and that negroes are nothing more than livestock, among other things, then the constitution was crafted perfectly the first time! :rolleyes:

[kludge]

"The right to own and bear arms shall not be infringed; the Federal government may not regulate firearms in any manner."

That's redundant. :) They would still come up with exceptions to "shall not" and alternate definitions to "infringe".

[hugh damright]

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the States, or by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the Constitution."


"The States are Sovereign; Every Power, Jurisdiction, and Right, which is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, is reserved to each State respectively."

[Flyboy]

Perhaps the founding fathers meant for the Constitution to live, breath and grow with our country?
Of course they did. They just expected it to "live, breathe, and grow" according to the means provided. Simply saying "we want to do it differently," without using the amendment procedure, brings the entire thing into disrespect by setting the precedent that it can be ignored with it becomes inconvenient.

[gc70]

Include term limits on all elected officials.

Since term limits were included in the Articles of Confederation, there is a reasonable presumption that the Founders thought there was a good reason to leave them out of the Constitution.

[t165]

Okay Flyboy..."according to the means provided"...offer to prove. I'm listening! What legal authority are you providing? Make your case!

[HankB]

On all ballots for all offices, "None Of The Above" shall be explicitly included. If NOTA achieves a plurality of votes cast, then within 3 months another election shall be held, at the expense of the parties of the 2 wealthiest parties entering a candidate. The candidates losing to NOTA in any election are prohibited from any and all governmental jobs whatsoever for a term equal to that of the office they were seeking election to.

[Flyboy]

You seriously don't know what means that Founders gave us for adapting the Constitution to new situations? Wow.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

That means that, when the States and both Houses think something needs to evolve, they can get together and make it happen.

[t165]

WOW! That was taught in elementary school! Duh! Now...make your case on how the United States Constitution has been changed by "we want to do it differently". Who is "we"? When was the Constitution changed by illegal means. Offer to prove! I doubt that you can!

I typed the wrong quote in post #55. This probably added to the confusion. While there have been interpretations I did not agree with I have never heard of an actual Amendment added or modified without federal legislaturers following due process. I would very much like to see an example of that if one exists.

[crebralfix]

1) Specify limits on the commerce clause. This is the most abused clause in the Constitution.

2) Specify limits on "promote the welfare..."

3) Clearly define and limit the role of the Supreme Court.

4) Include "doomsday" provisions that invoke the people's right to use force against government officials.

5) Include an "undo" chamber in the legislature. Only 20% is needed to undo anything the government does.

6) The Constitution does not outline all rights. Give this area some teeth.

7) Fix citizenship. There should be only one type of citizenship and it's not the one outlined in the 14th Amendment. Rights should be inalienable for everyone and not subject to "procedures".

[hugh damright]

I have never heard of an actual Amendment added or modified without federal legislaturers following due process. I would very much like to see an example of that if one exists.
I think the 14th is the most blatant example. The Southern States began voting against the amendment, and they were kicked out of the Union, put under military rule, and told they could have their rights back when they voted for the 14th.

"the people of the South have rejected the constitutional amendment and therefore we will march upon them and force them to adopt it at the point of the bayonet". --Sen. James Doolittle of Wisconsin

[t165]

But the 14th was never actually changed or modified without due process. I do not know if the 14th has been legally modified since inception. And the North did strongarm the Southern States after the civil war to bring them into line. The South really hated the 14th and 15th Amendments.

[hugh damright]

But the 14th was never actually changed or modified without due process.

You said that you would very much like an example of an amendment which was added or modified without due process. The 14th was added to the US Constitution without due process. Military rule is not due process.

[Flyboy]

t165, I may have misunderstood your sarcasm. I thought you were implying that the Founders would have been okay with the Constitution "living, breathing, growing;" that is, the "living document" theory beloved of the various statists in power. If that wasn't what you meant, I apologize.

As for myself, I will state clearly and for the record that I believe the Founding Fathers wisely recognized that they couldn't plan for everything, so they left room for the Constitution to adapt to changes in the world--and left a clear and specific process for doing though. I believe they would be delighted to see some of the amendments we've passed, and horrified to see what we've done outside of the process.

[30mag]

That's redundant. They would still come up with exceptions to "shall not" and alternate definitions to "infringe".
Apparently the thing needs to be redundant.

[t165]

Apparently we are on the same page Flyboy. I agree changing the Constitution should not be easy or taken lightly. I thought you meant the executive branch of government had used some loophole to change the Constitution in the past. If I was wrong then I'll have to add it to a very long list of mistakes I always seem to make. :)