THEORY:If you could talk to the founding fathers, how would you word the Constitution

[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.

 

[femoralis]

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.