ITH Poker Forum

[kinnipak]

I have been reading Bulls thread concerning drones and the powers that be that use them. I was going to post this in that thread but thought it was becoming a threadjack so I started this instead.

While I greatly admire and am amazed at what the founders of this country did to create the rights we citizens enjoy (and some non-citizens..save that for another thread), there is a thought that someone put into my head that just won't go away. It concerns not only the rights we have, but also the laws we follow.

Is there a valid argument to be made, that while our Constitution and Bill of Rights are probably the most important documents this nation has, does it matter that they were created in a world that has almost zero connection with the world we live in today?

Granted, Amendments have been made to abolish some of the archaic laws that were written, but that also goes to my point. In those times, some laws made sense. You were allowed by law to own another human being. You could carry loaded weapons with you at all times. Clearly we have seen the error of many of these laws and rights, (I'm looking at you Prohibition..), but it doesn't change the fact that the basic laws and rights that we abide by were written in a time that has little to do with the world today.

It seems to me that any law today doesn't really matter anyway. There is ALWAYS some way around it. Lawyers and attorneys make their livings by finding ways to do this all the time.

Lawyer: Did you rob that bank?
Client: Yes I did.
Lawyer: OK. Let me work on this.


And who makes up our judicial system? 95%+ are lawyers and attorneys. So when you give Presidents or the powers that be the power to act without having a concrete reason to do so, you are just asking for trouble. This is where the issue of using drones for killing purposes comes in. I would suggest reading that thread to see why this came to mind.

[darvon]

IMHO there are 2 main problems with the US.

1) No new frontiers. The US benefited greatly in having many frontiers in the first 150 years. These geographic regions allowed legal and municipal experimentation. We need some new countries, built from new frontiers with new rules and systems. We are sorely lacking in new countries taking charge. Who is the new superpower? China. No spring chicken there....

2) No constitutional amendments. If you look at history, constitutional amendments are the "pressure release valve" of our legislative system. We usually have significant amendments in a cluster every 20 years or so. Here is the list and there PROPOSAL years.

(1-10)Bill of Rights 1789
11.Sovereign immunity 1794
12. Presidential election procedures 1803
13. Abolishes Slavery 1865
14. Due Process 1866
15. Suffrage for blacks 1869
16. Income tax 1909
17. Direct election of Senate 1912
18. Prohibition 1917
19. Womens suffrage. 1919
20. Lame Duck 1932
21. Repeals 18. 1933
22. Presidential Term Limits. 1947
23. DC in Elec College. 1960
24. Voting Rights. 1962
25. Presidential Succession. 1965
26. Vote at 18. 1971
27. Congressional salary period. 1789


As you can see every couple of decades we made some changes. Except the 60 years before The Civil War and the 40 years before NOW (and there are no amendments on the horizon).

The system for amendments got broken in the late 70s/early 80s and won't be fixed until SkyNet takes control.

[Bullajami]

I absolutely believe the Constitution (of which the Bill of Rights is part) is relevant today. I appreciate the fact that it was intentionally made difficult (but not impossible) to change. It still serves to contain the role and authority of government, preventing Presidents and Congresses from doing many stupid things they would love to do for political expediency. I wish it were even more constraining, but I'll take what I can get.

[the_hawk]

The fundamental problem - in the UK at least - is that lawyers essentially run the whole show in all branches of government (legislature, executive, judiciary). The idea that lawyers should be anything more than clueless in the non-judicial branches is a strange one to me.

[nsidestrate]

I have lately been reading a great deal about the Roman empire, especially the new research on the causes of the collapse of same. One observation the histories make frequently is that the lawyers were in charge of the laws and they used and misused and twisted the laws beyond recognition. Its not a new phenomenon.

[darvon]

I absolutely believe the Constitution (of which the Bill of Rights is part) is relevant today. I appreciate the fact that it was intentionally made difficult (but not impossible) to change. It still serves to contain the role and authority of government, preventing Presidents and Congresses from doing many stupid things they would love to do for political expediency. I wish it were even more constraining, but I'll take what I can get.

Oh I think it is now impossible to change. I don't think the Constitution is broken, just the Amendment process. Barring Alien Invasion. (and I am being serious, I think alien invasion could fix it)

But barring catastrophic motivating event and quick action, you won't be having any amendments anymore.

[Bullajami]

I'm not unhappy about that. The last amendment I recall being proposed was to have the Constitution define what a marriage is.

'Nuf said.

[darvon]

I am terribly unhappy with it.

I don't like it when the pressure release valve is broken. I think it either frustrates or disconnects the citizen.