World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[marurun]

I think when he speaks of the significance of the amendments, it's in terms of how much and dramatic the change is to the existing document, to the status quo. So there are amendments that are important but maybe not comparatively significant in terms of major shakeups.

[Sarge]

The Amendments were definitely major shakeups, but the foundation for them was laid by the original Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Slavery is the first that comes to mind. In a way, everyone is right on this one.

[MrPopo]

I'd argue that the Bill of Rights are amendments only by technicality.

[prfsnl_gmr]

the only truly significant changes resulted from the bloodiest war in our nation's history

Yes abolishing slavery was a pretty significant amendment.

However, I don't know about you, but I consider the right to free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to be immune to unwarranted search and seizure, the right to due process, and the right to a trial by jury, to all be seriously important amendments.

Also, giving women the right to vote, instituting a federal income tax, restricting presidential terms to two max, stopping people from suing states, stopping congress from giving themselves pay raises in the same term, making senators elected by the people and not state legislature... all very important amendments IMO.

Much of the way we live our lives today, the type of life we take for granted, is due to the malleability of the original constitution due to amendments. I cannot agree that the constitution hasn't had many significant changes. Nor can I agree it isn't subject to the possibility of further significant changes by amendment.

And that's why living under a constitutional republic doesn't mean as much to me. Not when the republic can vote to change that constitution as they see fit. So far thankfully, it has been mostly for the good of the people. Hopefully that will always be the case.

Popo is absolutely right. The Bill of Rights was passed so soon after the U.S Constitution was adopted that it is practically part of the same document. (In fact, the founders initially thought they were superfluous, but James Madison had the foresight to make some limits on federal power explicit.)

Also, from a jurisprudential standpoint, the most important amendment passed in the wake of the Civil War was the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Thirteenth Amendment. The Thirteenth Amendment's effects could have been accomplished via statute. (The same can be said of most of the other amendments, actually.) The Fourteenth Amendment, however, fundamentally altered the nation's political structure and applied the Bill of Rights' guarantees to the states. It's effect was so profound that we often overlook it today. (Many of us assume, for example, that state and local governments could not pass laws prohibiting speech. This was not the case until the Fourteenth Amendment's passage.). With regard to importance, no other amendment touches it. Nothing even comes close.

Finally, I think it is more than a little bit silly to worry that the U.S. Constitution will be amended in a way that limits the liberties already contained in it. (Honestly, I think we are more likely to be wiped out by a meteor, and that is nowhere near the top of my list of worries.). Amending the U.S. Constitution requires nearly unanimous popular support, and in the current political climate, I don't think that is possible. (If anything, the document isn't flexible enough.)

[Exhuminator]

The Bill of Rights was passed so soon after the U.S Constitution was adopted that it is practically part of the same document.

Just keep moving the goal posts bud.

[prfsnl_gmr]

The Bill of Rights was passed so soon after the U.S Constitution was adopted that it is practically part of the same document.

Just keep moving the goal posts bud.

There are no goalposts. Which amendment to the constitution is the "most important" is a completely subjective determination. (There are some weirdos out there that think the Tenth Amendment is the most important.)

In any event, I was just providing some historical context for the Bill of Rights passage, and I thought we were engaged in a conversation, not a debate...I mean, there's really no argument that the first ten amendments to the Constituion are, in fact, amendments. They are. If anything, we were debating whether the Constituion is an appropriately flexible document. Again, that is an entirely subjective determination. (You think it's too flexible. I think it isn't flexible enough. Neither of us are right or wrong.)

In light of the original purpose of our conversation, however, your statement that I somehow "moved the goalposts" is a little bit disingenuous.

[Exhuminator]

There are no goalposts.

I originally said the constitution was malleable due to amendments. You said the constitution has barely changed because most of its amendments were meaningless, or overridden by other amendments. You said only one amendment actually mattered. So that was the last goal post I shot for.

I countered that concept by providing multiple examples of constitutional amendments that greatly changed our society, and deeply altered the net effect of the original constitution. You then countered that reply, by saying some of those amendments weren't "real" amendments, because they came so soon after the original constitution. At that point you moved the goalpost yet again.

This little stupid tiff of ours, is just another example of no one changing the other's mind. Rather we're collectively pissing in the wind. It's best for me to abstain from this thread for now on. You guys have fun though, try not to hurt each other's feelings too much.

[ElkinFencer10]

I'd argue that the Bill of Rights are amendments only by technicality.

I know Jordan talked about this, but just to give a little extra evidence for this argument (I teach history; it's my job), I wanted to jump in right quick. As mentioned, Madison and the Federalists thought that a Bill of Rights wasn't needed as the Constitution, being given a functional judicial branch to prevent congressional or presidential overreach, provided its own protection without specifically listing rights; Madison saw a specific Bill of Rights as a truism more than something actually needed. The anti-federalists (I don't capitalize because, unlike the Federalists, they never formed a formal political party), still weary from the usurpations of the British crown (we were being drama queens about that, but that's a discussion for another time), insisted on some kind of basic and explicit protection for rights and refused to ratify the Constitution without one. Because of the extra time spent and additional debates that redrafting the Constitution would have caused, a compromise was reached; the anti-federalists would agree to ratify the Constitution as Madison had written it in exchange for the promise that a specific Bill of Rights would be added to it.

So as Popo said, the first 10 are technically amendments, but they were amendments that were agreed upon with the original Constitution itself. Think of them like a Day One patch for a game; they would have been part of the original product had the makers had their shit together.

[Exhuminator]

the first 10 are technically amendments

technically amendments

amendments

[marurun]

Ex, that is an asinine way to try to make a point and I think you know it. It's a way of saying "I'm right and I will burn the whole place down rather than be flexible." You are arguing to the letter and they are arguing to the spirit and context.