The US Constitution (not the ship)

[Nobody1]

Originally Posted by Estreeter

No, the only bears here are in zoo's or a circus maybe. But if I could, I'd eat it's arms

First, you need the right to arm bears.

Might be a pretty reasonable idea.

[LadyLuck]

I don't see anything in the US Constitution that is outdated or that needs to be changed. That's the beauty of the document. It was written in a brilliantly abstract fashion so that would be relevant as society and culture changed

[savage560]

It is so outdated that many laws, at least IMO must be modernized.After all,how could founding fathers have any idea of what could happen here when they made the laws, 200+ years ago?They were so errant ,even brilliant men like Jefferson, stated there was no way the boarders, from his correct envisioning of the US spanning from Atlantic coast to Pacific,could take less than 40 generations, to inhabit!Talk about being wrong!Come on now these guys were men, not gods, they could have no idea, as we will not, about the way things will be 200 years into the future.

Lets take on just the 14th amendment, you think any of the people involved with that, in 1868, envisioned women streaming across our boaders from Mexico, by the millions,unimpeded just to give birth to a baby here,so they could stay here because their child, born of them, illegal invaders, would be a citizen, by interpretation of that archaic interpretation, of that outdated law?An anchor baby,was that what the ratifiers could remotely envision?Or like we have here & what Canada recently changed their definition of ,a person born in their country,by Asian women,who were not Canadian citizens but those of China & other Asian nations, European ,whatever, hopping on jet planes 8+ months pregnant ,just to give birth to children on Canadian soil & proclaim their child was a Canadian citizen & they had the right to stay in Canada by that virtue.No they changed that law & so should we go back & either amend the archaic mindsets of the 18th & 19th century law makers,who's laws now are severely out of date with current implications.

[AmateurEmale]

I am going to take the chance that this is a semi-serious thread, from the first few posts about veganism vs. bear meat, to talk about immigration and territorial expansion.

I'd like to see the Constitution modified to address space exploration (like the Corps of Discovery in Jefferson's era, if we ever colonize the Moon or Mars) and also age discrimination. I also think that polygamy and gay marriage should be legal, as long as there is no spousal abuse.

[Faceman675]

Originally Posted by Estreeter

Make sure that

"The right too bear hamburgers" is an amendment

I have eaten buffalo (bison) burgers and turkey burgers but bear burgers? I am not so sure about that

[Faceman675]

Originally Posted by savage560

Lets take on just the 14th amendment, you think any of the people involved with that, in 1868, envisioned women streaming across our boaders from Mexico, by the millions,unimpeded just to give birth to a baby here,so they could stay here because their child, born of them, illegal invaders, would be a citizen, by interpretation of that archaic interpretation, of that outdated law?An anchor baby,was that what the ratifiers could remotely envision?Or like we have here & what Canada recently changed their definition of ,a person born in their country,by Asian women,who were not Canadian citizens but those of China & other Asian nations, European ,whatever, hopping on jet planes 8+ months pregnant ,just to give birth to children on Canadian soil & proclaim their child was a Canadian citizen & they had the right to stay in Canada by that virtue.No they changed that law & so should we go back & either amend the archaic mindsets of the 18th & 19th century law makers,who's laws now are severely out of date with current implications.

The 14th is not the best choice for an example:
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Many conservatives will argue that Sec 5 gives congress the authority to change birth right citizenship. Should we elect a republican president and keep control of both houses of congress there is a good chance that SCOTUS will get the chance to rule on it.

[Decadence]

Originally Posted by savage560

Lets take on just the 14th amendment, you think any of the people involved with that, in 1868, envisioned women streaming across our boaders from Mexico, by the millions,

The 14th amendment is interesting in that it doesn't cover what people think it does.

The official line is: the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to "make certain that the former slaves and the native Americans would be recognized as American citizens no matter what kind of prejudice there might be against them."

No mention of anchor babies, or anything to do with illegals. In fact, as you may surmise, the purpose of this was to protect, among others, native Americans.

Not so. In 1884, 16 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, John Elk, who - as you may have surmised by his name - was an Indian, had to go to the Supreme Court to argue that he was an American citizen because he was born in the United States.

He lost. In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not grant Indians citizenship. American Indians were not made citizens until 1924.

I really hate revisionist history.

[Rogerbh]

So how would you interpret section 1 of the 14th Amendment in terms of how it should apply to anchor babies?

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[cicciobuki]

Originally Posted by AmateurEmale

I also think that polygamy and gay marriage should be legal, as long as there is no spousal abuse.

Spousal abuse in polygamy can be alot of work

[ConstantOgler]

Originally Posted by Rogerbh

So how would you interpret section 1 of the 14th Amendment in terms of how it should apply to anchor babies?

The law is almost infinitely malleable if the necessary political and cultural pressure is brought to bear. The plain, unqualified first 20 words would seem to put citizenship of anchor babies beyond dispute. And if one cannot take such plain words at face value, where the eff are we?

But it's not hard at all to imagine a different political/social climate in which some familiar legal tropes are used to create an exception. The most important factor being the element of "subterfuge", people not going about "normal" business but arranging everything to take advantage of a provision or exception in a way not envisioned. I can see it now: those words were "never intended" to allow "aliens" to "subvert" their purpose by immigrating "merely" or even "temporarily" to give birth. "What the authors never foresaw or imagined cannot be allowed." [That is, if public opinion is outraged by the result.]

Does anyone doubt the fate of the 2nd Amendment is about politics and culture?

The conflict between plain language vs intent goes on all the time, liberals and conservatives switching their opportunistic "philosophies" case by case. Here is a conservative proposal to ditch antiquated words to deal with modern realities. Liberals horrified. Typically the shoe is on the other foot.

Originally Posted by LadyLuck

That's the beauty of the document. It was written in a brilliantly abstract fashion so that would be relevant as society and culture changed

There is nothing abstract about the first 20 words of the 14th Amendment. Or the 2nd.

But, they can mean whatever we want.