Bill of Rights as an entrenched clause

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Anyone else think it's time we make the Bill of Rights an entrenched clause?

This would entail amending the Constitution so that no part of the Bill of Rights can ever be repealed with a later amendment. Ever.

In addition to the Bill of Rights, I'd include the Civil War amendments too.

Making the Bill of Rights an entrenched clause would likely render the flag amendment pretty much useless even if it passed.

[nini2287]

Does that include the 2nd amendment?

[Nym90]

I would never support making any part of the Constitution forever permanent, immune to any and all modifications.

That being said, I would strongly oppose any and all modifications of the Bill of Rights or the Civil War amendments.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Does that include the 2nd amendment?

Yes.

[Nym90]

Does that include the 2nd amendment?

The Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments, so yes.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I would never support making any part of the Constitution forever permanent, immune to any and all modifications.

If we don't make it permanent, then sooner or later part of it's going to be erased with something like the flag amendment. The way things have headed in recent years, it's just a matter of time before that happens.

[nini2287]

I would never support making any part of the Constitution forever permanent, immune to any and all modifications.

If we don't make it permanent, then sooner or later part of it's going to be erased with something like the flag amendment. The way things have headed in recent years, it's just a matter of time before that happens.

While I strongly oppose both flag burning and the flag burning amendment-we have much bigger issues to worry about

[Nym90]

I would never support making any part of the Constitution forever permanent, immune to any and all modifications.

If we don't make it permanent, then sooner or later part of it's going to be erased with something like the flag amendment. The way things have headed in recent years, it's just a matter of time before that happens.

I'm not so sure that's true, but obviously it's impossible to say for sure. The flag amendment will be less likely to pass in the next Congress than in this one, as almost every closely contested Senate race (even the Democratic seats, like Minnesota and New Jersey) involves a race in which the incumbent supported the amendment.

I just don't support excluding a certain part of the constitution from modification. The right way to convince poeple of the importance of these amendments is through persuasion, not by forcibly stopping any and all opposition to them.

[adam]

As much as I would like the the 1st and second amendments to be permant, I still would like to get the 8th repealed. Thus, I can not say I support this.

[John Dibble]

I would never support making any part of the Constitution forever permanent, immune to any and all modifications.

If we don't make it permanent, then sooner or later part of it's going to be erased with something like the flag amendment. The way things have headed in recent years, it's just a matter of time before that happens.

While I strongly oppose both flag burning and the flag burning amendment-we have much bigger issues to worry about

Personally, the thing that worries me about the flag burning amendment is that we'll turn the Constitution into the Alabama Constitution - amending it willy nilly over every little issue that displeases us. Amending the constitution is something that should only happen for truly important issues.

[David S]

The biggest threat to the Bill of Rights is that government just ignores it.
George Bush allegedly said in disparaging terms that "the constitution is just a piece of paper." It rankles me that a president would have so little respect for the constitution, but in fact the constitution is just a piece of paper. It can only stand up if there are people who stand up for it. Unfortunately there aren't many who will.

[??????????]

For the Bill of Rights yes, but we should repeal the 14th Amendment.

[Sam Spade]

I would never support making any part of the Constitution forever permanent, immune to any and all modifications.

If we don't make it permanent, then sooner or later part of it's going to be erased with something like the flag amendment. The way things have headed in recent years, it's just a matter of time before that happens.

While I strongly oppose both flag burning and the flag burning amendment-we have much bigger issues to worry about

Personally, the thing that worries me about the flag burning amendment is that we'll turn the Constitution into the Alabama Constitution - amending it willy nilly over every little issue that displeases us. Amending the constitution is something that should only happen for truly important issues.

or the Texas Constitution.  We're at about 3,000 amendments and counting.  Of course, most lawmaking in the state requires a constitutional amendment, so it's not surprising.

[jerusalemcar5]

No for two reasons.

1)It would guard the right to murder (2nd amendment) *shudder*

2)The Consitution should always have the ability to change it what is necessary for a certain day and age.  Who knows what might happen in the future and one amendment might not make sense anymore.

[MaC]

No for two reasons.

1)It would guard the right to murder (2nd amendment) *shudder*

2)The Consitution should always have the ability to change it what is necessary for a certain day and age.  Who knows what might happen in the future and one amendment might not make sense anymore.

Yes, protecting freedom is a bad thing. 

[Emsworth]

Making the Bill of Rights an entrenched clause would likely render the flag amendment pretty much useless even if it passed.

It is possible to first repeal the amendment that entrenches the Bill of Rights, and then repeal the relevant part of the Bill of Rights itself.

[John Dibble]

1)It would guard the right to murder (2nd amendment) *shudder*

The right to bear arms is just that - the right to own a gun. It does not give you the right to do whatever the hell you like with the gun, so there is no right to murder.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Scrap the 8th amendment and actually enforce the 1st and 2nd.

[jerusalemcar5]

No for two reasons.

1)It would guard the right to murder (2nd amendment) *shudder*

2)The Consitution should always have the ability to change it what is necessary for a certain day and age.  Who knows what might happen in the future and one amendment might not make sense anymore.

Yes, protecting freedom is a bad thing. 

Protecting freedom is good.  I am just saying no one can foresee the furutre  and maybe no one will want the right to a jury trial because juries are inept and biased so we'll want to edit it.  Keep the consittution changeable is a necessity.

[MaC]

the 'living' constitution is means for corruption upon which those who wish to change it can change it to their likings-at the very least the Bill of Rights should be preserved as they cover basic freedoms and negative rights better than the latter amendements do.

For example-yes, individuals in juries are always apt to have personal bias.  That doesn't mean one should not be given right to a trial.  It's like saying well, I didn't read enough of the book before the test, therefore I'd be better off not taking the test and getting a 0% on it.

[jerusalemcar5]

the 'living' constitution is means for corruption upon which those who wish to change it can change it to their likings-at the very least the Bill of Rights should be preserved as they cover basic freedoms and negative rights better than the latter amendements do.

For example-yes, individuals in juries are always apt to have personal bias.  That doesn't mean one should not be given right to a trial.  It's like saying well, I didn't read enough of the book before the test, therefore I'd be better off not taking the test and getting a 0% on it.

There are safety precautions against corruption such as 3/4 of the states.

And that analogy is one of the worst i have ever heard.  It has nothing to do with a trial by jury, i don't even see the parallels.  I was just using that amendment as one example that maybe in the future if we get uber lie detectors or sometihng that can judge perfectly we won't want defendent skirting around it by choosing a jury.

[Emsworth]

And that analogy is one of the worst i have ever heard.  It has nothing to do with a trial by jury, i don't even see the parallels.  I was just using that amendment as one example that maybe in the future if we get uber lie detectors or sometihng that can judge perfectly we won't want defendent skirting around it by choosing a jury.

Determining the truth is not the jury's sole function. Another function--perhaps the most important one--is acting as a check on the government. When the government passes a tyrannical or oppressive law, a jury will sometimes acquit the defendant even though he is clearly guilty. (The trial of John Peter Zenger is a famous historical example.)

[MODU]

No.

[jerusalemcar5]

And that analogy is one of the worst i have ever heard.  It has nothing to do with a trial by jury, i don't even see the parallels.  I was just using that amendment as one example that maybe in the future if we get uber lie detectors or sometihng that can judge perfectly we won't want defendent skirting around it by choosing a jury.

Determining the truth is not the jury's sole function. Another function--perhaps the most important one--is acting as a check on the government. When the government passes a tyrannical or oppressive law, a jury will sometimes acquit the defendant even though he is clearly guilty. (The trial of John Peter Zenger is a famous historical example.)

No, he was innocent.  There was no libel involved, and the jury agreed.  And mostly the judges handle oppressive laws.

[Emsworth]

No, he was innocent.  There was no libel involved, and the jury agreed.

According to the judge (the trier of law), there was libel involved. Thus, if a "truth machine" of some sort were responsible for determining the outcome of the trial, Zenger would have been found guilty, as he undoubtedly published the material in question.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The judges, it will be observed, are a part of the government. They are neither less corruptible nor more honest than anyone else in power.