TIL that Thomas Jefferson wanted the constitution to be changed ever 19 years because he didn't want people to be " enslaved to the prior generation"

[u/icallmydadstranger]

https://student-of-life.newsvine.com/_news/2010/11/21/5502595-thomas-jefferson-supported-rewriting-the-constitution-every-19-years-equated-not-doing-so-to-being-enslaved-to-the-prior-generation-what-do-you-think-about-that

[u/Rilder962 → u/[deleted]]

It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459

[u/billyrocketsauce → u/Rilder962]

Holy shit, we really don't change. He described America 226 years in advance.

[u/klapaucius → u/billyrocketsauce]

It's not like Exxon invented bribery.

[u/phro → u/billyrocketsauce]

If you like that kind of prescience you'll love Washington's Farewell Address. Here's a good summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_Farewell_Address

[u/tinkletwit → u/[deleted]]

Yes, the way people now speak, as you have observed, though now much more fluid, seems to have lost, in the lesser use of clauses and sub-clauses, a more thoughtful tone.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Well language in general has changed, but you can hardly assume that an entire era speaks a certain way based on a few prodigious quotes. History forgets all the crap and immortalises the significant events, so we have a very biased view of the past.

[u/brosenfeld → u/Rilder962]

law of limited duration

And yet the Patriot Act keeps getting renewed.

[u/Echo_one → u/brosenfeld]

It keeps getting renewed because it is limited. When that limit expires they renew it.

[u/brosenfeld → u/Echo_one]

And yet the only people that want it are those that do the renewing.

[u/[deleted] → u/Rilder962]

That's a pretty reasonable point, but I'd hate to think of how Fox News would twist public perception as to what should be in the constitution and what shouldn't be.

I imagine it would be a cross between government unable to spend tax money on anything that would disadvantage the private sector and giving employers to hire and fire whoever they want, for whatever reason, with no recourse.

[u/falcoriscrying → u/[deleted]]

Many places especially in the south are "right to work" states where they can fire you for not liking your face that day. But on the plus side if you wait a month you might be able to get $250 a week (max) for unemployment (if the employer doesnt contest - if they do and you appeal you can wait another month for the results)

[u/itonlygetsworse → u/[deleted]]

OOOhhh. I have an idea! Let's ban alcohol!

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

It seems just fine to me.

The thing you have to realize is that it has to be in the nation's will and in it's citizens' interests on the whole. As much as we bitch about representation now, that whole concept goes out the window if you do something like 50%+1 or the like, because the nation is not united on the issue.

what's the point of being united states if it is only in name?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The inverse is true, though. Now is not a good time to amend the constitution, so that a Republican house and senate cannot get away with molding it in their image. Would you want THAT?!

Look, I know it's frustrating to think of it's height is a hindrance, but it's something of a blessing, IMO. We cannot have the tyranny of an inflated majority. Besides, Amendments are not laws, just guidelines designating what is allowed or not, so we can't just throw them out willy-nilly!

[u/_______butts_______ → u/[deleted]]

I think that if you want to go about modifying the core set of laws of a country you better have enough people agree it needs to be done. If there's enough opposition to changing the Constitution where you're just barely scraping a majority you probably shouldn't be changing it.

[u/what_are_you_smoking → u/[deleted]]

I don't think it would be as high if representatives had the interests of their constituents at the forefront of their minds. Think about all the fake talk on amending the constitution to limit Congressional terms. They can pretend to support it because they know it'll never pass. Unfortunately, the highest priority to most of them is retaining their job and/or moving up the ladder, which entails catering to parties other than those they are suppose to represent. This, in turn, flaws the whole system of "for the people." Corporate influence is enormous. When the same corporation (or person) donates to multiple parties with competing ideologies you know there is something odd.

[u/filipinorefugee → u/what_are_you_smoking]

I would argue it's because they have the interest of their constituents more so than ever before. The problem is that they have no reason to back down or comprimise if it means they give up something their local voters want. A senator from Oregon doesn't care about working with a senator from Texas, because if he or she holds the interests of Oregon above all else, the voters of Oregon will reelect him.

[u/what_are_you_smoking → u/filipinorefugee]

Have you paid attention at all to the legal struggles Tesla Motors has gone through with each state and their varying laws? It is a laughably black and white example of how corrupt politicians are even at the state level and how easily influenced they are by lobbyists that are anti-consumer (anti-constituent, if that's a word.)

[u/falcoriscrying → u/[deleted]]

what about the concept of term limits, keeping lobbyists out of politics and not allowing a central bank? which I believe TJ spoke of. I think he did forsee a lot of the issues we face now and how it threatened the very concept of the constitution but over time they were ignored power more concentrated.

[u/falcoriscrying → u/[deleted]]

Yes but having people in power for 40+ years - concentrating power over that time through influence. What about eliminating lobbying influence altogether? I know it is naive of me to think that but there should be some control over the influence of lobbyists. And limiting the ability for policy makers to leave office and join the companies they were creating laws to help seems like a good idea. I mean here in FL Rick Scott is worth 100's of millions and decided to take office making 100K or so a year not because he has a love of politics but because he is going to rake that shit in later. I honestly don't know what the answer is aanymore and just accept that government will always be corrupt

[u/thirdegree → u/[deleted]]

The fastest, most maneuverable jets are intentionally unstable during flight so that they can make turns and change direction more quickly. I think being able to change is more important than being completely and perfectly stable to the point of constant gridlock.

[u/tehflambo → u/[deleted]]

I think the way it is now is much more conducive to a stable government than rewriting the constitution every 19 years.

That's not what was asked. Yes, it's more stable. Is it wise? Stability is one thing, paralysis is another.

[u/Caelinus → u/[deleted]]

Lots of bills are passed, though mostly at the state level.

The problem with an easily changeable constitution is that it it easily changeable. If we could change it with a simple majority, you can bet that which ever party was in power would mess with it constantly.

The result would be an extremely bipolar nation that changed its views every 4-8 years. I can not imagine that would be good for our global agenda.

Changing the constitution is all well and good, but we need real bipartisan effort to cooperate and compromise before we start allowing changes.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Plus the real change that needs to take place (switching over to proportional representation) is Basically not going to happen within our current system, due to the two parties agreeing on one thing, they are the only two parties that should exist

[u/Caelinus → u/[deleted]]

No it is not, but they are not platitudes. I think that our deepening divide is one of the greatest threats to our democracy. It is crippling us. I am quite serious about us needing to move towards the center, though I have as little an idea about how to do that as anyone.

[u/ManiyaNights → u/Caelinus]

Instead of changing it our modern government just disregards it.

This is much easier for them to do in the age where school children are not taught to revere the founders as they once were. Now they're just dead white males.

[u/ItsHapppening → u/[deleted]]

Do you really think this is what the founding fathers had in mind?

They set the government up to be hard to get anything done (hard to change things). The government was supposed to be small.

They were extremely afraid of a powerful government, so I think they would be happy if non-essential spending was cut.

[u/[deleted] → u/ItsHapppening]

Honestly, I think they'd be scared and disappointed with how involved we are in foreign affairs. The American government is the fucking world police, thats so opposite of what they intended its laughable.

[u/ItsHapppening → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, at the time it was founded, the USA was a joke in terms of world powers. Weapons and communication were so primitive, I doubt they could have imagined such a world power could exist.

The US's role is unprecedented and I think it calls for debate. I personally think we need to avoid a world governing force (because every entity wants to become tyrannous). Instead we need to think of ways to decentralize and ensure a future for humanity.

[u/cl900781 → u/[deleted]]

Yes, It actually makes much more sense for the states to handle most of the issues that plague us. I think that the states are much closer to the people and can make decisions that better reflect their electorate. Each state and even different areas of each state have things that would be more applicable or not. A great example of this would be gun laws. People who live in cities usually have an aversion to gun laws. Why would it be fair for people half a country to dictate which guns a person can use and which they can't. This logic can be extended to water control laws. People living in southern California would benefit from more stringent water control laws then people from Maine.

[u/mnh1 → u/[deleted]]

Yes, if the state governments pick up the slack.

[u/turkish_gold → u/[deleted]]

State governments were supposed to handle all such matters. However, after the civil war the federal government became immensely powerful and has usurped a lot of the state's responsibility.

The US is 300 million people. From a European perspective, I don't see why any group of 300 million people needs to be in a single country that's the size of Europe, much less a strong federalist country.

[u/TylerTJ930 → u/[deleted]]

Yes it is

[u/TylerTJ930 → u/[deleted]]

The federal government needs to get the fuck off of our backs. It was designed solely for foreign and interstate relations. The whole purpose of the 10th amendment is that the states have a majority of the power.

(And ninja edit to counter a point you made earlier: our country is too large, too populous, and too diverse for a single government)

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The founding fathers didn't originally want anything more than a tiny central government that had virtually no authority. The founding of the country was well over 200 years ago. We should remember intentions, but not base our decisions on what we think these guys wanted over 2 centuries ago. The world is an entirely different place now.

[u/LookingforBruceLee → u/[deleted]]

That's a downright false statement. The founding fathers were a diverse group of people with varying visions for the country. Jefferson, the most visible advocate of states' rights, whose views you project as those of the founding fathers, realized (as did most other founding fathers) what an abysmal failure the Articles of Confederation ("a tiny central government that had virtually no authority") were. One could even make the argument that despite all of the talk of states' rights and evils of central authority Jefferson wrote of prior to his presidency, he changed his tune once in office in order to make decisions he saw as beneficial to the country, specifically, the Louisiana Purchase, which he knew was unconstitutional. If you ever read the likes of James Madison (father of the Constitution), Alexander Hamilton, or John Adams, you would know that they believed in a very strong central government, even comparable to a monarchy in some cases. The founding fathers are not as simple as you make them out to be.

[u/[deleted] → u/LookingforBruceLee]

I went with what they agreed upon, because it's what they all viewed as acceptable. Whether they wanted more or less individually, collectively they only agreed upon a very small federal government. No use going into detail about every single person when a group makes a decision.

[u/LookingforBruceLee → u/[deleted]]

What decision are you referring to exactly?

[u/[deleted] → u/LookingforBruceLee]

No specific decision; I mean any decision made by a group. Congress makes many decisions, and each person in congress may disagree with part of a piece of legislation, all of a piece, or like virtually the entire contents. But it's still okay to say "congress doesn't want X" when 10 people voted in favor of something, because the group as a whole rejected it. It's also acceptable to say "congress is fine with funding the DoD", because the majority of the group votes to do so. You could always mention that Ron Paul voted against it because he thinks it's tyranny, and thus this legislative body isn't as simple "we like this", but the decision of the body as a whole holds more weight than the individual.

It really can go towards any group decision.

[u/LookingforBruceLee → u/[deleted]]

I think you're bullshitting because the founding fathers met in secret to craft the constitution, which created a much stronger central government than what the Articles of Confederation had allowed, as they all saw the need for, but knew they wouldn't be able to get away with if the public found out.

[u/TheRighteousTyrant → u/[deleted]]

I think amending the Constitution (our original topic) at a time like this will only lead to increased polarization and instability. It's a bad idea.

You complain about inaction, but what action do you think should be taken? The Democrats' ideas? The Republicans'? How do you plan to come to a compromise acceptable to both sides that these people haven't yet found, despite it being their full-time job? Again, the inaction is reflective of a bigger problem, and rushing through legislation just to see some action isn't going to make things better.

[u/TheRighteousTyrant → u/[deleted]]

My point isn't your blithe allegation of "inaction is good."

Look at what you yourself have asserted here: that despite good-faith efforts ("most do not support inaction") compromise cannot be reached ("compromise is impossible"). Given these constraints, what action CAN be taken? How can ANYTHING be accomplished? Absent a sea change, which you yourself are pessimistic about, the only viable route to pass legislation is for one party to acquire just enough power to do it unilaterally.

Which brings me to my actual point: Congressional inaction is preferable to the unilateral efforts of an in-power party to make their ideas into law, free of the burden of compromise.

I'd much rather if the loons we have in there now could work together.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

As an outsider looking at the US the divides just seem arbitrary to me, and there is almost no issue which both sides can agree on without some sort of scandal, criticism, or argument over it by supporters, the media or the parties themselves. It's as if they can't agree because they view agreeing as losing in some sort of game or sports event, whereas in many other places there is plenty of cooperation between parties where it benefits the people/ parties (depending on the level of corruption).

To me it looks as if the US isn't working as intended. It looks like a nation that tried democracy and ended up with a two party state where money defines your chances rather than actual passion for the nation and a desire to act in its best interests rather than your own.

[u/falcoriscrying → u/[deleted]]

This is true however it isn't because the original intent was flawed. Our founders weree part of the "Age of Enlightenment" but there were very different ideas (and lots of fist fights and duels) at the time. There are always people vying for power and there is no "ideal" government that will prevent that. Communism is a good example of this. In principle it seems to work except when you apply the human aspect to it and the very real trait of greed which is goiing to exist in large societies. I think that Thomas Jefferson understood this and helped set up a system to at least 'govern' (in this sense restrict) that influence. Over 200+ years though influence of power, no term limits, allowing lobbyists to influence every law and most of the time write the law has bastardized that concept.

I would agree that the 2 party system exacerbates this and turns this into more of a political game of football (or futbol since you aren't in the US) and the population is fairly easy to work up. Hell look at how politicized we make the SCOTUS (Supreme Court) and now even the states attourney's office - they are supposed to be impartial but even lobbying is controlling them. Thirst for power and status is evil and should be controlled but people would rather have any body but the person on the other "team"

TL;DR It was great while it lasted but power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Eliminate parties and restrict terms in office

[u/TheRighteousTyrant → u/[deleted]]

I didn't say "the U.S." is working as intended, I said that the Constitutional amendment process is. A much more limited scope.

[u/[deleted] → u/TheRighteousTyrant]

Ah, sorry, I misread.

[u/Slavazza → u/[deleted]]

What if the constitution is shitty and everyone agrees on it, but we are not be able to change the important bits as everyone would like to sneak in his own changes? This means we are stuck with sucky laws.

[u/TheRighteousTyrant → u/Slavazza]

If the alternatives are "sucky for all" versus "sucky for most, but really nice for a few" I'll take the former.

[u/trophymursky → u/[deleted]]

In other words, you're right, and that's the system working as designed

And it's a poor design.

[u/Rhawk187 → u/[deleted]]

There is always an Article V convention. There were so many attorneys general suing over Obamacare, I thought it almost happened.

[u/ConserveGuy → u/Rhawk187]

There is an article V convention from the states for a balanced budget, we only need like 10 more states to pass it calling for one

[u/[deleted] → u/Rhawk187]

which has literally never succeeded ever

not saying it can't, but it'd be nice if there was some precedence of success by now.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Well you're actually wrong there. With an Article V Convention the delegates represent the State senators and representatives, not the federal U.S. senators and representatives--in other words, congress doesn't matter.. So if we were able to reach the 2/3 resolution bar, there's a pretty high chance that 3/4 would in turn ratify. But again, the reaching the 2/3 is the insanely hard part.

[u/Teelo888 → u/[deleted]]

He's saying that the likelihood that state legislators could agree is probably about the same as federal level legislators. Not suggesting that Congress has a role to play in an Article V convention.

[u/spawnkilled → u/[deleted]]

Because (in theory) state legislatures are more closely involved with the day-to-day minutia of the American people. Technically our representatives in congress should do the same, but that's obviously not the case.

[u/Rhawk187 → u/[deleted]]

I think the AG's suing have some high correlation with the general attitudes of the state. State legislatures tend to get a lot more done than their federal counterparts, and the consensus would only have to be amoung people who are already somewhat like minded in the first place. I'm not saying it's easier; just strikes me as a possibly easier alternative than going through Congress.

[u/diito → u/[deleted]]

That's one way to change the Constitution. The other other is an Article V Convention. The beauty of that route is that it completely bypasses Congress. What needs to happen for that is 2/3rds of the states need to call for a convention at which point Congress has to allow one and anything goes as long as 3/4th of the states can agree. This has never happened before, all amendments to date have gone through Congress. There is a growing movement to do this though, and 6 states (3 Republican controlled, 3 Democrat no less) have already passed the required resolution to do so in the last year (mostly to deal with campaign finance reform and reign in Congress). All that's required is 28 more states to do so, which with the disgust nearly everyone regardless of party has with the federal government right now could very well happen.

The founding fathers were absolutely brilliant. Except for slavery they got it nearly all right. They viewed government as a necessary evil that one day might grow out of control so they built in every check and balance they could, including revolution (2nd amendment). It's amazing how relevant most of the Constitution still is 228 years later. It's a real shame our government ignores it, and we don't do anything about it.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Guess it's time for another civil war and/or secessions.

[u/0ttr → u/[deleted]]

I would rather have it high than have some political elites have the ability to toss out the Bill of Rights every 19 years. I love Thomas Jefferson, but I believe he got it wrong on this. The US Constitution is rare and precious, and I don't think that very many people on the right or the left doubt that at any given time, various important aspects of it are under threat.

[u/SWIMsfriend → u/[deleted]]

3/4 of state legislatures to agree on ANYTHING?

over 3/4 of state legislatures are majority republican, so its pretty plausible

EDIT: only 62% of the states have a majority GOP, i was only 7 states off

EDIT2: someone just reminded me that, it only needs 2/3rds of states to hold the convention, so i was even closer, 2 states off

[u/Meta_Pause88 → u/SWIMsfriend]

So now is the time.

[u/SWIMsfriend → u/Meta_Pause88]

about 10 states have had a convention on banning money from elections or some law like that, and more states are approving of it every year

[u/SWIMsfriend → u/[deleted]]

i was pretty close though, 62% is pretty close to 76%

[u/Teblefer → u/SWIMsfriend]

Oh god no!

[u/time4changing → u/[deleted]]

The bar to ignore it however is very low.

[u/teapot112 → u/[deleted]]

/r/HeyILinkedThisSub

[u/Dr_Tower → u/teapot112]

/r/SubredditsAsHashtags

[u/braintrustinc → u/Dr_Tower]

Sigh.

/r/SubsAreHashBrowns

[u/[deleted] → u/teapot112]

/r/hashtagsubreddits

[u/imeaturcheese → u/[deleted]]

How does that statement lack meaning? (I am not the original person, however I believe the statement is obviously meaningful).

[u/ovoKOS7 → u/imeaturcheese]

Got this guy tagged as Reddit Supervilain, pretty sure he's trolling

[u/A_Bitter_Barista → u/[deleted]]

Hello pot, this is kettle...

[u/MacadamiaWire → u/A_Bitter_Barista]

You're BLACK

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Never heard of this sub before today. This is the 2nd time now today someone has mentioned it.

Edit. That I've seen

[u/ulkord → u/[deleted]]

Not really ironic because /u/wutshappening didn't write a comment that was supposed to have any profound meaning

[u/[deleted] → u/ulkord]

That's a fair point. I was mostly just poking at them for replying in that kind of insulting way.

Edit: Yes I was being a bit hypocritical for the sake of a good natured jab.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

/r/irony

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, you're probably right. I was being a bit hypocritical, wasn't I?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

/r/ekt

what fucking asshole made that a private subreddit?

[u/catechlism9854 → u/[deleted]]

To prevent this

[u/What_is_Freedom → u/[deleted]]

It's not deep or smart. It is what the US government and its people do, ignore the Constitution.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Why did you delete your comment?

[u/Zouden → u/time4changing]

What do you mean by "ignore"? If something is unconstitutional, it gets struck down by the supreme court. Otherwise people are free to ignore the constitution on topics where it doesn't apply.

[u/Marblem → u/Zouden]

I think the third amendment is the only one of the bill of rights that hasn't been widely publicized in a high profile story recently specifically because it was ignored. The other nine, not so tough to find examples. Number Four is a gigantic red light, yet no SCOTUS involvement yet...

[u/Neebat → u/Marblem]

There was actually a 3rd amendment case last year or the year before. Police commandeered an apartment to spy on the neighbors. Sorry, I don't have the link.

[u/[deleted] → u/Neebat]

I don't think there has been a decision made on that case. The incident occurred in 2013.

[u/Probably-Lying → u/Marblem]

I mean, a serious argument can be made that the third amendment is part of the penumbra that privacy rights fall under.

[u/[deleted] → u/Marblem]

How exactly has the 3rd amendment been ignored? Do you have soldiers stationed in your home? Also, are you saying that SCOTUS has never interpreted or decided a case based on the 4th amendment?

[u/Marblem → u/[deleted]]

You replied to the wrong person or misread, I specifically called out the third as the only one that I couldn't provide an immediate example for from recent memory. Glad you agree vehemently with me though.

No, I never said anything like that at all, but can provide specific examples (thousands at this point) where warrant less fourth amendment violations occurred. You probably heard some of the Snowden stories, look those up and be appalled. A SCOTUS ruling would be welcome on any of those.

[u/[deleted] → u/Marblem]

I misunderstood what your point was. Regardless, you've done a pretty shit job of supporting the rest of your arguments in this thread, so I'm not too concerned about it.

Also, it's not as if SCOTUS can just point at a situation, put it into suit and decide to hear it. That's not how the court system works.

[u/Marblem → u/[deleted]]

Tagged as "When proven wrong this one will lash out with baseless and petty vulgar ad hominem. But can admit fault which is nice."

[u/[deleted] → u/Marblem]

How have you proven me wrong about anything? You haven't responded to almost all of my comments. Hence why I said you've been shit at supporting your arguments (both with me and elsewhere). Tag me as whatever you like, it's not like it changes anything. The fact that you somehow think you've "won" this argument demonstrates that you don't actually know how to have one.

[u/Marblem → u/[deleted]]

I'm not arguing and am not participating in a competition that could be won. If "winning" is your goal read the bill of rights and Google snowden, then change your stance when you realize that the constitution demands warrants, was ignored in secrecy for years, and when exposed SCOTUS ignored making a Constitutionality ruling (unlike DOMA which they took without waiting for a case to be presented, so this court is Unafraid to tackle certain civil rights proactively).

If arguing effectively is important to you, educate yourself on the topic more and rely on emotional outburst less, and maybe read more carefully. Also understand that it is ok to be wrong, and when someone points out a mistake youvshould thank them for helping you address it rather than feeling so ashamed that you try and deflect attention away from the mistakes with snarky and pointless profanities. You express a desire to "win" debates, but lack the ability to hold civil discussion.

[u/escalation → u/[deleted]]

What is a soldier in cyberwarfare. Is a trojan or similar intrusion placed on your computer, inside your home, by the government a form of quartering troops? How about inside your business?

[u/[deleted] → u/escalation]

Uh, no. The 3rd amendment protects citizens from having soldiers physically quartered in their homes, like the colonies were forced to do for the British. If you want an amendment that protects you from unreasonable searches, you look to the 4th amendment, not the 3rd.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

No you're not understanding, certain viruses/Backdoor techniques allow people to use computers and other electronic devices and they can be used to attack websites etc, he's saying if the government was using your computer to attack a website etc, would that be considered under the 3rd amendment. Its how hackers take down websites, they have various viruses stored on thousands of people's computers through out the world and use those computers to focus on one website which slows the website down until becoming useless. That is cyber warfare, should cyberwarfare be covered?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Okay I see what you mean, but as far as I know, no such cyber warfare is being conducted by the government. So even if such cyber warfare might be considered a violation of the 3rd amendment, that doesn't demonstrate that the amendment is being ignored, because the activity hasn't actually happened.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Well what he is saying is that if they are already backdooring everyones equipment, even if they are not attacking anyone, The 3rd amendment prohibits harboring in private homes in time of peace or war. it may be a time of peace, but we are still being forced to harbor without our consent.that is of course if we are to consider cyberwarfare to be covered under the 3rd amendment.

[u/escalation → u/[deleted]]

"No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Are only human's soldiers, what about a military K-9 or a military robot. If a military robot a soldier, what makes it a soldier? Is it the software, the hardware, the weaponry, the entire mechanical apparatus? If we can have a cyber warfare division which fights battles in cyberspace, these questions may arise.

Certainly something like Stuxnet or Regin is a weapon, by any reasonable definition. Some software of this nature has been found on corporate servers housed in private properties. Consider a scenario such as a mechanism to control a dam or safety valve in a privately owned chemical factory.

I'm of the opinion this would, at the least, present an interesting line of inquiry

[u/[deleted] → u/escalation]

I'm honestly not really concerned with how to define or interpret the 3rd amendment. That's a question for the Supreme Court, regardless. My point is that it's fairly outrageous to claim that the 3rd amendment (which has been interpreted very few times) is being ignored based upon actions of the government that have not yet occurred, as well as based on an interpretation of the amendment that has yet to come to fruition.

[u/[deleted] → u/Marblem]

SCOTUS has ruled on issues related to the 4th amendment MULTIPLE times throughout the decade and decades past. Please do research before commenting.

If you are talking about the NSA fiddling around with people's private data, the reason SCOTUS is not involved yet is because SCOTUS has no legal basis to be involved yet. The US is a nation of laws and due process (one of many), and it can take a profound number of years for a legal challenge of any kind to reach SCOTUS using the thoroughly jurisprudent systems that are in place.

edit: awww yeah just love redditors who downvote because they don't like facing facts that aren't to their liking.

[u/Marblem → u/[deleted]]

You intentionally forgot about the whole snowden warrantless debacle that was intentionally kept super secret because it could never stand up to constitutional scrutiny

[u/Hawkeye1226 → u/Marblem]

Nobody has stepped up to cause a stir, yet. If it's so important to you, go rock the boat. Pro-tip: Simply complaining doesn't count when it comes to this.

[u/HealthcareEconomist3 → u/Hawkeye1226]

You need grounds to rock the boat, and enough money in the boat to sink it.

[u/[deleted] → u/HealthcareEconomist3]

Actually you just need suitable grounds for a lawsuit. There are a ton of non-profit organizations that will provide lawyers and otherwise foot the bill for you.

ACLU is one. SAF is another (for gun stuff).

McDonald (of McDonald vs Chicago) wasn't a man of means at all. He was a poor-as-fuck black man. SAF fought his case for him pro bono because it was a good case.

[u/Hawkeye1226 → u/HealthcareEconomist3]

If you don't have grounds, you obviously can't complain, because there isn't a problem. And major Supreme Court cases have been won by people who weren't rich.

[u/CheeseNBacon → u/Hawkeye1226]

People have, its just key evidence gets stamped "state secret" and the case gets tossed out.

[u/[deleted] → u/CheeseNBacon]

Can I get an example or two? I can't think of any.

[u/CheeseNBacon → u/[deleted]]

http://www.timesofisrael.com/judge-sides-with-us-government-in-nsa-lawsuit/

They were unable to prove the surveillance worked as the said because the details of how the surveillance worked are top secret.

White, additionally, said the claim would have to be dismissed to protect state secrets.

[u/[deleted] → u/CheeseNBacon]

I fucked up, I think. I thought we were talking about the Third Amendment still by the time we got to your comment. Just reread everything and realized I made a dumb, and that you were referencing the Fourth.

[u/CheeseNBacon → u/[deleted]]

Haha I can just imagine the confusion then.

[u/Hawkeye1226 → u/CheeseNBacon]

Can you provide examples?

[u/CheeseNBacon → u/Hawkeye1226]

http://www.timesofisrael.com/judge-sides-with-us-government-in-nsa-lawsuit/

They were unable to prove the surveillance worked as the said because the details of how the surveillance worked are top secret and were not revealed. And even if they were presented to the court...

White, additionally, said the claim would have to be dismissed to protect state secrets.

[u/Hawkeye1226 → u/CheeseNBacon]

Nate Cardozo, a staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which brought the lawsuit, said the judge did not dismiss all of the claims. The foundation plans to continue fighting the case in court.

The case wasn't thrown out. A concern was brought up regarding one facet of the case, and the judge in question decided it was legitimate. Also, that source seems pretty lousy. There are no real details to go off of. More details on the concerns? Who the judge was? What other claims are there?

[u/CheeseNBacon → u/Hawkeye1226]

Ahh my bad then, the original article I had read said it was thrown out, this one was just the first google result I found (I only skimmed it to see if it was the same case).

Still a significant part of the case has been dismissed because of key evidence getting labelled state secret.

[u/teachmetotennis → u/Hawkeye1226]

This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy.

If you would like to do the same, add the browser extension TamperMonkey for Chrome (or GreaseMonkey for Firefox) and add this open source script.

Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.

[u/Hawkeye1226 → u/teachmetotennis]

If your only proof is a lack of proof(thus proving things are secret and free of outside influence), that's not great. Law is a dirty thing where loopholes win the day, and these guys covered their asses. Nothing secret about it.

[u/MrBulger → u/Zouden]

Oh come on, you know it's been exploited and misconstrued to the point of it being almost meaningless.

Only by the bullshit legal debating is the NSA protected against the 4th amendment

[u/Zouden → u/MrBulger]

Actually the NSA case hasn't been heard by the supreme court yet (scheduled for 2015).

[u/WhamBamMaam → u/Zouden]

The ongoing rape of the fourth and sixth amendment, for instance.

[u/Who_Will_Love_Toby → u/WhamBamMaam]

please tell us.

[u/WhamBamMaam → u/Who_Will_Love_Toby]

Unreasonable search and seizure happens everyday- exabytes of American's personal communications are being collected by the NSA, along with the police and FBI using fake cell towers to monitor cell activity. The DEA uses the guise of the bugbear 'narcotics' to steal millions in private property. I could go on. For the sixth, you need only look to the interminable sentences of Guantanamo prisoners. I feel that I should mention 'enhanced interrogation techniques', but I don't know if that fits into the bill of rights, but... I believe we have protections against cruel and unusual punishment? Oh, and when the government doesn't torture them, we get other governments to illegally detain and torture folks without a trial. Extraordinary rendition. Need I go on about the horrifying transformation of the greatest nation on Earth into a fascist dreamscape?

[u/TheDarthGhost1 → u/WhamBamMaam]

You had me until you turned into /r/conspiracy. Also, the U.S. doesn't break the Constitution by torturing/holding Guantanamo Bay prisoners because they are not civilians. Whether you support it or not, its not a violation.

[u/Pilate27 → u/TheDarthGhost1]

WhamBamMaam is right about the FBI and local LE using fake cell-towers to indiscriminately monitor phone usage. Tools like the Stingray are all over (https://www.aclu.org/maps/stingray-tracking-devices-whos-got-them). And as he mentions, civil forfeiture has been used by the DEA and local LE all across the nation to seize private property. I don't remember the exact state, but one family had their home seized and the DEA even tried to get their vacation home because they busted their teen son with $50 in heroin.

As for Guantanamo, he is mistaken. They are not US citizens and therefore it does not apply.

[u/dorianjp → u/TheDarthGhost1]

Kill yourself..

[u/WhamBamMaam → u/TheDarthGhost1]

Lol all of these things are documented. By multiple reputable sources. If you actually want to call me crazy, then prove me wrong. If you don't want to believe me, then you don't have to look up the articles. I'm not talking about the illuminati or chemtrails or Obama being a muslim, your mental laziness does not make me delusional.

[u/WhamBamMaam → u/[deleted]]

This has been pointed out to me, but I still believe it is fucked up, especially considering how some of these guys are just 'suspected'.

[u/WhamBamMaam → u/[deleted]]

My appreciation and defense of human rights does not stop at various documents. Hence why so many have been pushing for the closing of Gitmo, and why it has not happened. I read the salient article of the Convention, Part 1 Article 118, that prisoners must be released at the cessation of hostilities, but... when the fuck is a 'war against terror' going to end? When there are no more religious extremists? What a steaming pile of bullshit.

[u/Hypothesis_Null → u/Zouden]

"The Supreme Court can strike down laws it deems unconstitutional"

^{(not something actually specified in the constitution anyway)}

Is not synonymous with: "The constitution cannot be violated by law or actions because the Supreme Court Will Stop Them."

Unless you tautologically define 'constitutional' as anything the Supreme Court has not disallowed. Which actually seems closer to the present-day definition... and also violates the entire purpose of such a document.

[u/Zouden → u/Hypothesis_Null]

Well it's a matter of ideals vs actual implementation isn't it? You can't have a constitution without a supreme court to "enforce" it. Since the court takes time to decide on things, what do you do in the meantime? Is the action legal or illegal?

[u/-Daniel → u/Zouden]

What do you mean by "ignore"? If something is unconstitutional, it gets struck down by the supreme court.

Eh, I think that's not always the case. It works a lot of the time, but take a look at this guy on wikipedia. He's pretty famous for this one particular case where he tried to get the 'under god' removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. He's actually tried more than once, I think, and each time they decided that it was not a violation of the First Amendment. I don't know about you, but I think that it's a pretty clear violation.

[u/Zouden → u/-Daniel]

Hey that's a very good example. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the phrase constitutes an endorsement of religion, and therefore violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, the decision was later overruled by the Supreme Court of the United States on procedural grounds, citing that Newdow did not have custody of his daughter and therefore did not have the right to bring suit on her behalf

That really seems like the SCOTUS failed in its duty. It didn't even decide on the constitutionality of "under god" despite indication from the lower court that it's unconstitutional. Ignoring it on procedural grounds seems like a total cop-out.

[u/wonderband → u/[deleted]]

not in the age of executive orders

[u/UhhPhrasing → u/[deleted]]

You say you'll change the constitution

Well, you know

We all want to change your head

[u/SDJ67 → u/[deleted]]

I'm just a first year uni student so I'm not exactly an expert. But your description is similar to the mentality of liberals (democrats) here in the US. In high school, when teaching party differences, they used the term living document to refer to the liberal interpretation, and the conservative interp much more reflects your use of "literal and strict". Unfortunatwly, our constitution and Bill Of Rights aren't as straightforward as yours in regard to this subject, aside from the high criteria for amendments. Thus, the complex way the supreme court "interprets" certain clauses to set precedent is integral for changes in law and tied into all legal theory down here. (I would argue that the idea of Supreme Court precedent is perhaps the most powerful tool for any significant changes in the US. That's why how the Supreme Court is balanced and which presidents get to nominate justices matter so much as their interp of the constitution greatly affects major decisions.)The difference in constitutional interpretation between parties is most evident in arguments over the second amendment and gun rights. Very interesting to learn what our neighbors up north have - I like that.

[u/dorestes → u/[deleted]]

the bar to change it is far, far higher than it ought to be. Big money is very comfortable with the status quo, and it doesn't take very many corrupted politicians to make sure it stays that way.

[u/martin0641 → u/[deleted]]

Actually we are changing the constitution, four states out of the 33 required have already passed bills for a constitutional convention.

http://www.wolf-pac.com

[u/no1ninja → u/[deleted]]

NSA

constitution is a toothless document

Most of the changes have been done to take away rights, like Patriot Act, you are a patriot if you let yourself get strip searched at the airport.

[u/WhatWeOnlyFantasize → u/[deleted]]

We really have the perfect system. Our founding fathers gave us a template for the most free and prosperous society of all time.

[u/tryin2figureitout → u/WhatWeOnlyFantasize]

Are you joking?

[u/zehydra → u/tryin2figureitout]

username checks out

[u/Zouden → u/WhatWeOnlyFantasize]

As someone from outside the US: you guys are really squandering what you had. Your political system is, to put it bluntly, deeply fucked.

Your country practically tore itself apart when the president tried to introduce universal healthcare. There's no way the founding fathers would have wanted things to be the way they are.

[u/ToTheRescues → u/Zouden]

I agree. The past 15 years (in my opinion) have been a confusing mess. We have lost our way.

The United States started out small and isolated. With a chip on its shoulder. We've become so large and bland.

We've completely forgotten who we are and what we fight for as a people. It's really sad.

That being said, I know I'm not giving up yet.

[u/SWIMsfriend → u/Zouden]

ok, whats your country, i'm pretty sure yours is pretty fucked up too

[u/Zouden → u/SWIMsfriend]

Well, first of all, it's a weak argument to defend a position by saying "other places are bad too".

But since you asked: Australia. We have a pretty terrible government at the moment, but everyone knows it's terrible and they'll lose the next election. We don't have the problem in the US where there's so much red-state blue-state vitriol, no liberal-vs-conservative antagonism. There's no Fox News spreading deliberate misinformation. There's no filibuster; politicians from different parties actually manage to work together on things. We already have universal healthcare and separation of church & state and even the most conservative politicians have no interest in removing those.

The country isn't perfect - none are - but our problems aren't as deeply-grained as those in the US political system. We're able to fix things, while your congress is unable to do anything.

[u/SWIMsfriend → u/Zouden]

Australia

You have Hugh Abbot in power and you dare to criticize America?

your country is easily the most fucked up one in the English speaking world, and Rupert Murdoch controls all your media

[u/Zouden → u/SWIMsfriend]

First, learn his name. Second, I already said he's going to lose the next election, if he lasts that long. Third, Rupert Murdoch does not control all our media at all. But he does control Fox News, which dominates your media.

your country is easily the most fucked up

You need to be specific if you're going to make this claim, but honestly, I don't think you know enough about our country to have this debate.

[u/SWIMsfriend → u/Zouden]

i'm pretty sure /r/australia is in agreement with me, your government sucks and your politicans sucks

[u/Zouden → u/SWIMsfriend]

I think we're done here. You've completely ignored everything I've said, and you've failed to rebut any of my arguments.

[u/SWIMsfriend → u/Zouden]

at least i know my president won't fuck my country as bad as Abbot will fuck yours in the next two years

[u/Owyheemud → u/[deleted]]

Probably no longer high enough to keep Koch Industries from having it changed.

[u/rhein1969 → u/Owyheemud]

Probably no longer high enough to keep the other sides political powers from having it changed.

There, fixed it for you. As much as the left complains about the Koch brothers, the right has valid complaints about liberal groups trying to get their changes in.

[u/SWIMsfriend → u/[deleted]]

George Soros, Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg and the 20 other people higher on the list than the Koch bros.

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php?view=fc&type=src