The 2-nd Amendment.

[Deus Naturae]

I'm one to believe that the Second Amendment is nonsensical in today's society. It says nothing about gun ownership. It establishes a right to bear arms that is subject to some (although not absolute) regulation. If you ignore the prefatory clause, as the Supreme Court has effectively done in Heller, there is no textual basis in the Constitution for any arms control laws whatsoever (let alone simple gun control measures). If the prefatory clause is ignored, I'd like to know what sort of measures would survive constitutional scrutiny (because it seems like the remainder is quite absolute in its guarantee).

So, do you think the Second Amendment is ridiculous or do you think it doesn't apply to personal gun ownership? It sounds like you're simultaneously claiming that it's nonsensical and trying to interpret it in a "sensical" way.

Anyway, the Second Amendment does explicitly reference ownership:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Deus Naturae]

What's up with letting documents older than dirt dictate policy-making? Can't we govern in the century we live in?

Slippery slope there.  The far left does, however, know what's best for everyone else, so we should just do everything they want.  Don't let a pesky Constitution spelling out our basic rights get in the way.

Or, you know, we could stop violating the Constitution by setting bail above $20. Because that just shows how appropriate it is to allow that document to dictate policy.

So...you think there should or shouldn't be excessive bail? You can't simultaneously say they we should stop following the Constitution and then complain when you think it's being violated...

[Deus Naturae]

So...you think there should or shouldn't be excessive bail? You can't simultaneously say they we should stop following the Constitution and then complain when you think it's being violated...

I was using an example as to why the document is outdated. It's fine and dandy to have things like free speech, freedom of press/assembly, etc but clearly the 2nd, 7th and the 10th amendment among others are so ambiguous as to what they actually mean that we've tasked our judiciary with interpreting what they mean. Shouldn't we have a document that we can just you know...ask the framers what they meant by something? Obviously Congress shouldn't be tasked with writing a new Constitution, they'd never finish it, but perhaps maybe a conference of world leaders could meet and create a new document, and if others countries choose to adopt the same one, then so be it. That way we could move away from "this country's level of freedom is clearly not on par with the rest of the world's, but there's nothing we could do about it" or at least have a standard for which perhaps just the first world should be operated. You know, for example, not seeing denial of health coverage to citizens based on pre-existing conditions like it was/is done in America.

Rambled a little on this one, so forgive me.

How is the Tenth Amendment ambiguous? Regardless, if you want to alter the Constitution, there's an amendment process. It may not be the easiest process in the world, but if you want to prevent things you like (free speech, assembly, etc) from being easily amended out of existence, the trade-off is that it's also going to be hard to amend out stuff you don't like.

[Deus Naturae]

How is it not ambiguous? It's just the "powers not delegated to the fed gov't" that could be anything that's not explicitly delegated. Or it could be certain things. Gay marriage, abortion, drugs, etc. were not issues in the 18th century. So maybe the founders wanted the federal government to regulate drugs, but we can't be sure. That's very ambiguous.

The powers delegated to the Federal government are listed in Article I, Section 8, which is where the ambiguity lies. Your beef should be with Article I, Section 8, not Amendment X.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why though? Why does being old make it inherently bad? If you think there are parts that are outdated, your goal should be to amend, not simply replace. If you set the precedent that the Constitution can just be suspended and replaced with a new one because people don't like a few parts of it, be prepared for a time of future crisis when politicians can claim that your constitution is "outdated" because it can't deal with the current problem, ignore whatever amendment process your ideal constitution has, and just replace it with an authoritarian one with no protections for freedom of speech etc and cite your previous replacement to defend the legitimacy of their actions.