Well get to digging. I doubt California would have such an early record of the Constitution since we're way back here and became part of the United States in 1850

Found something:

http://www.utopiasilver.com/legal_doc/Original%2013th.pdf

Sorry, but what the hell is the point of having a constitution if you're just going to "amend" it whenever you find something about it you don't like? That's like admitting that the founding fathers were morons.

Also:

But in our modern world of Lady Di and
Prince Charles, anti-royalist sentiments seem so archaic and quaint, that
the Amendment can be ignored.

But in our modern world of Lady Di and
Prince Charles

Lady Di

[SIZE="7"]Lady[/SIZE] Di

That'd be Her Royal Highness, Diana, the Princess of Wales, to you, yank.

Lastly, this seems like just another conspiracy theory to me. I admittedly didn't read the whole thing, but I doubt it has any sort of factual basis or any chance of being noticed by the majority.

Quote from Zed

Sorry, but what the hell is the point of having a constitution if you're just going to "amend" it whenever you find something about it you don't like? That's like admitting that the founding fathers were morons.

You're right. It would be way better to mindlessly hold on to archaic ideas.

Quote from alive

You're right. It would be way better to mindlessly hold on to archaic ideas.

Yeah, let's go ahead and allow soldiers into our homes to do whatever they want.

AND BAN ALCOHOL

Quote from alive

You're right. It would be way better to mindlessly hold on to archaic ideas.

Let's pick an amendment at random.

The fifth states (according to wikipedia):

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

Are you honestly trying to tell me that this is more valid today than it was three hundred years ago?

Quote from Fusion

Yeah, let's go ahead and allow soldiers into our homes to do whatever they want.

AND BAN ALCOHOL

I didn't say the constitution itself was stupid. I said the idea of changing it at will was stupid. There is no logical contradiction in stopping soldiers entering people's homes in the original.

Dear Zed,

The people of the 18th century could not have predicted the changing morals and values of modern society. The reason the constitution is ammended is to adapt to these changing values.

For example, women's rights, minority rights, etc. Which most (normal people) would not argue as a bad thing, would not have been even thought of or talked about back in 18th century wherever. It just wasn't considered.

Being able to add ammendments allows the constitution to adapt to match the wills of the people (which is the purpose of a democratic government)

Also, notice how they are 'amendments' not 'revisions' they don't revise the constitution, but they add laws and protections explicitly that are not explicitly stated or denied in the original constitution. This guarantees a continual protection of the need for any rights (homosexual rights probably being one that will appear in the next ten years).

There are only two things that have been significantly altered in the constitution by amendments. One is the direct election of senators, rather than appointment. This was done to reduce corruption and make it hold with the modern definition of a representative democracy. The only other thing is that all things relating to slavery have been removed (one, because of the 13th amendment which abolished slavery) and because they simply functioned until 1820 or thereabouts and are therefore irrelevant. As is the 3/5 compromise because of the thirteenth amendment.

The founding father's were not morons, they were people. People have flawed, miscontrued and ill conceived notions because of the social influences of their time. By allowing us to modify the constitution we admit two things, that people are flawed and that perfection comes through continual study and revision. You can't expect something to be perfect in a single stroke of genius. Which is why we continue to edit and perfect our constitution.

By stating explicitly our rights we remove a vast amount of possibility that the rights of the people stated in the constitution can be misinterpreted (and they still are, we are not perfect yet) and allow for changing social conditions that bring to light social situations that the founding father's would never have heard of.

Sincerely,

Schwa

So you are saying they were wrong? (I'll retract the word "morons" on the basis that it's practically trolling)

And since they were wrong about those things, why do you believe them to be right on other things?

Also, what makes us more right than them? You say changing values of the times. Surely this equates to a decay of morality and law that the original constitution was designed to avoid?


Edit: nearly forgot; what difference are you drawing between the words "ammendment" and "revision" in this case, because I don't see it?

Zed it's simple.

The founding fathers weren't god damn psychics and had to just give the barebones and had to let the people decide what was best in the future and hope they do the right thing.

Btw,

They aren't revisions,
They are things that are in the constitution itself thy isn't defined well enough on it's own.
The ammendments are like the definitions of the constitution.

Like,
"All men are created equal"

In which we have an ammendment which includes blacks into all men.

I'm not sure which one because I happen to be half Aussie and I don't know which is which, sorry bout that.

Ironically Wartooth that's the 13th amendment that Abe Lincoln put in.

Quote from Zed

So you are saying they were wrong? (I'll retract the word "morons" on the basis that it's practically trolling)

And since they were wrong about those things, why do you believe them to be right on other things?

Also, what makes us more right than them? You say changing values of the times. Surely this equates to a decay of morality and law that the original constitution was designed to avoid?


Edit: nearly forgot; what difference are you drawing between the words "ammendment" and "revision" in this case, because I don't see it?

I honestly have to question whether or not you are just plain trolling because this is far stupider than what I'd expect from you (which in general is not stupid)

I spent the entire post saying how they laid foundations and their view points were the viewpoints of their times so they couldn't foresee radical things such as voting rights for blacks and for women, but they allowed us to ammend the constitution so it would always be pertinent to any new ideas that would become common.

I mean.

Seriously.

There was nothing in the constitution they were wrong about. We don't use the parts of the constitution reflecting laws about how congress couldn't make any decisions concerning slavery until 18- whatever and the 3/5's compromise because they are no longer relevant. The constitution never established slavery as a viable institution, it just never said it wasn't (which is because they needed to get the constitution ratified by Virginia) which is why the 13th Amendment clarifies that to encompass the radical idea that arose in the mid 19th century.

I can see how you would say that with us changing the part about the direct election of senators is admitting that the founding fathers were wrong. However that would be an egregious hyperbole, as they were right on essentially everything else.

First let us both agree that the founding father's were human beings, not perfect beings flawless in every way. Admitting this we admit they had flaws and could not predict the future. However they were smart and allowed what they could not predict, foresee, or include to be writ in the document to allow for changing times. In that way, with the amendments, our constitution is one of the most infallible documents on earth, as we allow for human error. To imagine that our founding father's were perfect would be to invite human error and failure into our system. Democracy is an institution founded by people, as such it has to be monitored for the flaws of people.

The founding father's could not have foreseen the corruption of appointing senators to positions, and they couldn't have foreseen the extreme expansion of suffrage that would occur in the following two hundred years. They were limited by their historical context and flaws as humans.

And no. Either you are dumb, or you are acting dumb for the giggles. The constitution was designed to serve as something to represent the rights of people in a government by the people. As new rights are discovered they are added.

Another fundamental thing is that the constitution has had much added to it, but little taken away. There is no moral decay, none of our freedoms have been infringed by amendments removing our right to property or due process of law. All that has happened is rights have been added.

All that has been removed that comes to my mind is the direct election of senators (which doesn't count) and prohibition (that amendment was unconstitutional in my opinion anyways, as it limited the freedoms of everyone, instead of limiting the freedom of some to insure freedom for all).

But seriously, Zed, stop trollin'

Quote from MiniMan

Ironically Wartooth that's the 13th amendment that Abe Lincoln put in.

Haha,
Seriously?
I thought that it was the twelfth, or possibly even the fourteenth. Haha.
Wow

Schwa, I was not trolling. Having read your post, however, I will concede that I was ignorant. When I saw the word "ammendment" I assumed it meant in the sense that most people would use the word "ammend", ie. to change something which was previously wrong. If I read you correctly, ammendments with reference to the US constitution just mean clarifying what was there to begin with.

Your point is conceded. There is nothing wrong with making a document more comprehensible.

That was some superb convincing, Schwa; also, that was some noble conceding, Zed. Great stuff by the both of you (mostly Schwa, but then Zed at the end). I'd like to see more Schwa in the debate section immediately, thank you.