|
|
Subject:
bill of rights
Category: Science > Social Sciences Asked by: mohammad0921-ga List Price: $10.00 |
Posted:
15 Sep 2005 00:07 PDT
Expires: 15 Oct 2005 00:07 PDT Question ID: 568245 |
what would you change in the bill of rights if you had the power to do so? |
|
There is no answer at this time. |
|
Subject:
Re: bill of rights
From: myoarin-ga on 15 Sep 2005 01:59 PDT |
I would have the 2nd amendment - right to bear arms - rephrased. |
Subject:
Re: bill of rights
From: elids-ga on 15 Sep 2005 07:49 PDT |
The Government of the United States shall under no circumstances declare war on any nation or group of people, except in such case as it is to defend itself from an ongoing foreign agression. ------------ That would've kept us out of 99% of the wars this country has been involved in. |
Subject:
Re: bill of rights
From: nelson-ga on 15 Sep 2005 11:08 PDT |
I agree with myoarin-ga. The founders made a huge blunder. |
Subject:
Re: bill of rights
From: myoarin-ga on 15 Sep 2005 12:53 PDT |
Nelson, I wouldn't go that far, they were only dealing with muzzle-loaders - and not with the ARA. Myo |
Subject:
Re: bill of rights
From: agonizing_fury-ga on 15 Sep 2005 13:56 PDT |
I have to disagree with elids about the 99% comment. If you look at the definithion of aggression, I can't honestly think of a single "war" we've been involved in that didn't qualify (war is in quotation because the balkans came to mind, however officially the mission in the balkans was defined as a peacekeeping mission). In case your wondering here is the definition I found for aggression http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=aggression # a disposition to behave aggressively # a feeling of hostility that arouses thoughts of attack # violent action that is hostile and usually unprovoked # the act of initiating hostilities # deliberately unfriendly behavior |
Subject:
Re: bill of rights
From: myoarin-ga on 15 Sep 2005 14:11 PDT |
Elids-ga's comment does not refer to the Bill of Rights, however worth of discussion the subject may be. http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm |
Subject:
Re: bill of rights
From: pinkfreud-ga on 15 Sep 2005 14:18 PDT |
I, too, would change the Second Amendment. I'd reword it to remove any ambiguity. I would make it manifestly clear that individual citizens have the right to own firearms. |
Subject:
Re: bill of rights
From: elids-ga on 15 Sep 2005 14:55 PDT |
Although 12 amendments were originally proposed, the 10 that were ratified became the Bill of Rights in 1791. They defined citizens' rights in relation to the newly established government under the Constitution. I agree with Myoarin that what I said would not normally fall under what we accept as being covered by the Bill of Rights. However, he said 'how would you ammend...' and based on " ... expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers,..." I would ammend it to include the right of citizens (soldiers) to not be exposed to death for any reason other than that of defending his/her country when under attack. Now, as for agonizing_fury's comment, allow me to point out one or two. - The Indian wars keep in mind that there were over 100 independant Indian nations in North America. Most of those nations were obliterated without a declaration of war. - The Mexican war, they did not come into any of the Union's states, we went there. - The Spanish-American war they never attacked the US we invaded Florida and took it from them. - The Spanish-American war months later we invaded and took over Cuba and Puerto Rico. - World War I the sinking of the Lusitania was not a declaration of war against the US (however rightious that war may have been). - The Korean war we went there they did not come here. - The Viet-Nam war again same thing. - The first Gulf war (the second is debatable, so it wouldn't make this list). And that would be leaving out the countless others that don't qualify as a wars properly. For instance the creation of the country of Panama by the US by severing the northern part of Colombia when they asked for too many concessions in order for us to make the Panama canal. The invasion of the Phillipines taking them from the Spaniards. More recently our aiding the United Kingdom in a war against Argentina over the Malvinas (look at a map, read history those islands were taken over from Argentina by the British recognized Argentina in 1825 with the islands under Argentinian control and they did not claim them -they went from spain in 1520 to France in 1764 to England in 1765 back to spain in 1770 and Argentina when they declared independance. England invaded and took over them again in 1829- Argentina has claimed them since). We had (and still do) a treaty with Argentina that state 'if any country in America is invaded by a power from a different continent all nations in the America's are to aid the invaded country' we had an obligation to aid Argentina we had no obligation under NATO to aid England. We helped England. But I digress, although I could go on I believe that should point agonizing_fury in the right direction. And like everybody else I too would change the second ammendment, only I would do it so that nobody has the right to bear arms. |
Subject:
Re: bill of rights
From: myoarin-ga on 15 Sep 2005 16:18 PDT |
Elids, Then if I understand you correctly, you were proposing that your text should have been included in the Bill of Rights - or was the text of the 11th or 12th amendments that were not ratified? Either way, I would agree with you, although the Bill of Rights has a nice cohesiveness in being just that: a definition of the citizens' individual rights. The German "Grundgesetz" - Basic Law - did have a very similar passage: all neat and simple: for defense only. But NATO then called for its members to come to the defense of each other, and since the 1990s the concepts and restrictions have weakened. The present defense minister proclaimed in Afghanistan that defense of Germany starts at the Hindukush. I expect that such an admendment to or statement in the US Constitution would also have been watered down with time, and a lot can happen without "declaring war." As you say, the Indian Wars were not declared. I don't know how the action in the Philipines was described or justified at the time, ditto for Cuba. Until the early 1960's, the official expression for the UN action in Korea was the "Korean Conflict." Anyway, it would have been a good idea, but I doubt that a presidnet would have been impeached for breaching such a text as part of the Constitution. Myoarin |
Subject:
Re: bill of rights
From: nelson-ga on 15 Sep 2005 16:36 PDT |
No, my esteemed pinkfreud, it needs to be amended to clarify that the individual states can keep a militia (i.e., the national guard). Individuals should not have the right to own weapons. Most countries that do not have gun rights have lower crime rates than the U.S. (Don't make me post a question to get the stats.) |
Subject:
Re: bill of rights
From: guillermo-ga on 02 Oct 2005 21:07 PDT |
I usually refrain in Google Answers from making comments on domestic issues of countries which are not mine, as is the case of the United States. Now, as an Argentine, I must thank Elids-ga for an accurate mention of that sad episode that involved Argentina, UK and USA. |
If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by emailing us at answers-support@google.com with the question ID listed above. Thank you. |
Search Google Answers for |
Google Home - Answers FAQ - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy |