The Bill of Rights Series: Amendment 3

[Jamezz]

I guess part of the reason why I was interested in this thread is because I'd be absolutely horrified if we abolished our constitution and were required to create a new one. I don't want either the Democratic constitution or the Republican constitution. Either one would be a significant downgrade to what we already have.

But that doesn't mean what we have is perfect, or even all that good. It's just better than any alternative I can imagine.

What we currently have in place is genius, my favorite amendment is the 10th, which allows for secession if they see that the Federal government gets too big and steps over the people's rights. I'm totally for secession if it means that the people living in that particular state are going to enjoy more freedom and liberty.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Not sure. Please tell us which party is currently for it and the other against so I can make up my mind.

People who party are for it. People who don't party are against it.

Hope this helps.

 

[franklin]

I liked this post because the self-proclaimed "republican base" is currently fighting against pretty much damn near everything "conservative" Reagan instituted while at the same time idolizing the guy as close to a demigod as it gets.

Then again, old time conservatives are getting everything they asked for by the current democrats who bitch and moan about conservative viewpoints while instituting all of them. Obamacare should be renamed HeritageFoundationCare. Same goes for the want to offer cheap universal education/job replacement/teach a man to fish. The republicans were for it before they were against it, and vice-versa.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

 

[moevillini]

I think, with the Third Amendment in particular, it's important to remember that at the time it was adopted, major portions of the United States was still largely under the control of other foreign entities, such as Spain and France, and the idea of armed conflict on our shores was not as remote an idea as it seems today, not to mention the conflict that was to come in the form of the Civil War.

 

[moevillini]

I think, with the Third Amendment in particular, it's important to remember that at the time it was adopted, major portions of the United States was still largely under the control of other foreign entities, such as Spain and France, and the idea of armed conflict on our shores was not as remote an idea as it seems today, not to mention the conflict that was to come in the form of the Civil War.

and perhaps it was also a bit of an incentive, for people who were living in territorial areas, to favor statehood since then if there was a dispute between the countries fighting for control of the territory, their property rights would be more protected under U.S. law then if they remained a territory and the soldiers from either side could take over their property.


I'm really just making this up as I go along, but I think it does make some kind of sense.