Obama views the Constitution as a living document, which means it can be changed by being interpreted of what those Amendments mean today. This means the first and second amendment can be changed as the interpretation can be interpreted differently. He said he already favored more liberal judges such as Ginsburg, who favors restricting freedoms rather than expanding them.
What do you think about lossing the first and second amendment or having them meaning something different where you can't criticize the government nor own guns to protect yourself from self defense or bad government?
Besides before 1960, violent crimes were relatively low with looser gun laws, so I don't believe guns create crime today has more violent crimes then ever with tougher gun restrictions. No gun restrictions can also prevent crime for causing the bad guy the notion of asymetric information, when he does not know who is packing. When gun restrictions become massive, criminals who aquire guns illegally, have a better probability of taking innocent people's lives who don't have guns because 911 and the cops are slow to getting to their destination along with the person may not have the opportunity to get to it in time. Comming with open borders, which both Obama and McCain advocates, comes with more probability and easiness to smuggle in illegal substances.
Here is an article about this by black American economist and political thinker, Thomas Sowell, who has written over 30 books.
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSow鈥?/a>
What do you think of Obama viewing the Constitution as a living document, meaning it can be changed?
Obama is completely against the constitution and he knows it well.
He wants to limit our free speech - note the censorship from his managers and his bots.
He wants to take away our guns, so that his government can run amok.
He wants to draft absolutely everybody!
Here's why
What do you think of Obama viewing the Constitution as a living document, meaning it can be changed?
The Founding Fathers thought it could be changed too, as they're the ones who MADE IT CHANGEABLE!
He is welcome to try to Amend any part except the first 10 Amendments.
You people are crazy you want the Bill of rights changed?
It's been changed many times.
Obama is aware that there is a provision for amending the Constitution. We've done it 28 times.
How many amendments have there been?...evidently it is a living document.
His views are accurate.
The constitution is living document that can be changed. These changes are called amendments to the constitution.
I think that's the only sensible way to view the constitution. Someone who views it as unchangeable and not open to interpretation simply doesn't understand what the constitution is.
He's not wanting to change it he wants to write a new one where North Korea would seem like a free country compared to the US.
MCCAIN/PALIN
The first thing the fathers of the Constitution did was amend it. Which says a lot about their views on the subject.
You might want to look at crimes that were never investigated or charged against minorities before the 1950s. Those statistics are a bit skewed. The majority got a way, literally, with murder easily.
We are an evolving society, our founding laws have to be able to adapt as well.
The Constitution was designed to be changed.
The problem with Obama and the Constitution is that he believes it is fundamentally flawed.
The men who drafted the Constitution intended it to be a living document. From the first link below:
%26quot;Written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and in operation since 1789, the United States Constitution remains a vital and living document. Having been strengthened by amendments, the Constitution serves as both guide and protector of U.S. citizens and their elected officials. To encourage all Americans to learn more about the Constitution, Congress in 2004 established Constitution Day, to be celebrated each year on or near September 17th, the date in 1787 when delegates to the Convention signed the Constitution.%26quot;
From the 2nd:
%26quot;Through time this document has worked, it has only been amended 27 times. The document is known as a %26quot;living document%26quot; because it can be amended.%26quot;
From the 3rd:
%26quot;He went on to earn his law degree from Harvard in 1991, where he became the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. Soon after, he returned to Chicago to practice as a civil rights lawyer and teach constitutional law.%26quot;
Okay?
The Constitution can be changed by the amendment process which requires super-majority vote of both the House %26amp; Senate, or super-majority ratification by the States. That way, the amendment was reflective of the will of the people. It was never intended to be changed by judges on a whim. For years, judges saw it as their duty to keep the Congress and the President from over stepping their bounds. Judges stuck strictly to the letter of the law, voicing their opinions of what was wrong with a law in their decent, but understanding that it was the Congress's job to revise, not theirs.
I believe he thinks it can be changed..that being said you know with the possibility of a super majority it could actually be done. He can not do this on his own but with people like Nancy P. and Ole
Barney Franks and the likes of them it could get changed.
It certainly can be changed by an Amendment...hard to do, but it can be done. Generally amendments sem to improve things...except for prohibition, and that one was repealed. As far as the Bill of rights is concerned it would take a Constitutional Convention to do that, and since we've only had one, the original, since the founding of the Republic I don't think we need worry about it. Calling for a second constitutional convention would be even more difficult than than introducing a new amendment. Too much right wing radio, bro..it ain't gonna' happen!
