- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
ITT we draft a new US Bill of Rights for the 21st Century and beyond -1st Amendment
Posted on 6/10/26 at 10:45 am
Posted on 6/10/26 at 10:45 am
So imagine the States have called a Constitutional Convention and for the first time in almost 240 years, written modifications are on the table. We will start with the big one....the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I believe there are structural changes that could be made to clarify who in this these rights belong to and who they do not. The benefits should flow to those who want to maintain the spirit and founding principals only and not to those who wish to destroy them.
What, if any, changes would you make?
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I believe there are structural changes that could be made to clarify who in this these rights belong to and who they do not. The benefits should flow to those who want to maintain the spirit and founding principals only and not to those who wish to destroy them.
What, if any, changes would you make?
12
Posted on 6/10/26 at 10:50 am to BrodyDad
I'm pretty sure we've had written modifications over the past 240 years. They are called Amendments.
Posted on 6/10/26 at 10:54 am to mikesliveisacheater
quote:
They are called Amendments.
The Bill of Rights are amendments.
Posted on 6/10/26 at 10:55 am to BrodyDad
The right to use our flashers on the interstate if our wipers can’t keep up with the rain in their fastest setting.
Posted on 6/10/26 at 10:57 am to mikesliveisacheater
quote:
I'm pretty sure we've had written modifications over the past 240 years. They are called Amendments.
Of course, but I am speaking about the original 10 Amendments. The Bill of Rights. They have been interpreted by the judiciary, but not changed in text. My question is what change would you suggest to the text of the 1st Amendment to improve things.
Posted on 6/10/26 at 11:07 am to BrodyDad
You can't just edit an Amendment. You have to pass a new Amendment that supersedes it. An example is the 18th and the 21st.
I don't know why you would want to change the 1st Amendment anyway. Why would you want to take away any rights that we currently have? If you want to add rights then you would just make another Amendment.
I don't know why you would want to change the 1st Amendment anyway. Why would you want to take away any rights that we currently have? If you want to add rights then you would just make another Amendment.
Posted on 6/10/26 at 11:13 am to BrodyDad
I'm happy with the 1st Amendment just the way it is.
Posted on 6/10/26 at 1:50 pm to mikesliveisacheater
quote:
You can't just edit an Amendment. You have to pass a new Amendment that supersedes it. An example is the 18th and the 21st.
You certainly can at a Constitutional Convention. The reason why is simple. In its current form, the First Amendment gives too much protection to those who wish to do our country and culture harm. The Constitution was created by and for principled, conservative, Godly men and the benefit of it should not extend so generously to those who do not fit that description.
Posted on 6/10/26 at 2:10 pm to BrodyDad
quote:
I believe there are structural changes that could be made to clarify who in this these rights belong to and who they do not.
I too sometimes long for a return to Jim Crow.
Posted on 6/10/26 at 3:23 pm to ned nederlander
quote:
I too sometimes long for a return to Jim Crow.
Unlike many on this board, I can tell you there are plenty of non-white people I would welcome in the class of the protected and many whites who would be excluded.
Posted on 6/10/26 at 3:33 pm to BrodyDad
A citizen should be able to say whatever he/she wants to say. It’s up to the balance of the citizenry to be educated enough to determine the validity of what they are hearing.
For starters I would abolish the amendment that elects Senators via a state’s popular vote vs. the state’s House of Representatives.
For starters I would abolish the amendment that elects Senators via a state’s popular vote vs. the state’s House of Representatives.
This post was edited on 6/10/26 at 3:36 pm
Posted on 6/10/26 at 3:33 pm to BrodyDad
I dont have a problem with the 1st amendment.
I would change the 2nd amendment to say: The right to own, possess, modify or transport any firearm or firearm accessory or component is a God given right that cannot for any reason be interfered with. With the exception of another amendment, any politician or judge who makes any ruling or law attempting to change this law shall be guilty and the only available punishment is death by hanging.
The only way to change this amendment is with another amendment. The punishment part of the above is in regards to any federal, state, or local law, rule or regulation.
I would change the 2nd amendment to say: The right to own, possess, modify or transport any firearm or firearm accessory or component is a God given right that cannot for any reason be interfered with. With the exception of another amendment, any politician or judge who makes any ruling or law attempting to change this law shall be guilty and the only available punishment is death by hanging.
The only way to change this amendment is with another amendment. The punishment part of the above is in regards to any federal, state, or local law, rule or regulation.
Posted on 6/10/26 at 3:55 pm to BrodyDad
quote:
Unlike many on this board, I can tell you there are plenty of non-white people I would welcome in the class of the protected and many whites who would be excluded.
As long as honest and thoughtful men will be doing the sorting I see no flaw to this system.
Posted on 6/10/26 at 3:59 pm to BrodyDad
quote:
In its current form, the First Amendment gives too much protection to those who wish to do our country and culture harm. The Constitution was created by and for principled, conservative, Godly men and the benefit of it should not extend so generously to those who do not fit that description.
So just to be clear, you believe that people should not be allowed to speak out against the government if the government deems that the speech would do the country harm?
Yeah, no thanks
This post was edited on 6/10/26 at 4:15 pm
Posted on 6/10/26 at 4:02 pm to BrodyDad
You trust these MFers to adjust the BoRs. ????
Somehow I doubt our most altruistic would be elected to serve at that convention.
Somehow I doubt our most altruistic would be elected to serve at that convention.
Posted on 6/10/26 at 4:15 pm to Antonio Moss
If the government is limited properly and run by the same Godly men, there is no problem.
I dont want those with antipathy to God's truth to feel comfortable in spreading their lies.
I dont want those with antipathy to God's truth to feel comfortable in spreading their lies.
Posted on 6/10/26 at 4:16 pm to BrodyDad
quote:
If the government is limited properly and run by the same Godly men, there is no problem.
So we are back to Divine Monarchs?
Posted on 6/10/26 at 4:17 pm to BrodyDad
quote:
What, if any, changes would you make?
One to that makes it possible to have you deported anywhere on Earth outside of the United States.
This post was edited on 6/10/26 at 4:19 pm
Posted on 6/10/26 at 4:18 pm to BrodyDad
I wouldn’t trust at least half of this country to participate in a new Bill of Rights.
Posted on 6/10/26 at 4:32 pm to BrodyDad
We have a right not to be governed by dual citizens and corporations.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News