Which parts of the US Constitution need to have a more modern interpretation?

Are there any parts of the Constitution you think should be interpreted to mean something other than how they have been interpreted to originally mean? What would you have them mean today, without changing any of the wording?

 

The speedy trial clause of the Sixth Amendment could use work. The courts are not "speedy".

 

2
14 section 3 obviously

 

How would we make them speedier?

 

What would you have them mean today, without changing any of the wording?

 

No...

 

The "right to a speedy trial" is a right of the people i.e. the defendant.

The "right to a speedy trial" was never intended to speed up the trial process to get the outcome you desire.

In fact, the process is designed to be slow so that the defendant isn't disadvantaged and has time to build an adequate defense.

 

The prohibition against quartering people in your house should extend to government agents sitting in your computer maybe. IDK really. I would rather we just dissolved the union so California and Texas could stop being the drunk uncles at every family gathering.

 

Amen. Sometimes we agree.

 

Come on! What better way to liven up a dull Thanksgiving dinner than the drunk uncles arguing politics? Where's your sense of fun?

 

only if you request it, most do not want a speedy trial

 

Suppose CA or TX, after secession, entered into a Union with the CCP instead, and started hosting masses of troops and hardware for 'wargames' on the borders of neighboring states? Howe do you think those neighboring states should respond (if at all)?

 

That would be their sovereign right I suppose and those neighboring countries would respond as they see fit. It would be no different than if Canada or Mexico started doing it.

 

I took a deeper dive, enough to deserve it's own thread (I was unaware of your thread, no disrespect) which I think answers your question (as I see it, of course) here:

http://politicalforum.com/index.php...matism-debating-judicial-philosophies.618428/

 

Wouldn't a shorter list be what parts of the document are actually followed by the federal government?

 

Because the prosecutors only want it speedy when it benefits them.

 

I find nothing in the Constitution that is time sensitive, meaning different time periods would be applicable to everything written in the Constitution. People that say otherwise have just found something in the constitution that they now do not like and want it different.

 

That is a problem with the courts, not the Constitution.

 

Trump certainly didn't. He used every little technicality that his various lawyers helped him cook up in order to delay, delay, delay. He knows he's guilty.

 

Or he knows that no one can adequately prepare a defense for that many different trials in so limited amount of time

 

He should have thought of that before committing so many crimes.

Trump is not ... repeat, not ... a victim.

 

Yes yes he is he has done nothing criminal no one has even testified to anything criminal in New York yet. We don't yet even have evidence that Trump even signed the NDA. A lot of the testimony isn't even germaine to the case. And the other cases are either dead or dying even as we speak.

 

But does the accused always get a trial fairly quick enough for them, or do they often have to sit in jai or be on bail nervously waiting for their trial? I think quite often the system is slowed to their massive detriment.

 

There is nothing imo that needs changing. A plain reading of the Constitution is all that is needed. That is why the Founders made it in plain English and not legalese. In fact if you study history we are warned against a sophisticated law system. Dating all the way back to the Magna Carta. The law is supposed to be applied to the common man, and if the common man cannot understand it then how can one put forth a proper defense against it?

 

Section 25 in case “Dementia Don” ever gets back I.