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

I could say the same of the, unique, interpretations brought down by the current right leaning twonks

 

You mean like including the Air Force, and Paper Money?

 

Off the top of my head? I would:
Amend the 1st to make the freedom of association explicit. It is un-Constitutional to tell people who they can hire and fire. This might actually save DEI as we're headed towards outlawing it even though in some limited instances, it is a good thing.
Amend the 2nd to read that this is not to include WMD: it is limited to what a soldier might have as a weapon.
Dunno if you have to repeal the 17th as in some circles it is argued that it was never properly ratified to begin with.
14th is for people who are lawfully under the jurisdiction of the USA. Border jumpers not included even if they're on US soil.
When I'm feeling really cheeky I'd repeal the 19th Oh well. It's all an experiment. We'll see what happens as is.
A new "bodily integrity" Amendment. Protect unfettered abortion rights up to the 3rd trimester. Also protect people that don't want the clot shot.

 

another complete failure to address the points I made

 

you seem not to understand the concept of federalism, state powers vs federal powers

 

I'd get rid of the 16th as well as the 17th.

 

Ask them yourself.

 

You could but you'd be wrong.

 

I hope not. National defense and maintaining currency are clearly enumerated as powers of federal government. Subsequent laws have provided details.

 

Womens' wombs are none of federal government's business. Take it up with your state government.

 

Army and Navy are listed, but not Air Force, let alone Space Force. Also, coins are mentioned, but not paper money.

 

did you have issues with the Army Air corps during WWII or is just another example of playing the contrarian card. the fact is this-the constitution clearly provided that the federal government has the power to organize and maintain a military force. calling it the army air corps or calling it the USAF really isn't the issue.

 

It's not an issue. Perhaps you didn't realize we are discussing "modern interpretation" of the Constitution. I simply gave some examples of "old vs modern". Constitution was written in old times, and now we live in modern times where we have things which did not yet exist when the Constitution was written. Maybe its you who has an issue.

My father in law served in United States Army Air Force during WW2. He didn't have an issue with it either.

Where's the beef?

 

No logical fallacy. It is his opinion.

 

it is clear that claiming the commerce clause allowed social security or federal gun bans is specious

claiming the tenth amendment prevents the creation of the air force is equally specious

 

The beef is that the text of the constitution is timeless for the most part. It sets up a structure and rules and powers for federal government in the original document and then provides limits to governmental power in the bill of rights. All of that works the same today as it did then. The intent was to have congress add the details to the constitutional powers. How we organize the military isn't the concern of the constitution. Neither is the form of currency we use. All these things are detailed in future laws. The important point is that both of them are appropriate powers of federal government. You can call it interpretation if you like but it really is just adding details to the intent of the constitution. The problems occur when laws ignore the purpose and intent of the constitution and those problems occur daily. That is interpretation.

A perfect example is the issue of abortion. The constitution doesn't address the issue at all. Not anywhere. That doesn't mean that it is OK for federal government to invent a constitutional issue for it. It means it is something that is left for the states. 10th amendment. It was finally left to the states with the recent supreme court decision.

The constitution is clear in defining the powers of federal government. It put an exclamation point on that in the 10th amendment by putting any other powers in the states. Obviously it hasn't worked out that way. That is why we don't really have a federal system as the founders had in mind. We have a central government involved in about anything one can identify. The founders might say we have lost our way. That's my opinion.

 

One. That wasn't the founders plan, that's my point. They did not set out to write a sacred relic.

 

More often than the every 20 years suggested by Jefferson.

 

Funny abortionist are in women's wombs to a lot greater extent but that's okay with you. Most of Europe has more restrictive abortion laws that the US though that is likely to change.

 

In your view. But that is not what was written. If that is what the Founders had intended then they would have put "for the militia" in there.

I've told you before that you assume too much. And this is just further evidence of such.

 

Yes. Not a problem. Defense is a power assigned to federal government as is maintenance of the currency. There were no airplanes or credit cards in the day but there was a clear assignment of responsibility for these powers to federal government. Details were added later by law. I don't view that as interpretation. I see it as adding details as needed. Interpretation occurs when the law ignores the constitution and invents constitutional powers not assigned to federal government. Those are interpretation. It has caused the mess we see today.

 

The whole point of the phrase is that you cannot have a militarily useful militia unless the citizens are allowed to own militarily useful firearms. And of course they make all sorts of stupid assumptions about what the militia was without even bothering to understand who the militia was at the time.

 

No, it isn't, not if we only change or add one thing. That is not what was intended, that is not what Thomas Jefferson wrote about. Google his letter to Madison and read it for yourself. I'm done with this topic. Thank you.

 

Given the thousands of militia references on the phrase 'bear arms' based on surveys by scholars over a period of decades in the 18th and 19th centuries, it is safe to presume the second amendment is militia-centric, and thus it is safe to presume that Scalia's 'prefatory/operative clause' are terms he pulled out of his ass, which is to say, not taught in the late 18th century schools, and that, in fact, the first clause is the MAIN clause, and the second clause, is the DEPENDENT clause, which is logical, given the order placed, and the historicity of 'bear arms'.

And that is no assumption.

https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/9064/Campbell_okstate_0664M_12057.pdf

The digitization of historical documents provides historians with the capability to determine the meaning of the right to bear arms. Nathan Kozuskanich searched “bear arms” in “120 American newspapers from 1690 to 1800” along with numerous newspapers, pamphlets, and broadsides in the Library of Congress online database. He found that nearly all of the articles “use the phrase ‘bear arms’ within an explicitly collective or military context to indicate military action.” Kozuskanich concludes that Americans in the eighteenth century “overwhelmingly used ‘bear arms’ in a military sense both in times of war and in times of peace.”

And, this is confirmed by @Golem:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/
Using two databases, COFEA (Corpus of Founding Era American English) and COEME (Corpus of Early Modern English) https://lawcorpus.byu.edu/, which compile basically all the documents written around the time the Bill of Rights was written, linguists searched for all occurrences of the words "bear" within 4 words, left or right, or "arms" to find out what the phrase "to keep and bear arms" would mean to any moderately educated American of the period.
Eliminating sentences that obviously had nothing to do with the matter (such as "the bear tore away his arms" or "she couldn't bear looking at his arms" ... and similar) they found that only 2% related to anything other than military. And even those required a qualifier to indicate that it was not military. For example, in some state constitutions where the phrase that appears is something like "...bear arms for the defence of the state and for personal defence". With no qualifiers, the phrase always referred to a military setting. Though they mention a sign outside the church that mockingly said "Please do not bear arms inside the house of the Lord"

You don't 'bear arms' to go shoot duck, you bear arms to fend off attackers (in a well regulated militia or muster for the weekly militia drills). The second amendment clearly is ALL ABOUT THE MILITIA. In other words, the second amendment is an anachronism.

So put that in your pocket and pull the trigger.

 

I'm just glad I live in a state (Virginia) where about 80% of the land mass has declared itself a Second Amendment Sanctuary back in 2019.

That means that out here we're simply ignoring gun grabbers of all stripes, Federal and state. We've got 'em, we like 'em, and if you really insist, y'all can try to come and take 'em.

But I really wouldn't recommend it.