Should Amendments, Laws, Justice, Or Policies change as

Yes, primarily because language and ideas change but I think contracts should be renegotiable, the social one included.

>>2895894
Hold on let me get this out the way for the Americans

>Muh Guns

The answer is yes. As technology, healthcare, social and general intellectual increase the environment in which we live in drastically will.

Outdated practices should be stricken and reformed if something is to progress to be prosperous and healthy

>>2895894
No. Only if it's necessary for basic survival. In any other sense change ddoesn't come by itself.

>>2895963
Stagnation is death

File: Deculture2.png (202KB, 278x310px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 278x310px

>>2895982
keeping something that's working fine is not stagnation.
there should be a core set of values and principles that shouldn't be changed in a society.
things like freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and bearing arms for example.

File: 1494391824802.jpg (13KB, 500x287px)

13KB, 500x287px

>>2895994
>bearing arms for example

File: we the people.jpg (126KB, 1680x702px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1680x702px

>>2895894
>Should Amendments, Laws, Justice, Or Policies change as does our Times?

I feel that ALL laws, regulations, treaties, etc. (except for the Bill of Rights) should have a “sunset clause” of no longer then 10 years, after which they are automatically null and void unless Congress goes thru the entire legislative process of reenacting them.

This would prevent bad legislation from haunting us forever (such as NAFTA) and additionally, keep the politicians busy fighting over reenacting the old laws, regulations, treaties instead of cooking up new bullshit to fuck us over with.

I also believe that in the 21st century, “major legislation” (such as Net Neutrality) should be decided by a national vote of the People, instead of fly-by-night politicians who are bought and paid for by Wall Street.

Our current system of elected representatives in D.C. made sense when it took a month to travel by horseback from Philadelphia to NYC but nowadays, the People can and should be making these major decisions directly.

File: say that to my morgan, not at the round table and see how snowy it gets.jpg (23KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x500px

>>2896002
got something to say, buddy?

>>2896017
Away with you Satan

Not again

>>2895894

According to my opinion democracy in itself should be replaced by rule based on logic.While it is true that democracy was the best form of rule in the pre computerized ages, it inherently is faulty due the fact that humans themselves are inherently illogical. The sooner someone develops a computer able to weigh the benefits and drawbacks of a political decision and act accordingly, the sooner we will get rid of the corruption and inefficiency of most forms of human-based rule (democracy, autocracy, theocracy, etc.).

>>2896066
Why would a naturally illogical society do that

>>2895894
Not if they still hold up.

>>2895894
Don't touch my guns you fucking nigger

>>2896088

That's the point. It won't. Society needs to be forced into accepting that Humans are inherently illogical and inferior in decision making than our creations. At the same time we should still be the ultimate masters of our technology, which means that we need to install some kind of protection into our creations to prevent them from turning on us and at the same time prevent anyone from interfering into the rational decision making of this hypothetical computer for personal gain.

The Constitution has provisions for this exact situation.

It's called an amendment.

If you want to change the constitution, get all the boys together and amend the constitution to whatever you want.

Otherwise, stop crying.

>>2895894
Yes, things should change to fit new times, but that means that new laws can be passed, the old can be repealed. What this doesn't mean is that judges should decide for everyone else what the old laws ostensibly meant.

When people in the US refer to this 'change with the times' sentiment usually they mean they don't have the clout to actually change the constitution via the intended reform mechanism: amendments. Knowing their intended changes won't sit well with a significant part if not a majority of the country, they hope to avoid an unwinnable election margin or constitutional convention by having the luck to have a couple more SCOTUS judges retire during their president's term.

So yes, laws should change with the times, but only via the means provided to change them, not because someone died at a fortuitous time and five Ivy league twits decided that their own personal ideology trumps the actual written word of the law. Use the fucking amendment process.

>>2895894

The air force is unconstitutional.

>>2896179
Navy and army should have each one a air branch.

>>2896179
Swearing on the bible is unconstitutional
So is the pledge of allegiance

>>2896168
> the intended reform mechanism: amendments.

You don’t need a constitutional amendment to repeal say, NAFTA but it’ll never happen, as virtually all our politicians are wholly owned by Wall Street.

What’s needed is sunset clauses in all legislation (such as was the case with the Clinton “Assault Weapon Ban”) that automatically cancels the legislation after a set time period.

We're being fucked six ways to Sunday with perpetual laws enacted by politicians who are long gone when the shit hits the fan.

>>2896299
>>2896179
>Americans are hypocrites
Woah

File: calvin.png (568KB, 469x600px) Image search: [Google]

568KB, 469x600px

>>2895894
>Should Amendments, Laws, Justice, Or Policies change as does our Times?
> capitalising nouns in English

Time traveller detected.

>>2896179

The Air Force evolved out of the Army in the same way that the Marines evolved out of the Navy.

>>2897395
Did English capitalize nouns in the past? Awesome. I want to know more.