the constitution was influenced by Locke who states that we have rights not granted just because of the government

No, those are what help to protect liberty.

Pretty sure that quote was from Jefferson who wasnt even in the country at the point saying that. He was refencing Shay's rebellion I think it was

It would be a much better tool of ensuring them if it couldn't be edited.

It doesn't need to be edited in order to be eroded. See: 2nd amendment.

Yeah, we can literally just ignore it.

We have for, like, over a century.

“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

“A Republic, *if you can keep it*.”

You do realize... that you arguing this allows for the government to stripe us of our rights and effectively put us under tyrannical rule.

Honestly I wonder if the problem of this whole debate started with my miscommunication. @Dusty Morgan maybe your right that the constitution would grant the freedom of prostitution, but in my humanistic perspective I find prostitution abhorrent and people shouldn’t do it, whether or not it should be legal

Not only do we have a government that must respect those principles of freedoms, we as citizens also are expected to fight back when the government oversteps their limitations

"Somehow the notion of unalienable liberty got lost. It's really become a question of what liberties will the state assign to individuals or rather, what liberties we will have the strength to cling to."

I do agree with @Bookworm that religious conviction shouldn’t be bared as motivation for law

Because you are arguing that the constitution and bill of rights isn't a inherit right, but a privilege granted to us citizens by the government that can stripe us off at anytime.

Us arguing gives the government power. Incredible.

We aren't arguing for it. We're stating the facts. I don't think any of us like them.

Yes. Because they are.

under Locke the government's only duty is to protect the citizen's property (life, liberty, and possessions)

Rights do get trampled whether or not they're supposed to be.

Theoretically, *everything* in the constitution can be changed

should just be Anarcho-Primitive. Wouldnt need to argue all about this. Just steal each others food and women, then die from TB

We need to decide as a matter of values if any of it *should*

Constitutions get overthrown by regime change all the time.

I wonder if we’ve found a snag in our system: by the principle of natural rights, prostitution would be a natural right of someone’s choice; but the principle of democracy and representation would have the people be able to vote as they desire, even if that would be against the constitution. So where do we stand?

I don't think many people would argue that prostitution is a natural right

There is a term for that Emperor... Majority Rule. Reason we are not suppose to be a Democracy.

By declaring us a Democracy, our politicians effectively betrayed the founding father's visions.

Putting us on the same path as France and UK.

And European Union.

You know why we have United in our name.

Because each representative suppose to represent their own state.

Not the whole nation.

Then you should probably stop letting people vote for stuff. Otherwise, the majority will continue to rule.

Yeah but the founding fathers did see the need to reform the system and be able to amend the constitution through a super majority

Set up an elite oligarchy.

That was because it was suppose to be hard to even get a majority vote.

Because they were diverse ideas and opinions.

This is why things like the electoral college exist.

So, people cooperating is breaking American government. Yep, this country's bound to last a thousand years.

Now we are seeing this fucking destruction of diverse opinions an ideas is leading to a single ideology rulling.