Is it time for a rewrite of the US Constitution?

[BoT]

I think we should just start using the one we have.

+1 and it should start from the top down.
our own gov is violating many of our constitutional right through varies branches on a daily basis.
it's not broken, why fix it.
it's the people that are broken and spend more time to find loopholes then enforcing it because of ... you guessed it, money.

 

[jstern01]

The primary interest the framers had was that of self-determination. A constitution written today would be a nightmare of special interests.

And people who believe that technology changing renders the constitution invald are fools. Technology has been changing for thousands of years. It's not like the founders were so stupid they thought the 1700s were the height of technology and that communication and weaponry would never advance. They knew history and knew that things change. That's why some things were kept somewhat vague.

Agreed. But should we not look to clarify (codify) some of these changes in how they impact these amendments in view of the changes in technology, instead of leaving it up to 9 people on the Supreme Court?

Perfect example is the 4th amendment. There is no way that the founding fathers could of foreseen technology changes that allow for surreptitious collection of information both in communications and electronic methods.

Allowing the courts to decide this issue has cause lots of missteps and misery for both governments and individuals (mostly individuals).

How about we modify that amendment by updating it via a Constitutional Convention, rather then allow our corporate congress to do their corporate overlords will via the congressional method?

 

[monovillage]

The 4th and in fact all the Bill of Rights aren't that hard to understand and apply to modern day living. If anyone needs to see what the intent of the framers of the Constitution were it's pretty damn easy to go and read what the hell they intended. It's not as if it were handed down through the mists of time from pre-history. WTF is so hard to understand and apply.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

 

[jstern01]

Who is going to write it? You want congress to? How that health care bill turned out or the tax code.

Maybe there is a reason that it does not get changed very often.

Ok you guys tell me what in the in the constitution needs changed not some fluff about religion stuff needs changed. I want specific parts posted.

1st amendment -- freedom of speech reserved for living beings. Serious Corporations are people, that needs to be fixed.

4th amendment. Updated to reflect the change in technology or the impact of technology.

 

[JockoJohnson]

I believe so, but I'd say preserve the ideals and make it more effective in those goals. Election reform, corporate and political party controls, a firmer commitment to liberty. That is what I'd like to see.

Yes, exactly what every elected politician wants to reform

 

[monovillage]

Damn, another guy that is fine for the SC to declare that burning a flag is political speech, but that donating money to advertise a political point of view is an abomination.

 

[jstern01]

The 4th and in fact all the Bill of Rights aren't that hard to understand and apply to modern day living. If anyone needs to see what the intent of the framers of the Constitution were it's pretty damn easy to go and read what the hell they intended. It's not as if it were handed down through the mists of time from pre-history. WTF is so hard to understand and apply.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Yet everyday in courts challenges to the 4th are argued, and ruled upon, so it is not clear. Same with the 1st amendment and corporations are people. While you argue that the intentions of the framers are clear, they clearly wrote the constitution with ambiguity in mind. And no there is not any real proof what they intended, because other than the federalist papers, which are a bunch of talking point at best, no one document definitely says this was what we intended.

 

[Jeffg010]

+1 and it should start from the top down.
our own gov is violating many of our constitutional right through varies branches on a daily basis.
it's not broken, why fix it.
it's the people that are broken and spend more time to find loopholes then enforcing it because of ... you guessed it, money.

This +10000
Look one way to fix this would be every branch elected official had ONE Term limit. This would stop a lot crap going on. Why is it they could make 2 terms limits for the president and not the rest of the government?

Even if we rewrote the constitutional do you really think the current government would follow it like they the should? Look at SOPA we knocked that down but why even have a law like it if government still going to do what they did to MEGAUPLOAD.

 

[JockoJohnson]

Do you think they put as much thought as they did into, but didn't think about the future?

Of course the framers of the Constitution didn't put any thought about the future into the Constitution. If they had, they would have included wording for the US to have an Air Force. We know that has been pointed out numerous times that there is no mention of the Air Force in the Constitution, yet we still have one.

 

[Linflas]

Agreed. But should we not look to clarify (codify) some of these changes in how they impact these amendments in view of the changes in technology, instead of leaving it up to 9 people on the Supreme Court?

Perfect example is the 4th amendment. There is no way that the founding fathers could of foreseen technology changes that allow for surreptitious collection of information both in communications and electronic methods.

Allowing the courts to decide this issue has cause lots of missteps and misery for both governments and individuals (mostly individuals).

How about we modify that amendment by updating it via a Constitutional Convention, rather then allow our corporate congress to do their corporate overlords will via the congressional method?

No what has changed is the willingness of those entrusted to ensure the Constitution is followed have in many cases abdicated their responsibilities. Ask yourself this: You are riding from Philadelphia to Trenton on horseback in 1788 and are stopped by a law officer. Would the founders have supported the search of you and your saddlebags absent some visible probable cause? How about if you were in a wagon, once again would the founders have said that a warrant was required to search your wagon absent some probable cause? How is that any different from a car other than the obvious technology differences? Much the same can be said for almost any of our current technology, the problem is that the public has been quiescent while more and more egregious violations of the 4th amendment have been accepted all in the interest of making things easier for law enforcement and some illusion of safety for the public. No amount of words on paper will change that if the public accepts it as the norm.

 

[monovillage]

Yet everyday in courts challenges to the 4th are argued, and ruled upon, so it is not clear. Same with the 1st amendment and corporations are people. While you argue that the intentions of the framers are clear, they clearly wrote the constitution with ambiguity in mind. And no there is not any real proof what they intended, because other than the federalist papers, which are a bunch of talking point at best, no one document definitely says this was what we intended.

It wouldn't matter how clearly it was written, special interests will always sue to get any advantage, to make money or gain political power.
Rewriting the Constitution to favor the special interests you personally approve of won't change a thing.

 

[nyker96]

"homogenous among the States"?
There's no politician or statesman alive today that i'd trust with my shopping list, let alone the Constitution. Show me someone of the moral caliber of George Washington and i'll think about it.

Newt can be your man!

 

[monovillage]

Newt can be your man!

I said someone with the moral caliber of George Washington. Sadly the Newt doesn't qualify.

 

[HumblePie]

Again, OP is an idiot. The Constitution is a outline document for Government. Government deals with social interaction and human behavior. That's the whole point of a government, making sure we all get along as peaceably as possible with each other. Nothing more, and nothing less. As times change, the way a government implements or executes it's duties will also change, but the same basic principles of what a government is, how it is suppose to function, and how human behavior is dealt with NEVER CHANGES.

The Constitution deals with the LATER part of my statement in regards to government. It dictates how our government is suppose to function and deal with social human behavior. It is NOT suppose to be a list of set rules for the execution of Government procedures. You are a complete idiot if you think otherwise which is what this post has been completely about so far.

 

[MovingTarget]

No. It is still relatively lean and serves our purposes well. This is what a constitution needing to be rewritten looks like.

 

[gevorg]

Why rewrite it when you can create hoops around it and make it less and less relevant?

Patriot Act, TSA, NDAA, Enemy Expatriation Act, crippled gun rights (I'm looking at you California!), etc.

 

[Griffinhart]

Yet everyday in courts challenges to the 4th are argued, and ruled upon, so it is not clear. Same with the 1st amendment and corporations are people. While you argue that the intentions of the framers are clear, they clearly wrote the constitution with ambiguity in mind. And no there is not any real proof what they intended, because other than the federalist papers, which are a bunch of talking point at best, no one document definitely says this was what we intended.

The US defines more than just individuals as 'people'. And the Bill of Rights are rightfully extended to organizations. Unless you are suggesting that government's don't need warrants to search corporate, union or other organizations offices.

It's also important to know that the bill of rights forbids the abridging of free speech, period. It is not a protection afforded to individuals, but a prohibition of any attempt to stifle speech.

Congress shall make no law respecting an 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

 

[waggy]

NO it should not.

why? who is going to write it? i can see a "sponsor" of it being the RIAA,MPAA,tyco, and monsento.

 

[monovillage]

I don't think i'll ever understand the people that act as if the Bill of Rights was some great mystery and you need a Rosetta stone and 50 "Constitutional lawyers" to interpret what it says. It's just not that hard to read and understand.

 

[BoberFett]

Perfect example is the 4th amendment. There is no way that the founding fathers could of foreseen technology changes that allow for surreptitious collection of information both in communications and electronic methods.

The problem is not the consitution, it's the politicians who shit on it. Expecting the same politicians that shit on the intent of the consitution (regardless of the actual wording) to properly fix it by writing a new one is naive.

 

[Anarchist420]

Yes it should be rescinded because it's way too tyrannical. It did what it was supposed to do though. Social Contract Theory is almost as ridiculous as Democratic Peace Theory, because you can't protect individual liberty by limiting individual liberty. I can't believe someone as bright as Jefferson actually believed in that BS.

The Articles of Confederation had the States limit each other and that maximized liberty. The Federal Constitution, however, has a more centralized group of rulers who limit the liberty of the people.

What's really screwed up is that it limits my liberty even though I didn't sign it.