Is it time for a rewrite of the US Constitution?

[jstern01]

When Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the found fathers gathered to create our Constitution over 200 years ago times were a lot simpler. The US was relatively small. Societal, religious and economic issues were pretty homogeneous among the states, so the document they created reflected these ideas.

Fast forward to the 21st century. The US is a world economic power with interests around the globe. Our citizenry has become a blend of every culture and society we have touched. Our military is looked upon to help in times of natural and man made disasters and wars. Isn't it time we updated our Constitution to reflect what we as a nation have evolved too, and where we want to go?

The founding fathers knew that the document they created would need to adapt over time, they provided mechanisms for us to change the Constitution. One method is amending the constitution, a tedious and often long running process that for better or worse is pretty much impossible to do today with the way politics at the national level is heading.

They also provided an other way via Article V of the Constitution is for the states to call for a federal convention. While this has been attempt a few times in the past and never worked, that does not mean if citizens at the state level initiated a voter referendum that it is not possible.

Such a convention if were to happen would allow for the states to address many of the issues that we see challenged on a daily basis in court battles between the federal government and the states.

Is it time for the states and the citizens to update the Constitution?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

 

[Jaskalas]

Is it time for the states and the citizens to update the Constitution?

Sure, but the rights of the citizens and their States must come first before all else. The concept of centralized planning must be stamped out explicitly in the United States Constitution.

 

[cybrsage]

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

 

[monovillage]

"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.

 

[Linflas]

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

This. The principles of government in the Constitution have not changed and the dangers of tyranny are just as real today as they were in 1787.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

"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.

The advantage of using the second option to amend the Constitution is that it needn't be done by a state legislature but allows a state convention to play a significant part. I do however believe that partisan hacks would make the process difficult. I do believe in principle however that some changes would be reasonable. If the result would be to insert crap then that's another thing.

 

[HumblePie]

OP is an idiot. Straight up. I responded to this question in another thread where he asked this as to why he is an idiot. Speaking of which...

WWYBYWB?

 

[jstern01]

This. The principles of government in the Constitution have not changed and the dangers of tyranny are just as real today as they were in 1787.

Actually the principles of government ala 18th century focused on growing a country (manifest destiny). It look to develop our nation based upon an isolationist view point. Today we know that isolationist view no longer works in a global economy. So how could you apply those outdated principles and views in today's world?

 

[xj0hnx]

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

 

[polarmystery]

As long as they keep it secular, but the way people are nowadays...there is a fat chance of that.

 

[xj0hnx]

Actually the principles of government ala 18th century focused on growing a country (manifest destiny). It look to develop our nation based upon an isolationist view point. Today we know that isolationist view no longer works in a global economy. So how could you apply those outdated principles and views in today's world?

There's nothing "isolationist" in the Constitution.

 

[xj0hnx]

As long as they keep it secular, but the way people are nowadays...there is a fat chance of that.

You mean a LOT less religious than they were when it was written

 

[Linflas]

Actually the principles of government ala 18th century focused on growing a country (manifest destiny). It look to develop our nation based upon an isolationist view point. Today we know that isolationist view no longer works in a global economy. So how could you apply those outdated principles and views in today's world?

Can you point out an article or amendment in the current US Constitution that mandate, mention, or enshrine in any way either manifest destiny or isolationism?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Actually the principles of government ala 18th century focused on growing a country (manifest destiny). It look to develop our nation based upon an isolationist view point. Today we know that isolationist view no longer works in a global economy. So how could you apply those outdated principles and views in today's world?

The principles embodied in the Constitution were to prevent a King George from arising. Is freedom of speech or religion isolationist? Protections from unreasonable search and seizure? The concept that government derives it's right to govern by the people? What protections in the Bill of Rights is isolationist and you want removed?

 

[theevilsharpie]

Other than perhaps clarifying some of the more ambiguous parts of the U.S. Constitution and rephrasing it using modern-day wording, I don't see any reason to rewrite it completely.

 

[jstern01]

There's nothing "isolationist" in the Constitution.

no, but the view point at the time was one of isolationism. So while we would like to think that our Constitution works for every situation, its writers were at least smart enough to leave us ways to make it more relevant over time.

 

[Jeffg010]

Who you going to let write this? I'd love to see who gets picked for this train wreck. How about we just have congress vote in people they think should write this or maybe the great wisdom of Obama should pick who should write this.

I have a better idea lets just have Ron Paul put his loony ideas in there.

Dumbest idea ever.

If congress was to write this it be 10,000+ pages. I could go on and on about this...

There is also this thing called amendments if there something that needs to be changed.

 

[jstern01]

The principles embodied in the Constitution were to prevent a King George from arising. Is freedom of speech or religion isolationist? Protections from unreasonable search and seizure? The concept that government derives it's right to govern by the people? What protections in the Bill of Rights is isolationist and you want removed?

The mention of isolationist is more to the point that they did not foresee the impact of a changing (evolving) world on how our country would change. One need only look at what Washington's views expressed upon leaving the presidency in 1796.

“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.”

So here we have a good example of the mindset of the time, not necessary what they might explicitly put into the Constitution, but what help make it what it is.

 

[polarmystery]

You mean a LOT less religious than they were when it was written

Point taken.

 

[Linflas]

no, but the view point at the time was one of isolationism. So while we would like to think that our Constitution works for every situation, its writers were at least smart enough to leave us ways to make it more relevant over time.

It was a point of view then as it is today. It was not the only point of view then anymore than it is now.

 

[jstern01]

Who you going to let write this? I'd love to see who gets picked for this train wreck. How about we just have congress vote in people they think should write this or maybe the great wisdom of Obama should pick who should write this.

I have a better idea lets just have Ron Paul put his loony ideas in there.

Dumbest idea ever.

If congress was to write this it be 10,000+ pages. I could go on and on about this...

There is also this thing called amendments if there something that needs to be changed.

Do you know when the last amendment to the constitution added? It was 1992, and was propose in 1789! Over 200 years. And when was the last really impacting one added? In 1971, over 40 years ago. So before you discount the idea, consider the fact in today's disfunctional Congress, how unlikely any amendments would get going.

 

[yllus]

The main principles are fine, but I think it's easily arguable that the composition and rule framework of government bodies in the United States is in need of a serious overhaul.

 

[BoberFett]

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.

 

[Jeffg010]

Do you know when the last amendment to the constitution added? It was 1992, and was propose in 1789! Over 200 years. And when was the last really impacting one added? In 1971, over 40 years ago. So before you discount the idea, consider the fact in today's disfunctional Congress, how unlikely any amendments would get going.

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.