Should the U.S. Constitution Be Revised To Reflect Current Times?

[Terminator]

The U.S. Constitution was adopted in 1787. It is supposed to reflect the supreme law of the land. The U.S. Constitution was adopted over 220 years ago. Times have changed. Some might say the U.S. Constitution is outdated. Not an accurate representation of the people or the system as it is today. Should the U.S. Constitution be revised to reflect current times? Why/Why not? Would our forefathers have envisioned how this country has evolved, or would they want us to revise this to reflect current times?

[Five-0]

I would love to hear how some think the Constitution should be revised. Examples please.

[pgg]

No it shouldn't..... I also think that we (the Country) aren't following it right now. I think the path we are currently on will eventually lead to the downfall of this Country.

[Willowdared]

Isn't that what amendments are for?

[Car 4]

I would like to see the 2nd amendment expanded to include tactical man portable cobalt/nutron devices in the 10 megaton/second range.

Then I would like to see an Urban Renewal amendment for section 8 housing.

Car 4

[Terminator]

Isn't that what amendments are for?

How many amendments do you make before you decide it's easier just to change the original document?

[Captain America]

I would like to see the 2nd amendment expanded to include tactical man portable cobalt/nutron devices in the 10 megaton/second range.

Then I would like to see an Urban Renewal amendment for section 8 housing.

Car 4

Your just clinging to your weapons of mass destruction and your religion.

[Car 4]

Awww....you saw right through me, Captain.

[CTR man]

No it shouldn't..... I also think that we (the Country) aren't following it right now. I think the path we are currently on will eventually lead to the downfall of this Country.

This is due to many that feel that they only want to follow their interpretation the constitution.

[Terminator]

This is due to many that feel that they only want to follow their interpretation the constitution.

So should we change it to make the intentions crystal clear?

[pgg]

So should we change it to make the intentions crystal clear?

I thought it was crystal clear already.. then again I'm only a simple man

[Rhino]

No. I think the times should be changed to reflect the constitution.

There are so many laws, agencies, and even modern amendments to the Constitution that, IMO, render the Bill of Rights almost obsolete.

The only change I would even consider making would be a re-wording of the 1st Amendment that would force the press to be non-biased. But then CNN and Fox News would be out of business.

[Big Al]

So should we change it to make the intentions crystal clear?

It is clear as it is written. However we live in a society that has argued over the meaning of the word "is", therefore the language in the constitution has been and always will be debatable as to it's meaning.

The old adage, "If it's not broke, don't fix it" applies concerning it as it is written.

[Captain America]

Even if you were to re-write the Constitution , there would always be some jackass lawyer or judge that would try to bend the original intended meaning to fit their agenda because that is what they do to try to justify their existance. The basic principles set for in the Constittuion as wrtten by the Founding Fathers are sound and timeless. I wouldn't rewrite the Bible either.

[Jenna]

The Constitution works OK for the most part. It was well-thought-out, especially considering that it was the first of its kind and was written under a tight deadline by people who didn't have experience with this kind of thing. But I don't think it's any kind of sacred or perfect document. No one, however smart and well-meaning, could have predicted the future and figured out in advance what would be best in every possible situation. Any set of rules can be improved after you see how they work or don't work in practice, and should change when society changes. But I think any changes should follow the Constitution's own amendment process, which makes changing it sufficiently difficult to prevent drastic changes that don't reflect the will of the vast majority.

I'd like to see an the Equal Rights Amendment to guarantee gender equality.

I think the Constitution currently gives too much power to one person--the President. I'd like to see an amendment to make it possible for Congress impeach a President for any reason, not just for criminal charges. This would provide a way to get rid of a President who hasn't done anything obviously criminal but turns out to be incompetent, breaks too many campaign promises, or otherwise deviates too far from the will of the majority that elected him/her.

I'd like to see an amendment to have people vote for political parties rather individuals for the House of Representatives, with seats allocated on the basis of how many votes each party gets rather than on the basis of geographic districts, and then have the registered members of each political party select its own representatives.That way there could be many parties represented in Congress, not just two, and people would be voting for policies (as represented by a specific political party) rather than whoever has the flashiest personality or slickest, most expensive ads. People who don't completely agree with either the Democratic or the Republican platform could vote for a smaller party that they completely agree with instead of just voting for the lesser of two evils or throwing their vote away on a smaller party like under the current system, and Congress would be more representative of many interests that currently get ignored. Everyone's vote would have a chance of counting, not just the votes of people in swing districts. If there's just one issue you care about more than any other, whether it's law enforcement, gun rights or a flat tax, you could vote for a party that just focuses on that issue, and have someone to speak for that issue in Congress. Under the current system there is not enough publicity about most House of Representatives candidates for most voters to know enough about their candidates to make informed decisions--we no longer live in the close-knit communities that the Founding Fathers lived in, and don't know our neighbors well enough to evaluate their suitability as our Congressional district's Representatives. Registered members of a particular party are in a better position to evaluate their own party leaders' competence, morals, and adherence to the party platform than average voters, who only see the media spin and don't have time to research each politician's background thoroughly. These days people move around so much that their interests are more likely to be defined by their political views than by where they live. Also there are currently too many Congressional districts that are gerrymandered to ensure particular outcomes. Getting rid of Congressional district representation would also eliminate incentives to channel federal funds into pork-barrel earmarks for particular districts to bribe voters into voting for incumbents. The Senate could still be based on statewide elections for individuals and make sure each state's geographically based interests are represented at the federal level, since Senate elections are usually well-publicized enough for most voters to make an informed decision.

[Five-0]

Jenna Jenna Jenna, changing the Constitution has already weakened the House of Representatives. When we started the popular election of the Senate the States were weakened. The Power does reside in the House. That is where all spending bills must originate. The intent of the founders was to keep most of the power at the state and local level via a direct election of Congressmen and the Congressional appointment of Senators. The 17th Amendment usurped the power of the States. The States are the cushion against overwhelming Federal power. Since the passage of the 17th Amendment the power of the Federal government has grown exponentially. You have to watch politicians when they want to change things. See the Alabama State Constitution 800+ amendments and counting. The push now is to rewrite our state constitution. It is bad now, but it could become much worse if today's politicians and lawyers (one in the same) get a blank slate. Ever present vigilance by the "individuals" that are governed is the only hope of our Republic. Remember the U.S. Constitution was written to protect the people from the government not the government from the people. You let those in power change the rules and I will guarantee that they change the rules to give those in power more power.

[CTR man]

Even if you were to re-write the Constitution , there would always be some jackass lawyer or judge that would try to bend the original intended meaning to fit their agenda because that is what they do to try to justify their existance. The basic principles set for in the Constittuion as wrtten by the Founding Fathers are sound and timeless. I wouldn't rewrite the Bible either.

+1

The Bible has been changed many times by those that are too lazy to get through the thees and thous of the King James Version. Every time it is changed there is always something from the original version that is lost. IMO if you can't read the text (KJV) you need to go back to school to learn how. We all know how many times the Bible has been changed. Oy!

[Retmilleo909]

There's nothing wrong with the vehicle, it's the driver that needs changing.

[countybear]

The left has been 'interpreting' the consitution for years...

I particularly like these (minor) revisions that have been arrived at through modern interpretation:

We the People of the United States, (which must include anyone in the world that we interact with, including terrorists who murder us by the thousands, and illegal aliens who sneak across our borders), in Order to form a more perfect Union, (and Union-ize labor more perfectly), establish Just-us (the leftists), ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence (unless the plaintiff's side promises us more profit), promote a Welfare State, (by bleeding the workers), and secure the Blessings of (the American Civil Liberties Union), to ourselves and our Posterity (who weren't killed for our convenience), do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America, (until we change our minds and find another way to bastardize and bend it to our own contemporary agenda).

There are many more; perhaps one day I shall actually take the time to completely go through the Constitution and adapt it to modern interpretation. Sounds like a very interesting commentary.

Here's a few of the Bill of Rights adaptations that I have seen:

Amendment I:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, (excepting the religion of having no religion, and laws prohibiting religious displays), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, (unless those excersizing such are children in a school setting or activity); abridging the freedom of speech, (unless it is insensitive to minorities, transgendered, or homosexuals), or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, (when we decide that we need to appear to give the slightest damn).

Amendment II:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, (except by municipalities, restrictive State legislation, when in malls, colleges, aircraft, anywhere otherwise not particularly deemed 'necessary' or convenient, when hidden, or when such "Arms" do not qualify as serving a legitimate peaceful or sporting purpose, or might otherwise incite or hurt someone.

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, (until we find a way to make the States or the people finance it through us, so we can control it to the point of removing all rights pertaining to what we grant financing for with the people's own money).

Geez, there are so many.. I guess these are just my favorites.

[OfficerResource.com]

I voted NO. I truly wanted to vote yes BUT with such a difference between the way the left and the right think I think that changing it would be a crap shoot. I fear that changing it would only screw us up even more and it would give the left what they want.