Close Topic Options

Re-write The U. S. Constitution

If you could re-write the US Constitution would there be anything you would want to add or take away from it? If so what would you like to say or remove?

Constitution S U Re-write

Well, I'm in the minority here, so I had better explain why I put add allot.

The constitution my opinion was created as a living document. The reason being was that there was no way of our fore fathers being able to see so many of the issues we have today. They couldn't see smoking hazards or car pollution or driving laws and the such. Today we end up trying to interpret laws made for a simpler time into a cohesive law for todays world. People today rarely look at the reason the laws where made to begin with and simply interpret them to their own means. For instance, the right to bear arms was made in a time when we had no standing police or military force to stand up the British. Now we try to interpret that to mean that we should be able to carry concealed weapons. Well, that wasn't the spirit of the law when it was created, because it was a different time period with different circumstances.

I think that the constitution needs a massive over hauling. I'm not talking about changing basic rights. I'm talking about updating it to refer to problems and situations that occur in todays world, not laws addressing issues from two hundred years ago. Too much has changed, to much is different. Our laws are different, the world is different, lets make the constitution truly apply to todays world, not the world of yester years. Our forefathers meant it to be that way, they would have wanted it to change with the people to reflect and address the world the people it governs lived in.

Message Edited! edited for spelling

Edited: konquererz on 27th May, 2006 - 7:16pm

Re-write The U. S. Constitution History & Civil Business Politics

I don't live in the US so my opinion doesn't really matter. But I think legalised firearms is one of the stupidest pieces of legislation in existence. That is what I would change.

Edited: arvhic on 10th Jun, 2005 - 10:42am

Constitution S U Re-write

Oddly enough, the constitution does not legalize firearms.

This probably should be updated for today for this reason. This "right to bear arms" right was created in a time when we needed a standing militia. Most people simply ignore the part about the militia being "well regulated" or even just leave that out to say they can carry a hand gun on them. Since militia's are not needed since we have a volunteer army and a volunteer trained police force, the spirit behind the law is null. Thus many things like this exist in the constitution that are no longer relevant to todays society and need to be addressed.

Constitution S U Re-write

If my memory serves me well, every dictator in the world has had gun control laws. They had all the guns and made all the laws. When they take my guns it will be out of my cold, dead, fingers.

Re-write The U. S. Constitution

Yes, the 2nd Amendment talks about a militia. The militia at that time consisted of every able-bodied man. The purpose of the militia was to protect the community, and fight against tyranny.

Today, we live in a crowded world. Crime is rampant. Police have limited powers, and extremely limited numbers. Police are completely unable to protect us. They can only investigate, solve, and attempt to put criminals into prison.

Because of this, it is up to the individual to protect ourselves. We can do that in a wide variety of ways. We can have a whole bunch of guard dogs around us all the time, to keep criminals away from our homes. We can do like many of the rich liberal activists do, the ones who make such a big fuss about how the common people shouldn't have weapons. That is, we can hire licensed bodyguards, who carry weapons, to protect us (Rosie O'Donnell immediately comes to mind). If we are very wealthy, we can live in a gated community, protected by a private security company, behind great big fences. Or, we can do what the vast majority of US citizens do. Nothing at all. We can sit back and hope beyond hope that the police will catch all the criminals before they get to us. Of course, this is a hopeless sort of hope, as violent crime continues.

The Constitution is designed to protect our rights. One of those rights is the right to defend ourselves from crime, tyranny, and invasion. The Constitution is not designed to say that ONLY the rights and powers that IT defines are ours, but it is designed to spell out specifically what the Government CAN do. In fact, the US Government is not supposed to do anything that the Constitution does not specifically give that government authority to do. Unfortunately, the government has usurped the authority of the states and the individual to such an extent that it is possible now for us to discuss whether or not the government has the authority to tell us that we can or can't own weapons for self defence.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the 2nd Amendment means that gun ownership on an individual basis is protected. So, if someone says that the 2nd Amendment does NOT protect private ownership of guns, then they are trying to revise history as well as over 200 years of legal precedence.

Now, back to the original question, and konquererz's original reply.

I don't believe that the Constitution needs any sort of re-write or update. It needs to be enforced and applied. The separation of powers outlined in it needs to be strictly enforced. Those areas where the government is not specifically given power to act need to be forcefully restricted. Such things as massive and oppressive regulation by governmental agencies without either Congressional oversight, judicial review, or even executive enforcement need to be cut completely out of our society.

Remember, the 10th Amendment says that any power or authority not specifically reserved to the Federal government is reserved to the individual states. Since we have completely given up on this, allowing the Federal government to tell us who and how we can marry, what we can do with our own land, how our children will be schooled, how fast we can drive on the highways, who businesses can or can't or must do business with or hire, what businesses must pay employees, what businesses may or may not charge for goods and services, or whether or not a state can make decisions about land within its own boundaries, we have now gotten what we asked for. We live in a socialist society now, filled with entitlements. We are forced, by the government, to give charitable contributions in the form of taxes. Of course, the vast bulk of our taxes go to pay the millions of government employees who interfere with all aspects of our lives, but that is what socialism is all about.

The Constitution doesn't need to be re-written. It needs to be enforced. It isn't a "living document" but rather a framework designed to limit the power and authority of a huge living monster. Over the last 100 years or so, we have allowed the monster to break out of its cage - the framework. So, rather than seek to change the Constitution, seek to understand and apply it. It doesn't give us our rights, it guarantees to protect ALL of them. Any rewriting that would be done would certainly restrict those rights in favor of various special interests and political entities.

Re-write U. S. Constitution

The biggest problem with our country today is people in high office with blinders on. They are of one mind. They "work" with only one thing on their mind. Get Re-elected. They live above the law, ignore what the people want, and change our "living" constitution to suit their need at the moment. I'm ready to throw them all out!

Re-write U. S. Constitution Politics Business Civil & History

First, let me say that my views on the second amendment have changed. You should see the thread I opened about it Here.

But I do have this quote from one of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, who help write the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. He believed in the changing of the Constitution to match what the current group of people believed in. He believed that it was necessary and vital to repair, redo, and reword it to reflect the peoples belief system even if that entailed a new form of government. The writers meant for it to change with the times, not remain the exact same, because times change, and they understood that.