DescentBB

Being that the constitution was written a couple hundred years ago, do you think that it's outdated and should adapt to a more modern day set of basic laws?

If so, what laws would you change and why?

**disclaimer** This thread is not geared to spark a heated discussion, although, I know it will.**

Repeal the 19th Ammendment*

*I'm Ayman al-Zawahiri and I approved this message

taxes - flat tax if at all.
personal lifestyle - you should not benefit or be punished for your lifestyle. unless of course you are stepping on the toes of others. the carrots that are dangled in front of people make me sick to my stomach.
national (bank) holidays - only seem to benefit 2 religious groups in america... the rest of us are like: "thanks? , what about me?"

The way people shirk personal responsibility today and the way they stand in line with their hand out expecting others to pay their way, the way they respond to pandering politicians who promise the moon...

Well let's just say I don't think america is made up of the same kind of citizen as it was when the constitution was originally created. The kind of citizen with the ethical and moral character to resist temptation to be self serving and shortsighted, that could responsibly unlock the constitution and alter it for the better and lock it back again.

A constitutional convention to either alter, or dispose of, the constitution would be the beginning of the end.

A classic case of tinkering with the constitution is the 18 amendment or more popularly "prohibition".
At prohibitions enactment:

"Reverend Billy Sunday stirred audiences with this optimistic prediction:
The reign of tears is over. The slums will soon be a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and corncribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile and children will laugh. Hell will be forever for rent"

Quite the contrary happened:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html

Not at all, but I believe that all laws should be compared to it, and see if they still hold water. Millions of garbage laws would be removed.

It is fine for the most part. Only a few things need to be changed.

Will Robinson wrote:The way people shirk personal responsibility today and the way they stand in line with their hand out expecting others to pay their way, the way they respond to pandering politicians who promise the moon...

Well let's just say I don't think america is made up of the same kind of citizen as it was when the constitution was originally created. The kind of citizen with the ethical and moral character to resist temptation to be self serving and shortsighted, that could responsibly unlock the constitution and alter it for the better and lock it back again.

A constitutional convention to either alter, or dispose of, the constitution would be the beginning of the end.

Well said, I agree.

Barry, as I understand it, the founding fathers believed the Constitution would be a "Living Document" designed to reflect the beliefs and aspirations of each generation of Americans.

Unfortunately, it seems to have lost that aspect of its existence.

As I understand it, it was designed as a sort of general catch all that the government can work with for the good of the nation. It's short for a reason. For one it's to allow the courts to interpret the constitution as they see fit (or more specifically to see if laws are more or less just based on what the government is allowed to do), and not to bog it down with rules that only show their time.

In as far as I'm concerned, the less the constitution is changed the better.

I'd change the election system.

1. Ditch plurality voting. Some form of proportional representation or at the very very least a system of Instant Runoffs. A candidate should at least have to get 50% +1 to win. Two party dominance sux my nads.

2. Elections take place Friday afternoon through sunday night. Tuesday is crap, and it discourages voter turnout because people have other stuff to do. If it was availible all weekend youd get a lot of lazy people who would other wise have nothing to do who will say "Aw screw it, aint got nothing else to do, might as well go vote". This is especially true if the poles are open all night.

3. Privately funded campaigns are crap. Every federal election draws on a sampaign fund set aside for that specific election. Some state level elections such as governor should become publicly funded as well. You wanna give funds to a candidates campaign, give money to the fund so it gets evenly distributed.

4. Debates with almost no rules and as many participants as is practical should occur weekly for the las um, two or three months of the campaign. A 5-8 person presidential debate in the format of oh, say, politically incorrect would be vastly more entertaining and informative than the scripted, two person drivvel they horse feed us three times per cycle.


Those changes alone would make an incredible difference in the quality of our government.

Hm, fine.

I'd change the Constitution to allow for more than one "President". Maybe 3 - 5, to allow for far better domestic and foreign policy, voted in and out on different times (instead of all 5 at once, which would lead to problems). Keep the one Vice President but have him elected separately from the others.

I like it. It works just fine.

As opposed to things like our state constitutions. Each time I go to to vote, there are all of these damned amendments to the constitution, like taking care of pregnant pigs or adding bullet trains and then repealing them.

Mobius wrote:Unfortunately, it seems to have lost that aspect of its existence.

Wrong again mate. It lives.

Here's a question: how many people here have read it?
*raises hand

Wrong again mate. It lives.

Yes, it does, but not by much. The ignorance of the current and past generations have trampled all over it, especially the Bill of Rights.

You can only have one President.

If you want, directly elect the 5 most senior cabinet positions, but the buck needs to stop at just one person, or the country will be stuck in a constant, never-ending rounds of committee go-arounds.

I like it as-is. After over 200 years, it's still a brilliant document with extreme relevance, even after all the changes that this country has undergone. I recently visited the National Constitution Center in Philly; I'd highly recommend it to anyone in the area. However, a provision to severely punish activist judges who attempt to re-write it from the bench would go over well with me.

I agree with Will on this one--I don't think many people (and certainly not the general citizen) are made of tough enough stuff to be able to revise the constitution for the better. It's made to be a lasting defense against tyranny, and I think it does that, even if pieces of it are getting to be a bit dated. But the gutsy love of freedom, the impulse to limit the powers of the government and slow corruption, the recent memory of tyranny and religious persecution and the need for defenses against them--these are not in us as a country these days. If it was rewritten today, I think we'd end up with a mess of foolish wishes and PC hogwash.

It's a shame, really, because it would be great to get a modern mathematician, a historian, and a political scientist together to really analyze and hash out a good voting system. (Though I think the electoral college is very good, I dislike some of its effects...) It would be great to set up some further barriers to military coup, in a day when militaries are so powerful. It would be great to re-embolden some of our principles of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, that in my eyes have decayed a bit. It would be great to really come together in a national dialogue about who counts as human, who we're giving rights of 'life, liberty and happiness' to--and make a bold answer that we as a culture can agree to. Though it is a great principle, the answer has come in pieces through the centuries--black people, for example. And today we discuss the unborn and the old and sick, and to an extent, gays. Though we've made a lot of progress, we've confused the principled in the process--now different people mean different things by it. It would be wonderful to come together and say, "This is what we mean by person, here are the rights they get, here is why" so we could at least be consistent.

But that would never happen. I couldn't happen, because we've succeeded too well in our diversity--the country is metaphysically fragmented; you'd never get a set of values that resonated with everyone. You'd get compromise and fights to include things that some value and others don't. You can't support bold values of freedom in a context like that.

The constitution already does adapt to the day, through amendments. Though I fear that's too slow and piecemeal, it will have to do--I doubt that in this culture we can do better.