Constitution update?

I always thought I was the only one who actually feels this is necessary to certain degrees, such as modernizing it, getting rid of incredibly broken loopholes, just adapting the country to the current circumstances. Afterall the USA itself is nothing more than a giant human experiment.

Well turns out I wasn't the only one who felt that way:

So What's your thought's on the subject?

Pardon my ignorance here, but how is updating the constitution different from an amendment?

Pardon my ignorance here, but how is updating the constitution different from an amendment?

This is true, but I'm speaking as a complete revamp. Really amending is just more of a patch job.

Has the US Constitution ever been revamped?

The Mexican one has been redone in 1824, 1857 and 1917 (the current one).

Has the US Constitution ever been revamped?

The Mexican one has been redone in 1824, 1857 and 1917 (the current one).

Amendment wise yes, but this is following the example that happened in like Iceland recently? I think that was the country.

Theoretically, good idea.

In real life though, this would never work. Laws have a hard time making it through congress- getting a new constitution agreed upon would be a nightmare.

I think we need to stop changing it on a whim. Mob rule is incredibly easy to manipulate, look at the 18th Amendment and then tell me otherwise. Amendments should be very carefully thought out, and establish far-reaching guidelines. Additionally the courts need to properly interpret the currently existing constitution. It is not constitutional, one way or another, to tell churches whom they should and should not marry. It is not constitutional to impart any barrier to interstate transit (constitution says vessels), so tolls are unconstitutional. Etc.

I think we need to stop changing it. Mob rule is incredibly easy to manipulate, look at the 18th Amendment and then tell me otherwise.

Yeah, screw equal rights

Yeah, screw equal rights

Shablagoo! read again. Equal rights were largely inevitable. I don't think you need a constitutional amendment to stretch "all men" to "all citizens".

The only time we've completely redone our constitution thingy is when we discarded the Articles of Confederation in favor of the new, current Constitution; a large group of elite men in a dark, windowless room, hell they had to give Ben Franklin an escort to keep him from blabbing. Redoing the Constitution would probably involve the same kind of activity, which, nowadays, would not go over well with the population.

I don't really see any problems with the Constitution, at least, it has problems, but it's still working fairly well.

Also, the 18th Amendment has what to do with equal rights? o.O

Shablagoo! read again. Equal rights were largely inevitable. I don't think you need a constitutional amendment to stretch "all men" to "all citizens".

There was nothing in the constitution that said all people had to be treated equally, so people didn't. We amended that. Now there's nothing that says the government can't prohibit same sex marriage, so they do. Should we not amend the constitution, if it comes to it, to allow all people, regardless of orientation, to be married?

The only time we've completely redone our constitution thingy is when we discarded the Articles of Confederation in favor of the new, current Constitution; a large group of elite men in a dark, windowless room, hell they had to give Ben Franklin an escort to keep him from blabbing. Redoing the Constitution would probably involve the same kind of activity, which, nowadays, would not go over well with the population.

I don't really see any problems with the Constitution, at least, it has problems, but it's still working fairly well.

Also, the 18th Amendment has what to do with equal rights? o.O

It doesn't, I was making a point about his statement that we should stop amending the constitution, and equal rights is one of the most important amendments.

It needs to be redone so idiots will stop hiding behind "This is unconstitutional!" about archaic laws. NEED MY GUNS. GOT THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

It needs to be redone so idiots will stop hiding behind "This is unconstitutional!" about archaic laws. NEED MY GUNS. GOT THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

You cannot take my bear arms from me

^^Second.

I believe recently there was uproar over an implicitly religious sign, "Seven in Heaven way" I think it said. Apparently Atheists thought it was unconstitutional because it inferred Heaven existed. Truthfully I don't know much about the American constitution but if it allows such events like this it makes me think that Americans would be better off with a few less "rights" as dictated by their constitution.

@guns, I guess you've never had to live on a farm then... I guess I'll be going, now. Ranchers and farmers shouldn't be on the internet, heh.

The rights not mentioned are given to the people sounds like equal rights to me. Everyone has the same rights, but not the same as the institutions of government. (10th amendment, btw)

@guns, I guess you've never had to live on a farm then... I guess I'll be going, now. Ranchers and farmers shouldn't be on the internet, heh.

Am I the only one that read this with a Bush accent?

It doesn't, I was making a point about his statement that we should stop amending the constitution, and equal rights is one of the most important amendments.

Oh, sorry, I didn't catch that ^^u

^^Second.

I believe recently there was uproar over an implicitly religious sign, "Seven in Heaven way" I think it said. Apparently Atheists thought it was unconstitutional because it inferred Heaven existed. Truthfully I don't know much about the American constitution but if it allows such events like this it makes me think that Americans would be better off with a few less "rights" as dictated by their constitution.

Well, the Constitution doesn't say all that much. It's basically "Here's what the government will do, here's what the government can't do to you", it doesn't really give all that many rights, at least, the way I see it, it's really just the basics. There's citizenship, equal protections, privacy, etc. These are mostly based on interpretations though.

I'm not sure what the context of that event is, but it could most definitely be unconstitutional, depending on a word for word or more loose interpretation. The First Amendment states, again depending on interpretation, that the State can't sponsor a religion; if it was the work of the government, I'd call that unconstitutional.

Also. 2nd Amendment. Not a fan, and while I see it as a well-armed militia being the right of the people, rather than the people having the right to be well-armed, their interpretation is valid too, though I think it's super loose.

But that's just how it works here, it's based on how you look at it.

On amendments in general, in the last few centuries, we've gained, what, 27 amendments, 10 of those being there originally, so it's not like we're just adding amendments as we please, it takes a lot of time to pass them, especially with the requirement of a super majority. Mob rule may have passed the 18th, but we realized it was stupid and passed another amendment that canceled it out, like, the 21st or 23rd or something.

Am I the only one that read this with a Bush accent?

I'm from Wisconsin, so a Yooper accent would be much more accurate.

I'm not sure what the context of that event is, but it could most definitely be unconstitutional, depending on a word for word or more loose interpretation. The First Amendment states, again depending on interpretation, that the State can't sponsor a religion; if it was the work of the government, I'd call that unconstitutional.

link

It was a memorial tribute to 7 firefighters who died leading people out of the twin towers as they burned. They had been known as a collective as "the seven in heaven" for a while. Whether it was sponsored by the government or not, what difference does that make towards the end desired outcome of keeping the memory of these people alive? Why does it deserve a full protest in the name of the constitution as if some massive wrong has been commited that was akin to the denial of basic human rights? It's just pedantic and part of the constitution that really requires revision.

I'll probably end up way out of my depth here but oh well.

People have the right to protest here, whether everyone else likes it or not. If they can pick at it, they will. Those funeral protesters, for example. (Hated them)

Removing their ability to do this would destroy one of the basic cornerstones of the US government. The First Amendment functions to keep unpopular opinions alive, which is sorta necessary. I mean, if I deny their right, what's to stop them from denying me the ability to express what I believe.

At one point, speaking out against slavery was unpopular in parts of the country.