Constitution update?

They need to discard the constitution and put all still relevant sections in to legislation so they can be changed more easily. Constitutions do nothing but stick a country in to one era and provide the tool annoying people use to whine.

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.

There's unpopular opinions that actually have merit, then there's plain retardation facilitated by the fact no-one can really tell them they're wrong or take their right to think whatever they want away. Just because you have the right to do something, does that automatically mean you should or that it is the right thing to do? Not always.

Additionally does that mean other people don't have the right to stop them even if stopping them has more benefits than leaving them be? Why is the rights of the individual put before the rights of the majority? This benefits virtually no-one. But hey screw everyone else I HAVE RIGHTS

There's unpopular opinions that actually have merit, then there's plain retardation facilitated by the fact no-one can really tell them they're wrong or take their right to think whatever they want away. Just because you have the right to do something, does that automatically mean you should or that it is the right thing to do? Not always.

Additionally does that mean other people don't have the right to stop them even if stopping them has more benefits than leaving them be? Why is the rights of the individual put before the rights of the majority? This benefits virtually no-one. But hey screw everyone else I HAVE RIGHTS

It's hard to have someone to choose what is a right or wrong opinion. Impartiality is impossible and opinions are opinions, sometimes the most crazy ideas now may become common sense a few years later, you can't stop people from thinking and expressing themselves.

Another thing - anyone would have a hell of a time changing anything in the constitution for the next few years at minimum. The right wing's current zeitgeist is to treat the constitution and the founding fathers as some sort of legendary heroes and texts which have stood the test of time. It's almighty. You want to change their scripture?

Another thing - anyone would have a hell of a time changing anything in the constitution for the next few years at minimum. The right wing's current zeitgeist is to treat the constitution and the founding fathers as some sort of legendary heroes and texts which have stood the test of time. It's almighty. You want to change their scripture?

So it's like suggesting to rewrite the bible?

It's hard to have someone to choose what is a right or wrong opinion. Impartiality is impossible and opinions are opinions, sometimes the most crazy ideas now may become common sense a few years later, you can't stop people from thinking and expressing themselves.

What happens when said expression is infringing the rights of others?

Another thing - anyone would have a hell of a time changing anything in the constitution for the next few years at minimum. The right wing's current zeitgeist is to treat the constitution and the founding fathers as some sort of legendary heroes and texts which have stood the test of time. It's almighty. You want to change their scripture?

Yeah, the men who were as flawed as anyone else, and were pretty diverse in ideologies. To say "It's what the Founding Fathers wanted" is kinda stupid. Which one? I doubt they would have a unified view, you know, what with some of them hating each other. Jefferson and Hamilton, for example.

What happens when said expression is infringing the rights of others?

One of the Federalists papers, I think it's the one dealing with factions, explains that one intent behind the Constitution was to prevent the majority from having the upper hand in government. The rights of the individual are heavily emphasized.

If you infringe upon the rights of others, then it's not protected speech, and you can't express yourself in that way. However, though I do appreciate the memorial and wish that it didn't come under such protest, protesting that is within protected speech, but if you discard it on the basis that it's unpleasant, it's rather hypocritical for you to want your opinions to be heard. The Constitution doesn't say "Religion is evil, and you should protest it", it says you can protest, and that the state won't back a certain religion. It's entirely up to the people what to do that, and they exercise the right because it's constantly been defended in the courts, and while it doesn't seem all that offensive to you, and what they're doing is morally wrong, their opinions have as much right as anyone else to be heard, especially if they feel wronged. It was promised that religion wouldn't have a place in Congress's doings, and thanks the the 14th Amendment, which granted foreign slaves citizenship, and just about everyone else, as well as promising equal protection under the law, this was transfered to the states, so doing something like this probably really offends them, and as stated in the 1st Amendment, they have the right to petition the government with their grievances.

Only real problem would be the fact that redoing the whole damned thing would make some people feel
"ZOMG SO HAPPY LOLOLOLOL"

and others like:

"OMG wtp?? Y U RUIN MAH HISTORIES???"

And if they do get to redo the Constitution, Some people will be like :

"DUDE wtp? THERE's TOO MANY OF *insert political party* REDESIGNING THE THING? THE HELL I'M PAYING ANY ATTENTION TO THOSE LAWS"

and the
"LOL NUBS. U Jelly?????"


IMO, there's going to be lots of hell raising if the government decided to re write the whole thing. It just isn't worth it. Regardless of what we do with it, there will always be people who don't like something that the other party did or someone decides to implement a stupid rule that lots of people hate. I think what we have is fine. I do believe the constitution as it is (in it's ambiguous state) is perfectly fine. Ambiguity may raise a whole bunch of issues, but that also means that the government can decide what is necessary for the given time period by "reinterpreting" the Constitution.