Is the U.S. Constitution outdated?

[BOBO]

Apparently a lot of people think so. Before one opines one way or the other on this subject I would suggest you read the below. During my studies in post K-12 education I engaged in lively conversations/debate in many classes of different academia. None of these studies proved as robust in debate/opinions as the fields of psych, sociology & philosophy. In particular my 101 sociology class, with that class theme based on "Serial Sexual Mass Murderers" or how SSMM's come into existence, raised some "heated" debates.
My sociology professor got the debates 'smoking hot' with his revelations & suggestions based on historical research. One of his voiced observations which split the class right down the middle is as follows...

"IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE TO CHANGE THEIR NATURE. THE ONLY SUBSTANTIAL & MEANINGFUL CHANGE AN INDIVIDUAL CAN EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT HIS/HER LIFE IS THAT OF TECHNOLOGY."

That quote is as close to exact as it can be considering I heard it 23 years ago. The divide in our classes students derived from one side that advocated that individual natures 'evolve' into a state of 'perfection of mankind' through group education, the other side stating that they agreed with our professor.
Another statement our soc instructor made to the class had an equally dividing effect on the classes students(not exact but CLOSE quote)...

"Societies throughout history in an attempt to squelch POLARIZATION within their ranks make pacts/covenants among a particular society that was deemed a benefit for all. The purpose of these pacts/covenants were deemed a VITAL NECESSITY for the society in question as the pact/covenant was viewed as the ONLY effective bonding agent that could ensure the survival of a particular 'coherent' society."

Adding my own input on this topic I will use the illustration of the act of marriage. Marriage in it's purest definition is a pact/covenant between two individuals. If the particular marriage is a 'legal' marriage it is then also considered a pact/covenant to the society that the two individuals REPRESENT. A divorce involving such a marriage is deemed a BREACH OF CONTRACT by the society in general. Such a divorce can be seen as destructive to the society at large as it suggests an erosion of common values towards it's survival(dissidence). Divorce, handled fairly & in a non political way is limited in it's corrosive effect on a society & is not deemed as significant enough to collapse a particular society.
Now, on a much larger scale with much more significant impact is a breach of contract involving the pact/covenant that guarantees essential INDIVIDUAL Liberties. A break down in the pact/covenant not only undermines essential individual sovereignty & Liberties, but becomes life threatening(civil war). Human nature does not change & I agree with that. I must attest that unlike insects humans are not of a herd mentality. Humans are of a social nature but FIERCELY protective of their own domain. They will socialize on their OWN terms with who, what, where & when they choose to do so.
The next time you hear a social engineer say that he/she "has a better way" than the pact/covenant that is our Constitution... you may well want to investigate that persons motives & desires in depth. A case in point can be found in the article that is contained in the link below...


Senate approves $662 billion defense bill - Yahoo! News

"But a constitution of government once changed from freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."{John Adams/ July 17th, 1775.}

 

[Avatar4321]

Nope. Just not being used.

 

[Dragon]

The Constitution is definitely outdated. It happens from time to time. That's why we have 27 amendments.

At minimum, we need another one to get the money out of politics. I can think of several more I'd like to see, but that one is a sine qua non. Without it, we face revolution.

 

[Avatar4321]

The Constitution is definitely outdated. It happens from time to time. That's why we have 27 amendments.

At minimum, we need another one to get the money out of politics. I can think of several more I'd like to see, but that one is a sine qua non. Without it, we face revolution.

So which route do you want to take to eliminate money from politics:

1) Silence speech
2) End Elections

?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The purpose of the Constitution is to guard against fear, ignorance, and hate – both with regard to actions by the state and the people.

All law-making entities and the people are subject to the rule of law, codified by the Constitution and its case law.

The legislation cited in the OP is an example of fear and ignorance on the part of senators in particular and the people in general. For the senators, it is likely the fear of failing to be reelected is the greater motivator rather than a fear of terrorists or concern over jeopardizing civil liberties, since they knew the bill would be vetoed in any event.

They’re consequently able to say to voters back home they supported a measure that was ‘tough of terror,’ but were powerless to stop the president’s action.

Both their jobs and our civil liberties are ‘protected’ accordingly.

As troubling as members of Congress playing Russian Roulette with the Constitution for partisan gain may be, it is the motive for their actions that should cause the greater concern: the realization that a significant number of Americans are so fearful of the myth of ‘terrorism’ and so ignorant of the law that citizens gladly surrender their liberty for security. The American people, via their fear, are ultimately responsible for this legislation.

The sad irony is, of course, that should the American people demand that Congress obey the Constitution and rule of law and place liberty above fear, the vacuous and spineless denizens of the Beltway wouldn’t dream of proposing such legislation.

Thus the issue isn’t whether or not the Constitution is outdated, but the unwillingness of citizens to demand lawmakers abide its tenets.

 

[Dragon]

The Constitution is definitely outdated. It happens from time to time. That's why we have 27 amendments.

At minimum, we need another one to get the money out of politics. I can think of several more I'd like to see, but that one is a sine qua non. Without it, we face revolution.

So which route do you want to take to eliminate money from politics:

1) Silence speech
2) End Elections

?

Neither one is necessary. Just stop accepting the lie that money = speech.

 

[dblack]

The Constitution is definitely outdated. It happens from time to time. That's why we have 27 amendments.

At minimum, we need another one to get the money out of politics. I can think of several more I'd like to see, but that one is a sine qua non. Without it, we face revolution.

So which route do you want to take to eliminate money from politics:

1) Silence speech
2) End Elections

?

Getting the money out of politics requires getting politics out of money.

 

[dblack]

The purpose of the Constitution is to guard against fear, ignorance, and hate – both with regard to actions by the state and the people.

That's not my understanding. The Constitution is only concerned with the power of government, not individuals. It has nothing to say about the actions of a person not acting on behalf of the government (eg it makes no sense to say that something an individual does is 'unconstitutional'.)

The legislation cited in the OP is an example of fear and ignorance on the part of senators in particular and the people in general. For the senators, it is likely the fear of failing to be reelected is the greater motivator rather than a fear of terrorists or concern over jeopardizing civil liberties, since they knew the bill would be vetoed in any event.

They’re consequently able to say to voters back home they supported a measure that was ‘tough of terror,’ but were powerless to stop the president’s action.

Both their jobs and our civil liberties are ‘protected’ accordingly.

As troubling as members of Congress playing Russian Roulette with the Constitution for partisan gain may be, it is the motive for their actions that should cause the greater concern: the realization that a significant number of Americans are so fearful of the myth of ‘terrorism’ and so ignorant of the law that citizens gladly surrender their liberty for security. The American people, via their fear, are ultimately responsible for this legislation.

The sad irony is, of course, that should the American people demand that Congress obey the Constitution and rule of law and place liberty above fear, the vacuous and spineless denizens of the Beltway wouldn’t dream of proposing such legislation.

Thus the issue isn’t whether or not the Constitution is outdated, but the unwillingness of citizens to demand lawmakers abide its tenets.

Other than the previous point of disagreement, very well said!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Constitution has BUILT into it the means to keep it "up to date" it is called the Amendment process. However in the last 60 years the powers that be have chosen to ignore the Constitution and usurp illegally powers it does not grant via Congress and the Courts.

Go back to using the Amendment process and we have no major problems.

 

[JoeB131]

I think the constitution is mostly solid, but there are things in it that don't work.

I think the Senate is unnecessary.

I think the Electoral College should be replaced by a system of direct election of the president. Perhaps with runoff elections if no one clears 50% on the first ballot.

 

[The T]

The Constitution has BUILT into it the means to keep it "up to date" it is called the Amendment process. However in the last 60 years the powers that be have chosen to ignore the Constitution and usurp illegally powers it does not grant via Congress and the Courts.

Go back to using the Amendment process and we have no major problems.

Exactly. The Government is replete with unchallanged laws that usurp the process.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Constitution has BUILT into it the means to keep it "up to date" it is called the Amendment process. However in the last 60 years the powers that be have chosen to ignore the Constitution and usurp illegally powers it does not grant via Congress and the Courts.

Go back to using the Amendment process and we have no major problems.

That’s a naïve and uninformed oversimplification: not every issue can be resolved by the ‘amendment process,’ indeed, amendments need to be as rare as possible.

The very nature of the Constitution as an instrument of the law is interpretive; the Constitution exists in the context of its case law. Through the process of judicial review and consensus the courts establish precedent ensuring the protection of our civil liberties and government restriction – this can’t be obtained through amendments.

Moreover, excessive use of the ‘amendment process’ would undermine legal precedent, making the Constitution unwieldy and useless.

As Justice Kennedy brilliantly observed writing for the majority in Lawrence v. Texas:

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

“They did not presume to have this insight.”

Many of the Framers understood the law, and drafted the Constitution in the context of the law’s interpretive authority.

 

[bripat9643]

Neither one is necessary. Just stop accepting the lie that money = speech.

Those who claim it's a lie simply want to shut people up with whom they disagree.

In other words, they're fascists.

 

[Steelplate]

No...The Fascists are the ones that feel that money equal speech.

You can say whatever the fuck you want to. But having money run the political scene is one of the major factors in what is wrong with our country. Elected officials can't listen to their Constituents because a select few own them. It's one of the most FUCKED UP ways to run a country I've ever heard of besides out and out totalitarianism.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

We worship money over our Constitution. We see it every day with the OWS movement. Doesn't matter whether you agree with them or just want them to take a bath. Fact is, they're Constitutional rights are being pepper sprayed into the dust at their feet.

Wisc yo yo is now trying to make them pay to lost their rights. Any more than 4 people gather together in the capital bldg, Walker (Koch) says they must pay for police to stand over them.

IOW, family of four want to tour the capital building, they'll be treated like terrorists.

Take the power agway from the Kochs, Murdoch, the MUSLIM ARAB PRINCE who controls focks, Soros and anyone else who is buying politicians. Give the power back to the voter.

But, don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

And the problem with that is, the people should be able to gather together and, as a group, say what they want, vote as they want, even if its called a UNION!

See the problem?

Who gets to decide when the people cannot "assemble" and vote as a group?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

And, stop the use and constant overuse of the damned filibuster.

Politicians who want to filibuster must do it the old fashioned way. Make the bastards stand up and there and actually talk for hours instead of being able to call it in from the couch in their office.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No...The Fascists are the ones that feel that money equal speech.

You can say whatever the fuck you want to. But having money run the political scene is one of the major factors in what is wrong with our country. Elected officials can't listen to their Constituents because a select few own them. It's one of the most FUCKED UP ways to run a country I've ever heard of besides out and out totalitarianism.

Ok bright one, how do I, a simple citizen, have a voice in the election process if I can neither give money to my candidates or my causes?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

No...The Fascists are the ones that feel that money equal speech.

You can say whatever the fuck you want to. But having money run the political scene is one of the major factors in what is wrong with our country. Elected officials can't listen to their Constituents because a select few own them. It's one of the most FUCKED UP ways to run a country I've ever heard of besides out and out totalitarianism.

Ok bright one, how do I, a simple citizen, have a voice in the election process if I can neither give money to my candidates or my causes?

By voting.

But, imo, you should be able to give money to your candidate.

Its the corporations who should be stopped from buying politicians but in order to do that, we have to get rid of the crooked SCOTUS like Thomas, Scalia etc.

As it is now, all cases are decided, 5 to 4 because the so-called, but not really "conservative" judges are bought and paid for and we all know who writes the checks.