CDZ Time to Update and Clarify the Constitution?

[jwoodie]

This is not a partisan question. It seems to me that the original document (and amendments) require constant reinterpretation by an increasingly politicized judiciary. Isn't it time to clean it up to modern standards and clarify such issues as gun control and citizenship? What is wrong with letting the people decide?

 

[The Irish Ram]

No, No, a thousand times no. Gun control is covered in the constitution, and so is citizenship.
What we need to do is dust it off, and start upholding it.

 

[candycorn]

Civil rights should not be put up to popular vote.

 

[Derideo_Te]

This is not a partisan question. It seems to me that the original document (and amendments) require constant reinterpretation by an increasingly politicized judiciary. Isn't it time to clean it up to modern standards and clarify such issues as gun control and citizenship? What is wrong with letting the people decide?

The Law of the Land is constantly updating the Constitution.

The process is imperfect but the trend is positive.

And yes, We the People are doing the deciding, more or less.

 

[jwoodie]

Civil rights should not be put up to popular vote.

So who should decide these issues?

No, No, a thousand times no. Gun control is covered in the constitution, and so is citizenship.
What we need to do is dust it off, and start upholding it.

This is precisely the problem: The federal judiciary has given itself unlimited authority to amend the Constitution through reinterpretation and discovery of new "rights." The ONLY way to curb this abuse of authority is to insert new language which specifically circumscribes their ability to replace plainly written language with their personal politic opinions.

 

[jwoodie]

The Law of the Land is constantly updating the Constitution.

The process is imperfect but the trend is positive.

And yes, We the People are doing the deciding, more or less.

Your latest bumper stickers?

 

[candycorn]

Civil rights should not be put up to popular vote.

So who should decide these issues?

No, No, a thousand times no. Gun control is covered in the constitution, and so is citizenship.
What we need to do is dust it off, and start upholding it.

This is precisely the problem: The federal judiciary has given itself unlimited authority to amend the Constitution through reinterpretation and discovery of new "rights." The ONLY way to curb this abuse of authority is to insert new language which specifically circumscribes their ability to replace plainly written language with their personal politic opinions.

The courts.

The "new rights" phenomenon that you speak of....you'll have to explain what that is.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The Law of the Land is constantly updating the Constitution.

The process is imperfect but the trend is positive.

And yes, We the People are doing the deciding, more or less.

Your latest bumper stickers?

The objective of the CDZ is to actively debate the posted responses with substantive rebuttals establishing why the OP has a case.

My post refuted the OP's position.

Onus is on you to support your OP with substance.

If you can't then that means that this thread doesn't belong here.

Want to try again?

 

[MisterBeale]

It really doesn't matter much, the whole system is going to come crashing down and burning soon. The international banking cartel has planned to have the people's precious Constitution suspended since the turn of the last century, it was only a matter of how and when. The time is quickly approaching. Next month? In two months? A year? Who knows, but soon.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

The gridlocked global economy
http://www.economist.com/blogs/grap...4?zid=295&ah=0bca374e65f2354d553956ea65f756e0

23 Nations Around The World Where Stock Market Crashes Are Already Happening
23 Nations Around The World Where Stock Market Crashes Are Already Happening

You can stop waiting for a global financial crisis to happen. The truth is that one is happening right now. All over the world, stock markets are already crashing. Most of these stock market crashes are occurring in nations that are known as “emerging markets”. In recent years, developing countries in Asia, South America and Africa loaded up on lots of cheap loans that were denominated in U.S. dollars. But now that the U.S. dollar has been surging, those borrowers are finding that it takes much more of their own local currencies to service those loans. At the same time, prices are crashing for many of the commodities that those countries export. The exact same kind of double whammy caused the Latin American debt crisis of the 1980s and the Asian financial crisis of the 1990s.

As you read this article, almost every single stock market in the world is down significantly from a record high that was set either earlier this year or late in 2014. But even though stocks have been sliding in the western world, they haven’t completely collapsed just yet.


In much of the developing world, it is a very different story. Emerging market currencies are crashing hard, recessions are starting, and equity prices are getting absolutely hammered.

Doomsday clock for global market crash strikes one minute to midnight as central banks lose control
China currency devaluation signals endgame leaving equity markets free to collapse under the weight of impossible expectations
Doomsday clock for global market crash strikes one minute to midnight as central banks lose control

If you think the US Government will honor your precious Constitution in all of this madness, you're nuts. And don't think this wasn't planned from the very beginning for the elites to control everything, from where folks live, their health care, where and how they work, what they read, write and speak, to the coming one world currency that tracks everything you buy and sell. Hell, this was predicted by the very intelligent millennia ago, wasn't it?

 

[Skylar]

Civil rights should not be put up to popular vote.

So who should decide these issues?

No, No, a thousand times no. Gun control is covered in the constitution, and so is citizenship.
What we need to do is dust it off, and start upholding it.

This is precisely the problem: The federal judiciary has given itself unlimited authority to amend the Constitution through reinterpretation and discovery of new "rights."

The 9th amendment makes it clear that rights are not exhaustive. New rights rarely concern me. New powers....those have far more potential.

The ONLY way to curb this abuse of authority is to insert new language which specifically circumscribes their ability to replace plainly written language with their personal politic opinions.

As long as the judiciary is the body that interprets the meaning of the 'new language', you'll run into similar issues.

 

[Syriusly]

This is not a partisan question. It seems to me that the original document (and amendments) require constant reinterpretation by an increasingly politicized judiciary. Isn't it time to clean it up to modern standards and clarify such issues as gun control and citizenship? What is wrong with letting the people decide?

No.

While the original document may not be perfect- it is far better than document that today's political climate could create.

The people however can change it anytime that they want- that is what the Constitutional Amendment process is all about.

 

[Syriusly]

Civil rights should not be put up to popular vote.

So who should decide these issues?

No, No, a thousand times no. Gun control is covered in the constitution, and so is citizenship.
What we need to do is dust it off, and start upholding it.

This is precisely the problem: The federal judiciary has given itself unlimited authority to amend the Constitution through reinterpretation and discovery of new "rights." The ONLY way to curb this abuse of authority is to insert new language which specifically circumscribes their ability to replace plainly written language with their personal politic opinions.

I disagree- but the Constitutional Amendment process exists- if the People can pass such an amendment, we will get what we deserve.

 

[candycorn]

Civil rights should not be put up to popular vote.

So who should decide these issues?

No, No, a thousand times no. Gun control is covered in the constitution, and so is citizenship.
What we need to do is dust it off, and start upholding it.

This is precisely the problem: The federal judiciary has given itself unlimited authority to amend the Constitution through reinterpretation and discovery of new "rights." The ONLY way to curb this abuse of authority is to insert new language which specifically circumscribes their ability to replace plainly written language with their personal politic opinions.

I disagree- but the Constitutional Amendment process exists- if the People can pass such an amendment, we will get what we deserve.

Very true.

The Article 5 option for amending the Constitution allows for the State Legislatures to make up one 1/2 of the ratification process. The good news is that the other half is pretty stout involving a more significant hurdle....

Even if there are enough red seats in both bodies (State and Federal government), I think going Article 5 is tantamount to the nuclear option and the office holders will likely not go for it.

 

[MarathonMike]

Clean it up to modern standards? We haven't gotten in trouble with the original verbiage of this brilliantly conceived and written document. We have gotten in trouble when we ignore it, amend it and otherwise tromp all over it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Time to Update and Clarify the Constitution?"

No, neither are warranted.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is not a partisan question. It seems to me that the original document (and amendments) require constant reinterpretation by an increasingly politicized judiciary. Isn't it time to clean it up to modern standards and clarify such issues as gun control and citizenship? What is wrong with letting the people decide?

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly.

The Constitution is also the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition dating back to the Magna Carta and Assizes of Henry II, which is why the notion of 'starting over' is unwarranted.

Second Amendment jurisprudence is currently evolving as the courts address various regulatory issues; the judicial process is the appropriate process to determine what regulatory policies are Constitutional what policies are not.

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment is clear, concise, and in no need of 'revision,' as its jurisprudence is settled and accepted; indeed, allowing bureaucrats and politicians to 'decide' who is or is not a citizen would be an unmitigated disaster.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Civil rights should not be put up to popular vote.

So who should decide these issues?

No, No, a thousand times no. Gun control is covered in the constitution, and so is citizenship.
What we need to do is dust it off, and start upholding it.

This is precisely the problem: The federal judiciary has given itself unlimited authority to amend the Constitution through reinterpretation and discovery of new "rights." The ONLY way to curb this abuse of authority is to insert new language which specifically circumscribes their ability to replace plainly written language with their personal politic opinions.

Disagree.

Articles III and VI of the Constitution clearly authorize the judiciary to address the issues of the day and rule on those issues in the context of the Constitution and its case law, to determine what the Constitution means, consistent with the original intent of the Founding Generation.

The rulings of Federal courts do not 'amend' the Constitution, nor do they 'discover new rights.'

As Justice Kennedy explained in Lawrence:

"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."

Last, all perceptions of the Constitution are subjective interpretation, including the perception that the Constitution is 'plainly written'; in fact, as Justice Kennedy noted, the Framers did not arrogantly presume to know comprehensibly the nature of freedom and liberty, they instead created the Constitution to safeguard the principles necessary for citizens to protect their freedom and liberty from attack by the state.

 

[Wyatt earp]

This is not a partisan question. It seems to me that the original document (and amendments) require constant reinterpretation by an increasingly politicized judiciary. Isn't it time to clean it up to modern standards and clarify such issues as gun control and citizenship? What is wrong with letting the people decide?

The Law of the Land is constantly updating the Constitution.

The process is imperfect but the trend is positive.

And yes, We the People are doing the deciding, more or less.

If the people were deciding prop 8 would be the law in California and gay marriage illegal.

It was the wacky doodle 5th circuit court who did the deciding for a nation.

 

[Derideo_Te]

This is not a partisan question. It seems to me that the original document (and amendments) require constant reinterpretation by an increasingly politicized judiciary. Isn't it time to clean it up to modern standards and clarify such issues as gun control and citizenship? What is wrong with letting the people decide?

The Law of the Land is constantly updating the Constitution.

The process is imperfect but the trend is positive.

And yes, We the People are doing the deciding, more or less.

If the people were deciding prop 8 would be the law in California and gay marriage illegal.

It was the wacky doodle 5th circuit court who did the deciding for a nation.

Prop 8 applied only to CA. The 5th Circuit Court covers multiple states and has the authority to determine that prop 8 was unconstitutional. The SCOTUS subsequently agreed that discrimination against gays violates the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Due process was followed and We the People were able to form a more perfect union based upon equality for all under the Law of the Land.

No state has the power to deprive anyone of their individual rights and no tyranny of a majority can do so either.

The Constitution and the BoR are there to protect individual rights and that is exactly what happened when Prop 8 attempted to deny individual rights.

 

[jasonnfree]

We need to get out of these so called treaties like tpp, gatt, nafta etc, that override the constitution. Then there's the big money deciding the political process. Even the supreme court members are wined and dined by billionaires. Otherwise, all these lengthy discussions about what the founders intended, don't mean that much.