The U.S. Constitution

[regent]

It is well to revel in the brevity of the Constitution and realize that it has only 27 amendments. Even while some state constitutions have over 500 amendments. But, the brevity of the constitution and it's lack of amendments means it has been interpreted and details added thousands of times by politicians and the courts. Even on these boards how many interpretations would we find for the second amendment?
That short document will be added to and interpreted for the next 100 years. The real question: did the founders create a short loose document for those following to make it fit their generation or time, if not, what was their motive since the Constitution could not be followed without thousands of changes and interpretations?

 

[PaulS1950]

What the founding fathers did was try to limit a central governments powers while believing that it would always protect the rights of the individual.
I believe it was Franklin who was heard saying when asked what kind of government did they give us?, "A republic, if you can keep it."

He knew, as many did, that it was the people who would have to keep a tight reign on the government. Our representatives became hungry and most of the people lost their vigilance.
Now we face bankruptcy and ruin.
It is time to STAND UP and TAKE IT BACK!

 

[regent]

What the founding fathers did was try to limit a central governments powers while believing that it would always protect the rights of the individual.
I believe it was Franklin who was heard saying when asked what kind of government did they give us?, "A republic, if you can keep it."

He knew, as many did, that it was the people who would have to keep a tight reign on the government. Our representatives became hungry and most of the people lost their vigilance.
Now we face bankruptcy and ruin.
It is time to STAND UP and TAKE IT BACK!

The thing to remember is that the founders were creating a much stronger government with the Constitution, one with considerable powers and the means to enforce those powers than what they had at that time, the articles. The people had little authority to reign in the government, only some could vote for the House of Representatives, nothing else in the national sphere.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is well to revel in the brevity of the Constitution and realize that it has only 27 amendments. Even while some state constitutions have over 500 amendments. But, the brevity of the constitution and it's lack of amendments means it has been interpreted and details added thousands of times by politicians and the courts. Even on these boards how many interpretations would we find for the second amendment?
That short document will be added to and interpreted for the next 100 years. The real question: did the founders create a short loose document for those following to make it fit their generation or time, if not, what was their motive since the Constitution could not be followed without thousands of changes and interpretations?

I read the Constitution through the Founders' eyes much as I try to read the Bible through the eyes of those who wrote it. In both cases the writers are mostly limited by available history and their own experience. And while there had to be much give and take re the wording and content of the Constitution in order to make it sufficiently acceptable to all--nobody got everything they wanted; probably most hadf to accept something they didn't want in the Constitution--I think the Founders could not imagine a time when Americans would see the Constitution so much differently than they saw it, or who would hold such different values than they held.

 

[regent]

Madison had done considerable research on governments, and political ideologies while Jefferson, in Paris, had also sent him a number of books on goverments and politics as the convention began. It was the age of Locke, Rousseau and Montesqui and some at the convention had particiipated in their state constitutions, I think many came armed for debate and creation not for the moment but the future.
James Wilson on the floor of the convention said, "we are providing a Constitution for future generations and not merely for the circumstances of the moment." Rutledge said, "we are laying the foundation for a great empire...not look at the present moment only." A number of the delegates had the future in mind, not the moment.

 

[Foxfyre]

Madison had done considerable research on governments, and political ideologies while Jefferson, in Paris, had also sent him a number of books on goverments and politics as the convention began. It was the age of Locke, Rousseau and Montesqui and some at the convention had particiipated in their state constitutions, I think many came armed for debate and creation not for the moment but the future.
James Wilson on the floor of the convention said, "we are providing a Constitution for future generations and not merely for the circumstances of the moment." Rutledge said, "we are laying the foundation for a great empire...not look at the present moment only." A number of the delegates had the future in mind, not the moment.

No question about that. But they were still limited by their own experience and their own faith in the most fundamental American values. When I was young, I too was looking to the future and was preparing myself for a lifetime, but I never in my wildest dreams envisioned an America the way it is now. And our Founders had no way to see and anticipate this far into the future either. My values very closely paralleled theirs. Still do. There was no such thing as an entitlement mentality or modern American progressivism then.

 

[regent]

Madison had done considerable research on governments, and political ideologies while Jefferson, in Paris, had also sent him a number of books on goverments and politics as the convention began. It was the age of Locke, Rousseau and Montesqui and some at the convention had particiipated in their state constitutions, I think many came armed for debate and creation not for the moment but the future.
James Wilson on the floor of the convention said, "we are providing a Constitution for future generations and not merely for the circumstances of the moment." Rutledge said, "we are laying the foundation for a great empire...not look at the present moment only." A number of the delegates had the future in mind, not the moment.

No question about that. But they were still limited by their own experience and their own faith in the most fundamental American values. When I was young, I too was looking to the future and was preparing myself for a lifetime, but I never in my wildest dreams envisioned an America the way it is now. And our Founders had no way to see and anticipate this far into the future either. My values very closely paralleled theirs. Still do. There was no such thing as an entitlement mentality or modern American progressivism then.

That's true we can't envision, but the future generations will fit the Constitution, within limits, to fit their future. If the founders had made a rigid document only suitable for their generation and not those following, it would have been long gone.

 

[jwoodie]

Unfortunately, the Framers did not foresee the rise of political parties and corrupt partisanship. We need a Constitutional Convention to address the following areas:

1. Budget/Deficit Spending

2. Single Subject Legislation/Line Item Veto

3. Clear Delineation of Federal/State Powers.

4. Limitations on Lifetime Appointments.

5. Term Limits/Pensions

 

[regent]

Unfortunately, the Framers did not foresee the rise of political parties and corrupt partisanship. We need a Constitutional Convention to address the following areas:

1. Budget/Deficit Spending

2. Single Subject Legislation/Line Item Veto

3. Clear Delineation of Federal/State Powers.

4. Limitations on Lifetime Appointments.

5. Term Limits/Pensions

All might come under the amendment process. We would need a constitutional convention to write a new constitution. Our problem, is that with political parties it has become very difficult to amend the Constitution. Perhaps the next amendment should address the amending process, but even here, if too easy to amend, we have a California Constitution with the Constitution determining the size of fruit trees to be taxed.

 

[Foxfyre]

Unfortunately, the Framers did not foresee the rise of political parties and corrupt partisanship. We need a Constitutional Convention to address the following areas:

1. Budget/Deficit Spending

2. Single Subject Legislation/Line Item Veto

3. Clear Delineation of Federal/State Powers.

4. Limitations on Lifetime Appointments.

5. Term Limits/Pensions

All might come under the amendment process. We would need a constitutional convention to write a new constitution. Our problem, is that with political parties it has become very difficult to amend the Constitution. Perhaps the next amendment should address the amending process, but even here, if too easy to amend, we have a California Constitution with the Constitution determining the size of fruit trees to be taxed.

As others have expressed, given the lack of love of country or appreciation for American exceptionalism, lack of understanding of and/or appreciation for Founding principles, a lack of shared values, and the bitter hostility that exists between the various ideological groups in this country at this time, the idea of a Constitutional Convention to rewrite the Constitution is not appealing or palatable for many of us.

Would you liberals trust a majority of conservatives to write a new Constitution?
Would you conservatives trust a majority of liberals to write a new Constitution?
Is there any chance in hell that an even mix of both would ever be able to compromise or agree on anything?

 

[regent]

We can't even find nine gentlemen to interpret the Constitution without politics. Someday perhaps a computer will fill the Supreme Court role?

 

[jwoodie]

Unfortunately, the Framers did not foresee the rise of political parties and corrupt partisanship. We need a Constitutional Convention to address the following areas:

1. Budget/Deficit Spending

2. Single Subject Legislation/Line Item Veto

3. Clear Delineation of Federal/State Powers.

4. Limitations on Lifetime Appointments.

5. Term Limits/Pensions

All might come under the amendment process. We would need a constitutional convention to write a new constitution. Our problem, is that with political parties it has become very difficult to amend the Constitution. Perhaps the next amendment should address the amending process, but even here, if too easy to amend, we have a California Constitution with the Constitution determining the size of fruit trees to be taxed.

As others have expressed, given the lack of love of country or appreciation for American exceptionalism, lack of understanding of and/or appreciation for Founding principles, a lack of shared values, and the bitter hostility that exists between the various ideological groups in this country at this time, the idea of a Constitutional Convention to rewrite the Constitution is not appealing or palatable for many of us.

Would you liberals trust a majority of conservatives to write a new Constitution?
Would you conservatives trust a majority of liberals to write a new Constitution?
Is there any chance in hell that an even mix of both would ever be able to compromise or agree on anything?

A Constitutional Convention, to be called for by 2/3 of the States, is merely an alternative method for proposing Amendments which would still have to be ratified by 3/4 of the States. Modern partisan politics will prevent any meaningful Amendment from receiving 2/3 support from both houses of Congress.

 

[Foxfyre]

All might come under the amendment process. We would need a constitutional convention to write a new constitution. Our problem, is that with political parties it has become very difficult to amend the Constitution. Perhaps the next amendment should address the amending process, but even here, if too easy to amend, we have a California Constitution with the Constitution determining the size of fruit trees to be taxed.

As others have expressed, given the lack of love of country or appreciation for American exceptionalism, lack of understanding of and/or appreciation for Founding principles, a lack of shared values, and the bitter hostility that exists between the various ideological groups in this country at this time, the idea of a Constitutional Convention to rewrite the Constitution is not appealing or palatable for many of us.

Would you liberals trust a majority of conservatives to write a new Constitution?
Would you conservatives trust a majority of liberals to write a new Constitution?
Is there any chance in hell that an even mix of both would ever be able to compromise or agree on anything?

A Constitutional Convention, to be called for by 2/3 of the States, is merely an alternative method for proposing Amendments which would still have to be ratified by 3/4 of the States. Modern partisan politics will prevent any meaningful Amendment from receiving 2/3 support from both houses of Congress.

This is true. But given the amount of government created dependency, entitlements, and a growing appreciation for Marxist concepts in this country, and knowing that a constitutional convvention could also prompt a vote to rewrite most or all of the existing Constitution, that prospect raises all kinds of red flags in my head.

 

[oldfart]

This is true. But given the amount of government created dependency, entitlements, and a growing appreciation for Marxist concepts in this country, and knowing that a constitutional convention could also prompt a vote to rewrite most or all of the existing Constitution, that prospect raises all kinds of red flags in my head.

First, I agree in general that the chance of 38 states adopting a new constitution is zilch. The provision is in the constitution because quite a number of the Founding Fathers (especially Jefferson) did not believe than any document they came up with could last for more than twenty years. In the clause on the slave trade you can almost see them setting the date for the rewrite: 1808.

Lots of folks think that a rewrite could purge the constitution of a lot of dead wood; and God knows there is plenty there. Prohibition was adopted then repealed, scratch two amendments. We have multiple amendments amending amendments regarding the presidency and Congress (direct election of Senators, separating voting in the Electoral College to prevent ties between presidential and vice presidential candidates of the same party, moving date of inauguration up, electoral votes for the District of Columbia, presidential succession and disability, etc.) In the body of the constitution we could incorporate the bill of rights in the core document itself and cut out the specified powers of Congress which are archaic (how has Congress been doing on granting letters of marque and reprisal lately?). And how about the stuff for the Census, "Indians not taxed" and "3/5 of other people".

Anyway the biggest obstacle to such a rewrite is that it is not clear how 224 years of enacting legislation (remember the number of Supreme Court justices is set by the Judiciary Act, it is not in the constitution), and judicial construction of the Constitution (do we really want to start over in defining the commerce clause?) would be impacted. Our law rests on the virtue of certainty in many areas, people expect when they go to court that most decisions will be consistent with prior rulings. Does a Supreme Court case addressing an issue in the original constitution apply to a reworded clause in the rewritten constitution? If you think lawyers make too much money now, think what they could bill for these cases!

 

[Foxfyre]

This is true. But given the amount of government created dependency, entitlements, and a growing appreciation for Marxist concepts in this country, and knowing that a constitutional convention could also prompt a vote to rewrite most or all of the existing Constitution, that prospect raises all kinds of red flags in my head.

First, I agree in general that the chance of 38 states adopting a new constitution is zilch. The provision is in the constitution because quite a number of the Founding Fathers (especially Jefferson) did not believe than any document they came up with could last for more than twenty years. In the clause on the slave trade you can almost see them setting the date for the rewrite: 1808.

Lots of folks think that a rewrite could purge the constitution of a lot of dead wood; and God knows there is plenty there. Prohibition was adopted then repealed, scratch two amendments. We have multiple amendments amending amendments regarding the presidency and Congress (direct election of Senators, separating voting in the Electoral College to prevent ties between presidential and vice presidential candidates of the same party, moving date of inauguration up, electoral votes for the District of Columbia, presidential succession and disability, etc.) In the body of the constitution we could incorporate the bill of rights in the core document itself and cut out the specified powers of Congress which are archaic (how has Congress been doing on granting letters of marque and reprisal lately?). And how about the stuff for the Census, "Indians not taxed" and "3/5 of other people".

Anyway the biggest obstacle to such a rewrite is that it is not clear how 224 years of enacting legislation (remember the number of Supreme Court justices is set by the Judiciary Act, it is not in the constitution), and judicial construction of the Constitution (do we really want to start over in defining the commerce clause?) would be impacted. Our law rests on the virtue of certainty in many areas, people expect when they go to court that most decisions will be consistent with prior rulings. Does a Supreme Court case addressing an issue in the original constitution apply to a reworded clause in the rewritten constitution? If you think lawyers make too much money now, think what they could bill for these cases!

I would like for Supreme Court justices to be bound to interpreting existing law as it is intended and for there to be a workable way to hold the Court in contempt when it rewrites or writes law. That is a power the Founders never intended any Court, much less the Supreme Court, to have. What the court interprets as 'equal protection' is too often applied to be politically correct and thereby violates the ability of the states and local communities to form whatever sort of society they wish to have, a freedom the Founders deemed critically important if freedom was to ne the resuilt of the Constitution.

 

[earthmuffin]

The Constitution was intended to be a living document, changing with the generations.

I feel most of it is still applicable today, but I don't know that it's the "be all that is all" that many would have us believe. If we started from scratch today, I have little worry that we'd be in trouble. We should be more open to deciding what is morally right, rather than what is constitutional.

 

[Intense]

The Constitution was intended to be a living document, changing with the generations.

I feel most of it is still applicable today, but I don't know that it's the "be all that is all" that many would have us believe. If we started from scratch today, I have little worry that we'd be in trouble. We should be more open to deciding what is morally right, rather than what is constitutional.

Changes in the Constitution should be through Amendment, with Super Majority support, 75%, which in theory is the Moral Right.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Constitution was intended to be a living document, changing with the generations.

Bullshit.

If what you claim were true, there would have been no need for an amendment process.

I feel most of it is still applicable today, but I don't know that it's the "be all that is all" that many would have us believe. If we started from scratch today, I have little worry that we'd be in trouble. We should be more open to deciding what is morally right, rather than what is constitutional.

It's nice that your feeling guide you; however this nation was designed for immutable law to guide it. The mechanisms to change law are incorporated in two legislative bodies with checks and balance from the executive - not the judicial, but the executive via the veto process. Alteration of the constitution is defined through the amendment process. Those who claim the constitution is a "living document" are those who seek to violate said constitution.