We need a new Constitution, yes or no?

[EconChick]

In other words, no, we don't need a new Constitution.

We just need an amendment that lists penalties for disobeying the provisions in the one we've got.

A few such penalties might include something like:

"If Congress or any state or local legislature passes a law that infringes the right of the people to keep and bear arms, each member of the legislature who voted to pass the law, shall be sentenced to a minimum of 6 months in prison; and the law shall immediately become null and void."

"If Congress passes a law asserting a power not explicitly listed in the U.S. Constitution and its amendments, each member of Congress who voted to pass it, shall lose his membership in Congress and be barred from holding any further public office; and the law shall immediately become null and void."

The details can be discussed further, I just rattled those two off the top of my head.

Keep in mind that most provisions in the Constitution, don't command the people to do anything. Instead, they command the government to do things (or to not do certain things).

But the idea definitely has some encouraging possibilities.

Presently, I believe the Constitution contains a provision saying that members of Congress cannot be prosecuted for things they do as part of their official duties.

Clearly this needs to change, and the amendment I suggested, would change it.

This Amendment should also give Juries the express power of deciding whether or not a law is or isn't constitutional, before even deciding the defendant's guilt. Any law that is decided to be unconstitutional in at least 4.5% of the cases (1 - two standard deviations) after 3 months of operation is to become null and void, but no action is to be taken against the Legislature; however, if more than 31.8% of the cases are determined to be unconstitutional after 3 months, the legislators who voted for the bill are to be removed from office and jailed for 12 months, all pensions removed and salaries must be paid back.

If the Supreme Court were to interpret the law rather than add to it, and our government believed in a true separation of the three branches of government as outlined in the constitution, there would be no need to have this discussion. However since the judicial branch is more interested in appeasing ideological views and takes it upon themselves to act as the legislative branch, likewise the President dictates authority unto himself exercising powers that's not been given to him in adding to or choosing to ignore parts of the legislative laws, there will be no respect for the Constitution nor those framers who wrote it. The constitution is more viewed as a mere "suggestion" by those who would much rather satisfy their special interest groups or ideological base.

Incidentally, the constitution grants interpretative power to the justices, where the "judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour." The question then becomes has that condition ever come into question, whereby the judge is not fulfilling their obligated position according to the guidelines that are determined and set under the Constitution?

Come on now, that's far right wing dogma, don't ya know?

 

[Pete7469]

??

I voted no. And all of my posts have been on the side of NOT replacing the Constitution. Almost all of the RW's also agree that there is no need to change the Constitution.

not according to Liberal Media.....just about every righty in the land wants to abolish it...

You take Liberal Media seriously? I think Liberal Media is a right wing plant.

Well FUCKIN BINGO!!!!!

 

[BobPlumb]

not according to Liberal Media.....just about every righty in the land wants to abolish it...

You take Liberal Media seriously? I think Liberal Media is a right wing plant.

Well FUCKIN BINGO!!!!!

Now that's a party game I could get excited about!

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Maybe I'm not fully understanding the concept, or how you're using it, but I thought the whole idea of a "living document" was that we could just adapt it to our current needs without amending it. It's usually presented as a more fluid alternative to updating it via the amendment process.

Perhaps you could try reading the Constitution first and finding out for yourself how that "adaption" process actually works. (Hint: Article V.)

Exactly. That's what I'm talking about. There is specified means for changing the contract. The living document approach functions as a 'workaround', changing the meaning of the constitution without amending its contents.

I agree the Constitution gives a set of rules and a process which needs to be adhered to. If we could simply 'change the meaning', the concern you mentioned in regard to the "living document" approach, then what would be the point of the Founders including a process to which amendments to the constitution could be made? It would appear that we have allowed the Supreme Court to work around that whole entire process by "changing" the intent and purpose of that Amendment when it was passed.

Had that been the case, and changing the interpretation was all that was required, there would be no need for a 19th amendment as the 14th and 15th amendments would have been sufficient. Yet history has shown that not to be true, and the amendment process was looked upon as the means (or constitutional rules outlined) to change that. Are we to then say the 19th amendment and the whole women's suffrage movement that it took to have it established was irrelevant, as a mere change in interpretation by the justices was all that was required? If so, why even include the amendment process in our constitution to begin with? Is it because a mere "change in interpretation" is the easier route over the 2/3 that might be required to satisfy the constitutional rules?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yes there should be. It should include the RESPONSIBITIES of the citizenry as well as their Rights. It should severely limit the powers of Government beyond the specifically enumerated powers. It should explicitly state those Rights pertain to American Citizens in the US only. Foreigners in the US or Americans abroad have no expectation of those protections.

I'm also about ready to argue for a poll test. I've been against it my whole life, just as our founding fathers were against it. But allowing the insane to take over the insane asylum is pretty much where we're at in this country.

And a typical lib has no idea why that drives us sane people crazy.

Given the ignorance of the Constitution, its case law, and the role of the judiciary in American governance exhibited by you and others on the right, the notion of requiring a 'poll test' in order for a citizen to exercise the fundamental right to vote is irony indeed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Constitution is being 'adhered to'. People just think it isn't because it produces results they don't like.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes there should be. It should include the RESPONSIBITIES of the citizenry as well as their Rights. It should severely limit the powers of Government beyond the specifically enumerated powers. It should explicitly state those Rights pertain to American Citizens in the US only. Foreigners in the US or Americans abroad have no expectation of those protections.

I'm also about ready to argue for a poll test. I've been against it my whole life, just as our founding fathers were against it. But allowing the insane to take over the insane asylum is pretty much where we're at in this country.

And a typical lib has no idea why that drives us sane people crazy.

Given the ignorance of the Constitution, its case law, and the role of the judiciary in American governance exhibited by you and others on the right, the notion of requiring a 'poll test' in order for a citizen to exercise the fundamental right to vote is irony indeed.

Just by supporting a poll test, she automatically flunks the poll test.

 

[BillyP]

Nah, who wouldn't want to live by rules set down 250 years ago by guys who owned slaves and hadn't heard of deodorant?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservative Republicans want a constitutional ban on all abortion and a constitutional ban on same sex marriage.

You think you'd get them in a new Constitution?

 

[dblack]

Conservative Republicans want a constitutional ban on all abortion and a constitutional ban on same sex marriage.

You think you'd get them in a new Constitution?

I suppose you consider me a conservative, but I certainly don't want those things. And I'm not at all convinced a Constitutional convention would result in the kind of government I want. But I think it could result in the kind of government that we want. Most importantly, it would engage the nation in a discussion that our current leaders don't want us to have.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This Amendment should also give Juries the express power of deciding whether or not a law is or isn't constitutional, before even deciding the defendant's guilt. Any law that is decided to be unconstitutional in at least 4.5% of the cases (1 - two standard deviations) after 3 months of operation is to become null and void, but no action is to be taken against the Legislature; however, if more than 31.8% of the cases are determined to be unconstitutional after 3 months, the legislators who voted for the bill are to be removed from office and jailed for 12 months, all pensions removed and salaries must be paid back.

If the Supreme Court were to interpret the law rather than add to it, and our government believed in a true separation of the three branches of government as outlined in the constitution, there would be no need to have this discussion. However since the judicial branch is more interested in appeasing ideological views and takes it upon themselves to act as the legislative branch, likewise the President dictates authority unto himself exercising powers that's not been given to him in adding to or choosing to ignore parts of the legislative laws, there will be no respect for the Constitution nor those framers who wrote it. The constitution is more viewed as a mere "suggestion" by those who would much rather satisfy their special interest groups or ideological base.

Incidentally, the constitution grants interpretative power to the justices, where the "judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour." The question then becomes has that condition ever come into question, whereby the judge is not fulfilling their obligated position according to the guidelines that are determined and set under the Constitution?

Come on now, that's far right wing dogma, don't ya know?

Check the impeachment indictments against Judges by the House.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If there is no desire to enforce it, new or old, it will not be enforced.

Why do you think the schools teach the things they teach?

Perhaps with a new Constitution there will be the desire to enforce it.

Dont know what your getting at with the schools teach comment.

The current trend is to do what feels right. Not what IS right, but what feels right. You hear it all the time.

What kind of society do we want to be....

This is nothing more than code for, I want to do this and I don't care if it hurts more than it helps. I want it.

People are being taught in our schools that the Constitution is obsolete, even though it is the most relevant document in the world today. They are being taught that it is better to do what we feel than to think things through and make choices that may not seem compassionate, but will server the greater good.

If you do not desire to enforce the law of the land, then any document that purports to be the law, is worthless. Because there is no desire to enforce it.

New or old.

How long has it been since you've been in a school. I connect with students in 17 different high schools in our area and even more middle schools. I've never heard anyone teach what you claim is being taught.

Where do you get your information about what is being taught?

 

[BillyP]

We don't need a new constitution, we need another prez with wooden teeth! <--(wooden teeth)

 

[Spoonman]

Of course not.

The notion is ignorant idiocy.

That current Constitutional jurisprudence conflicts with your errant conservative dogma of hate and ignorance is no reason for a 'new constitution.'

I feel you, why would you want a new one when you've already contorted the one we have into what you wanted it to say? Why start over?

If we started over we'd just formally codify all of the progressive advances that have been labeled by conservatives as 'judicial activism'.

actually if we look at most of the progresive changes to the constitution they were initiated by republicans.

 

[dcraelin]

You know what I don't see in all your spiffy, new, "I'm so much smarter than the Framers" proposals? Any reason WHY we should do this, or WHY it would be an improvement.

Read the book "The Frozen Constitution"...I forget the author now......for in depth views on why we need to change

Better representation is a major reason I think it would be an improvement. WE haven't kept up with the ratio of representation we had at the beginning.

actually thats the "frozen Republic" by Daniel Lazare

 

[EconChick]

Yes there should be. It should include the RESPONSIBITIES of the citizenry as well as their Rights. It should severely limit the powers of Government beyond the specifically enumerated powers. It should explicitly state those Rights pertain to American Citizens in the US only. Foreigners in the US or Americans abroad have no expectation of those protections.

I'm also about ready to argue for a poll test. I've been against it my whole life, just as our founding fathers were against it. But allowing the insane to take over the insane asylum is pretty much where we're at in this country.

And a typical lib has no idea why that drives us sane people crazy.

Given the ignorance of the Constitution, its case law, and the role of the judiciary in American governance exhibited by you and others on the right, the notion of requiring a 'poll test' in order for a citizen to exercise the fundamental right to vote is irony indeed.

Trust me, you wouldn't want to take that wager.

As for your presumption of omnipotence about the law, try listening to Jonathan Turley, a prominent LIBERAL Const Law Professor at GWU who says Obama is throwing us into a Constitutional crisis....yet your brain is well mapped to O's on law.

 

[EconChick]

I'm also about ready to argue for a poll test. I've been against it my whole life, just as our founding fathers were against it. But allowing the insane to take over the insane asylum is pretty much where we're at in this country.

And a typical lib has no idea why that drives us sane people crazy.

Given the ignorance of the Constitution, its case law, and the role of the judiciary in American governance exhibited by you and others on the right, the notion of requiring a 'poll test' in order for a citizen to exercise the fundamental right to vote is irony indeed.

Just by supporting a poll test, she automatically flunks the poll test.

Ohhhhhhhh, so now all of a sudden what the fat old white guys who founded the country said is GOOD!

I love catching you libs in your egregious hypocricies. You have libs all over this board saying the Const is outdated, justifying why they ignore it wholesale.

Where are you setting them straight.

You have no idea how much those of us who believe in the founding principles LOATHE you liberals for it.

Look you have waded into the realm of intellectual discussion and keep falling off the tracks, rolling down the embankment, and slamming into the river.

 

[nodoginnafight]

yet another "all you libs think ..." post.

From someone who hears from conservatives what liberals think.

Maybe you should talk less and listen more.

(Same thing for liberals who want to tell us all what conservatives think)

Ratchet down attack mode a bit (yeah, pun intended) - and really listen to people.

 

[EconChick]

yet another "all you libs think ..." post.

From someone who hears from conservatives what liberals think.

Maybe you should talk less and listen more.

(Same thing for liberals who want to tell us all what conservatives think)

Ratchet down attack mode a bit (yeah, pun intended) - and really listen to people.

I've been listening to this bull for two decades. It's the same bull.

Attack mode? Your post isn't an attack you dullard? My post wasn't a personal attack.

Toss the lectures and your hypocricy at someone else.

Talk less, listen more? Maybe you should read more, play with yourself less.

 

[EconChick]

yet another "all you libs think ..." post.

From someone who hears from conservatives what liberals think.

Maybe you should talk less and listen more.

(Same thing for liberals who want to tell us all what conservatives think)

Ratchet down attack mode a bit (yeah, pun intended) - and really listen to people.

Look, your credibility was doused when you told us your relation to high schools. Most educators in the H S system lean one political way. Just like the press. That's the problem.

So try posting facts instead of lectures.