We need a new Constitution, yes or no?

[Wildman]

Those who say "we need to follow the one we got" should realize a Constitution that isn't enforced perhaps means it needs better enforcement provisions.

no new Constitution, just an amendment banning all liberscum from my country.

 

[Kosh]

What we need is less ignorance of, and contempt for, the Constitution and its case law by the partisan right.

Oh my the irony of those comments from a far left Obama drone.

 

[Kosh]

Our first Constitution was pretty liberal for its time and a new Constitution would be even more liberal. The nation's history is of slow liberalism, too fast for some and too slow for others, but always in the liberal direction.

Oh my the deluded far left chime and show they have no clue what the Constitution is all about.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Our first Constitution was pretty liberal for its time and a new Constitution would be even more liberal. The nation's history is of slow liberalism, too fast for some and too slow for others, but always in the liberal direction.

Simply because nature and society tends to disorder doesn't mean that we have to help it along by injecting liberalism to increase the state of disorder. Rejecting liberalism, working to prevent degradation of systems and standards, helps to preserve order in nature and society, thus improving lives.

Adopting liberalism and rushing towards oblivion is not something we should be cheering on.

 

[Kosh]

Many of the far right reactionary drones no longer are American in the best ways.

This coming from the far left Obama drone and further proof the racist far left Obama drones are far more dangerous than ISIS.

You seem nervous.

See even more proof that the far left does not have a clue what the Constitution is and how they far more dangerous than ISIS.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You talk to dead people Paintyourtoesies?

Yeah, it's a process called reading used on something called history. I know it's unknown to your kind, obviously...

ROFLMAO You're a kook.. You've read history so you can discern and read the minds of dead people- how they would feel some 227 yrs later..

Especially when certain terms like "militia" carried a very different interpretation and point of view as it was written, from what we believe it's referred to today. Also since the Constitution makes mention to respect the power of the people, in as much as it's written the people have the right to overthrow their own government. Now that's a concept I don't believe many who support increased government power to control and dictate over the lives of the people, would favor being included in our Constitution. Overthrowing a government because the people want to hold them accountable and keep them in line? Now there is a radical and dangerous idea to have been specifically written and included by our Founders.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Shakles, then email Congress and SCOTUS and enlighten them.

Times change, on the other hand, and the FF did not live in a wondrous and technological age such as today.

Many of them would say "well done."

 

[Kosh]

Shakles, then email Congress and SCOTUS and enlighten them.

Times change, on the other hand, and the FF did not live in a wondrous and technological age such as today.

Many of them would say "well done."

So the racist far left Obama drone is going to lecture someone on Congress when they support a president that does not care about the Constitution and has been shot down by the Supreme Court a record nine times (9-0) for his unconstitutional acts.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Shakles, then email Congress and SCOTUS and enlighten them.

Times change, on the other hand, and the FF did not live in a wondrous and technological age such as today.

Many of them would say "well done."

So the racist far left Obama drone is going to lecture someone on Congress when they support a president that does not care about the Constitution and has been shot down by the Supreme Court a record nine times (9-0) for his unconstitutional acts.

Eight of those began in the Bush era.

Please do not think you are a Patriot, for you are not.

 

[DriftingSand]

Our first Constitution was pretty liberal for its time and a new Constitution would be even more liberal. The nation's history is of slow liberalism, too fast for some and too slow for others, but always in the liberal direction.

I don't agree. I believe there is a right way to do things and a wrong way. In fact, there are lots of wrong ways.

When a baker creates the perfect cake there is no need to "liberally" change the recipe over time. The perfect cake will ALWAYS be the perfect cake.

In 4016 B.C. a person had the right to defend himself and his family from a violent criminal. The same will be true of a person living in 2036 A.D.

In 2036 B.C. a person had the right to express his beliefs verbally. The same will be true of a person living in 2021 A.D.

There's an old saying that's simple but true: "if it works ... don't fix it." Who here truly believes that they can improve upon the basic tenets of the Constitution of the USA?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Those who say "we need to follow the one we got" should realize a Constitution that isn't enforced perhaps means it needs better enforcement provisions.

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.

 

[DriftingSand]

Those who say "we need to follow the one we got" should realize a Constitution that isn't enforced perhaps means it needs better enforcement provisions.

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.

Yup! No person (that is ... human being) shall be above the law of the land. All (including each and every politician) servants of the people shall be held accountable for their actions. Acts of treason and other crimes shall be punishable by law. Period!!

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Those who say "we need to follow the one we got" should realize a Constitution that isn't enforced perhaps means it needs better enforcement provisions.

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.

 

[westwall]

I do not agree with the lyrics, but it is good music.



"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
And I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again"


The Who - Won't Get Fooled Again - YouTube

.

They are stating a fact about politics and the mindlessness of the public. They are not advocating for it.

 

[S.J.]

We need a new Constitution. One that is less ambiguous. Less left up to interpretation for the lawyers to subvert. One that limits the size of government. We do need a new one but now is not the time. Too many liberals would have too much input. The time to draft a new one is after the revolution, when conservative libertarians are the ones writing it, all of it.

 

[dblack]

Yes. In my view, the Constitution is a living document and needs substantial updating.

That seems contradictory.

Why?

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.

 

[Geaux4it]

As TJ said, The second amendment wont be needed until they try to take it away

-Geaux

 

[Politico]

We need a new Constitution, yes or no?

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 dont consider myself a conservative tho I am on some issues I suppose.

If your going to call the notion ignorant idiocy perhaps you should have some cogent arguments.

Agreed. You certainly are not.

 

[Derideo_Te]

"We the people" is not the callout to majoritarianism that you think it is. Instead, it's a recognition that government derives its power from the consent of all the people, not just the majority. And that's what I think the statists really don't get about the Constitution. If all we cared about was majority rule we wouldn't need a constitution. We just vote on everything and roll with it.

But that sort of government puts minorities at extreme risk, and more thoughtful people won't consent to such an arrangement. A constitution functions as a binding contract, whereby people can safely consent to abide by government (and, in a democracy, majority rule) with assurances that the power of government is clearly limited. In other words, it's not a blank check.

When the limitations are a abolished, or interpreted away, the consent that came with them is compromised. Whatever we do with the Constitution, we need to reassert it's power to clearly define the scope and reach of government. This idea that it can be whatever sounds good at the moment just doesn't fly.

You are conflating and confusing two entirely separate things!

The form of government is by majority rule but the Constitution protects the rights of individuals from being abridged by the majority.

We the People are not attempting to abridge the rights of the individual because no individual has the right to impose their oppressive beliefs on We the People.

Well, I'm not clear what you mean by this. You're defending changing the terms of the consent contract (the Constitution) via means other than the amendment process, and then implying that those objecting to that agenda are "oppressing" you. This sounds mighty Orwellian to me. Can you clarify? How are people who don't want government reneging on its commitments oppressing anyone?

That is not what I posted so I don't need to defend what I didn't post! Try reading it again and then get back to me!

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Shakles, then email Congress and SCOTUS and enlighten them.

Times change, on the other hand, and the FF did not live in a wondrous and technological age such as today.

Many of them would say "well done."

So the racist far left Obama drone is going to lecture someone on Congress when they support a president that does not care about the Constitution and has been shot down by the Supreme Court a record nine times (9-0) for his unconstitutional acts.

He's harmless. This is what he normally does, bringing personal commentaries about those on this board more than adding anything to the discussion at hand. I just wait in hopes he may contribute something informative to respond to.