Is it time to "overhaul" the constitution?

Probably.

But find me a group of people that 2/3 of the country will trust to do the job properly, and then we’ll talk.

Only some points really might benefit from revision, it’s been ‘working’ for a while now.
I’m with cwilbur.

good point…

Isn’t that what the Patriot act was for, to work around those parts of the Constitution that weren’t working (for some)

YES. Nobody uses it anyway. Nobody would follow a new one, either, so I propose we just abolish it.

@fireside: but legally, a mere law passed by Congress can’t override the Constitution. Although they keep trying….

@fireside

nice one, lol

@ubersiren

It really seems that most constitutional rights are gone anyways, doesn’t it? Except when they cater to big corp as in gun sales profits.

Kinda makes you think, there are only 27 amendments despite the fact that over 10,000 unratified, submitted amendments. Could it be we’re too “frozen up”?

Sorry for double-quipping

@ubersiren – aren’t you glad you have the freedom to express that thought, rather than being sentenced to prison for doing so?

@laureth

and where would that happen?

@TaoSan:

Somalia
Afghanistan
Cameroon
Syria and other Arab nations
China
Jordan
Uganda
Etc.

Granted, I’ve added places where people have merely been arrested for criticizing the government, but I think that’s still a valid list. It is also, sadly, not exhaustive. (Also has probably happened in the U.S., but I don’t believe it’s as widespread as in some other places.)

It’s valid laureth, but just because we’re better than some third-rate, third-world dictatorships doesn’t mean we need to lag behind any other civilized first world nation.

We were once so competitive, what happened with that?

And as for China, we have 4 times the number if prisoners per capita than China, just some food for thought.

@TaoSan – Behind whom do we lag in the “freedom of speech” department?

@laureth

Europe

the sluggish economy, and poor leadership doesn’t change the value of what is written…really what we need to do is overhaul the party system…

@TaoSan – Example? Link?

I’m sure that Europe is hunky dory – I’m not challenging your premise – but I wouldn’t mind knowing how they’re better.

I actually wish the constitution were followed more closely.

@laureth
I would like to test my freedom to express my thought by not contributing $12,000 a year to a federal government via income taxes, which go to murdering people all throughout the world. I am not a murderer but face going to jail if I refuse to contribute. We may be “free” in some ways, but we are not even close to free.

@Taosan Are you asking if we should live in a police state?

It’s not time to overhaul it. It is a time to follow it. We have stopped doing that long ago.It is my belief, that we are in the situation we are now because we stopped following it.
We are no longer a free people, whose government’s duty is to protect the basic rights of it’s people, we have become enslaved people, who are held against our will, to contribute, via income, sales, and property taxes, to an empire with 500,000 troops and military personnel on 700 bases, in 150 countries, including 37 countries.

If we want to change our expectations of our government, and not expect them to take care of us from cradle to grave, while having bases all around the world, then we can realize that the times haven’t changed all that much and we can get back to our Constitution. We are all people, just like the people were in 1787. We deserve to be completely free, not just more free than other countries. More free is not free. If something costs $.10, its not free is it?

this would be a bit expansive, I try to be short.

Do we have complete and total freedom of speech in the US. Sure. How has the current “system” responded to that?

By creating a machinery that is near-perfect in discrediting, undermining, or otherwise putting those that “use” that freedom in a derogatory context.

Sure, you are free to say what you want, but to what effect? We have some of the lousiest whistleblower protection of ANY civilized first world nation, for the plain fact that we are led by one of the most “secretive” governments in the world that considers it’s citizens as “idiots with ballots”. (hopefully this will change now).

Sure, you have freedom of speech, but really, in this country, how efficiently can you turn that into something that makes a difference?

@TaoSan – I do not disagree with you. We do not have total freedom of speech in the U.S., but that is not the point I was asking about. You were saying that Europe is better than the U.S. in this regard. Do you have specific European examples? (Again, I am not challenging the existence of better conditions elsewhere – merely looking for positive examples in Europe rather than negative examples in the U.S.)

@chris6137 – You are right, we are in no way completely, utterly free in the way you imply. However, it’s pretty rare for people to exist in a solitary state anymore, and most of the concessions we make to an overarching government exist so that we can all play nicely together. Large groups of people together practially cause governments to arise amongst them, and the larger the group, the more complex the government. To be truly free, you would need to find a totally solitary existence, I believe.

I can’t give you the whole break down right now but I’ll gladly fish out some good links by tonight. My assertion is mainly based on whistleblower protection laws passed by the EU in the last 3 years.

No problem. :) Thanks for mentioning what it’s regarding, at the least!

@laureth : Yeah, I’m glad for that. What does that have to do with anything?

Yes

It’s not really helpful to beat the drum about rights when you’re not willing to talk about responsibilities or consequences. And it’s especially naïve to insist on rights while trying to shirk responsibilities.

Sure, some of my taxes went to support a war of aggression that I don’t especially care for. But some of my taxes also went to build and maintain interstate highways, local roads and streets, and subway and bus systems; to provide health care and basic necessities for the poor; and to pay for education, museums, art, music, culture, and public television and radio. I’m sure there are a lot of citizens out there who are in favor of the war and opposed to the National Endowment for the Arts and Social Security, for that matter.

The purpose of a constitution is to provide principles of government, and a framework by which those principles can be realized- the mechanisms of government. It is not its job to lay out how those principles will be reflected in specific laws. The entire reason that constitutions exist is that they are inviolable, and this inviolability depends on the degree of respect that the document evokes. The more specific it becomes, then specific portions risk becoming irrelevant, and if part of the document loses its authority, all of it does. That is why our constitution is much longer-lived and is much more venerated than those of other countries which are essentially a compilation of the nation’s laws. Those constitutions, as they are easily changed, can easily be exploited by momentary sentiment and temporary administrations. Our system is not perfect; some items like the second amendment have become irrelevant with changing times (and should never have been included, as the potential for such change is evident where technology is concerned), and governments do not always give the document the respect it deserves. But overall, the principle that the constitution gives shape to the country itself, and should not be changed unless that form changes in some fundamental way, still carries weight.

Therefore, the constitution should never be overhauled, as that would destroy the sentimental basis from which it derives authority and which allows such smooth functioning of government in our country; and of course, it is written so that it should never need overhauling. What decides whether or not something should be amended to the constitution or simply be made a law is how permanent the principle behind it is liable to be; that is, whether the risk that a government might violate it if it is not made constitutional outweighs the risk that it might become irrelevant if it is. It is to ensure such permanency that the road to amendment is so long. A change in demographics such as you describe is sufficiently permanent as to warrant an amendment, but only if it conflicts unavoidably with the constitution. I am aware of no such conflict- it is not worth the conspiracy theories and general loss of faith that would arise, especially during these turbulent and distrustful times.

@Jayne

Very well thought out. In part I agree. Don’t you think it problematic though, that interpretation of the constitution is becoming more and more a task for linguists as opposed to law makers.

I mean, in part we are not even able to interpret its language properly anymore. See, especially the second amendment controversy over the two differently punctuated versions illustrate the problems associated with it. Another 100 years and our supreme court judges will need to consult linguists and historians.

Maybe I should clarify, that by “overhaul” I do not mean departing from the revered original in any way, but merely the creation of an adapted version, Constitution 2.0 if you will.

Of course I do agree that this would be a task for a more stable time than this.

I’m with both @Jayne & @cwilbur on this. Also, if it is time for an overhaul what do you suggest to replace the current system in place? I’ve railed against many of our government’s administrative policies. I’ve come up with a better way for very few.

@Blondesjon

Oy, I think I’m being misinterpreted. I don’t propose to change the “system”, just some linguistic adaptation, and, where necessary, clarification/adaptation of some amendments.

With overhaul I don’t mean departure from the original

@TaoSan…No problem. What needs reworded and how would you reword it?

@Blondesjon

That I leave to the smart lawmakers :)

Me is jus’ simple folk. Although, I’d definitely start with the second amendment.

@TaoSan….Cool I just thought that maybe, with this being your question and all, you had a specific example.

2nd amendment? Good luck with that.

@Blondesjon

I also think the current model of federalism needs some revamping by the way.

And don’t get me started on voting

@TaoSan; That is a problem. But in a way it is also a blessing. As I wrote above, a sound constitution depends on its flexibility, some vagary in language allows interpretive freedom that helps ward off the necessity of amendment. But yes, in general these gaps do little more than provide unnecessary hassle and an opening for exploitation.

One thing I would like to see changed is the electoral system and, as you say, the federal system, which are outdated remnants of a time in which a high standard of general education and speedy transport and communication seemed impossible. These changes are unlikely to go anywhere, so these complications can be changed without any great risk. Of course, people can be rather protective of their state rights, so their might be dangers there that are not worth facing.

@Jayne

I do very much agree with you. It is easy to type, lets rework the constitution. I fully subscribe to your reasoning that in order to preserve it’s authority, a certain latitude is necessary to avoid degrading it to a common law document.

However, I also see a certain risk that such loss of authority may occur particularly if we do not make adjustments to reflect societal changes.

I guess this is indeed a very difficult question. The fact that there are 10,000 unratified amendments vs. 27 ratified ones attests to the complexity of the issue.

However, I wholeheartedly agree with you that now is certainly not the time for this task.

@ubersiren – re: “What does [being able to freely complain about the government] have to do with anything?”

A few quips up, you said that no one uses the Constitution for anything, anyway. However, your ability to rail against this form of government without too much fear of being jailed for your disagreement springs in large part from your rights under the First Amendment. It’s like a little circle, see?

@laureth: As I clearly stated, I think we should abolish the Constitution because nobody obeys it, not because I disapprove of it or disagree with it. So, I don’t know why you’re getting all snippy. My point is that nobody holds it in the least bit sacred (even Presidents and Congress who disobey it regularly), so it’s utterly useless. If it people actively followed it and used it as a guideline for how to run the country, I could see its merit. And our freedoms don’t only exist because they are in the Constitution. Laws can be written anywhere. You should probably stop stalking me on here and starting arguments. We obviously disagree about things. Let it go. I don’t have the will to try to discuss issues with people who only want to argue.

You asked. I answered. Not stalking, by a long shot. Good night.

The Constitution is beautifully flexible and has met all the challenges of change for almost 220 years. In other countries where they write Constitutions that reflect the current concerns,they end up having them become archaic in a couple of generations.

Uber, I think you are projecting when you claim nobody obeys the Constitution. We have had men who have tried to destroy it but so far the men have been defeated, not the Constitution. You might find it useful to look into Constitutional issues throughout history instead of the conventional wisdom of the last decade.

BTW accusing others of stalking because they disagree with you is silly. I happen to know Laureth is interested in political discussions since she has been contributing to them long before either of us have been here. If you are angry and just want to end the discussion, don’t lash out, just stop following the thread.

@laureth : I want to apologize for saying you were stalking me… that was very immature. It was, however, how I felt last night when once again, you just had to pick a fight. I was just sick of you jumping on me on every political post I commented on. This was not the first time. You initiated, not me. But it doesn’t excuse my comment.

@galileogirl: Read above. This was not the first time I’d been jumped on by the same person regarding my views. It wasn’t just that I was angry, though it contributed.

I’m all for political discussion, but I don’t enjoy being “schooled” when I’m not opposing anyone to begin with.

I don’t jump on people, per se. I jump on inaccuracies. However, you may very well see this as another “jumping on you,” when it’s really another “jumping on inaccuracy.”

If you feel offended by my answering your questions (such as “What does that have to do with anything?”), I will do my level best to remember to not interact with you in the future, no matter how directly you address me. It is worth noting, however, that I do tend to participate in political discussions (as @galileogirl pointed out), and if you also talk politics on Fluther, it is likely we’ll run into each other periodically.

I wish you no ill will. I do not, even, wish to argue, be offensive, or pick fights. I do debate, and I do try to point out errors in logic, or data points that people might not perceive. If these things are anathema to you to the point of such anger and annoyance as you expressed above, I apologize for offending you, but I do not apologize for my views or for the way I use Fluther.

Again: good night.

No, the Constitution is an interpretive document and amendments are rarely needed but when necessary have been. It’s a brilliant document and needs no revision.