Fun Facts: The US constitution is the oldest national democratic constitution in the world
so the question is after all the amendments and fun court battles and arguments of constitutionality with new laws.....do you think that the ultimate way to cut red tape (at least for a while) would be to update the constitution to be more current and applicable to the social and economic changes (globalization) that have taken place over the last 250 or so years?
2006-07-27 21:21:06 · 5 answers · asked by quetzacotl13_5 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
The Constitution provides only the framework of the people's rights and how the government will operate. It need not provide for the specifics which can be made through amendments. The constitution has kept pace with times and it is the reason why the US is a superpower at this time based on morality. Thus, changing the constitution might be hazardous since it can be used by a person who wanted to be a dictator.
2006-07-27 21:28:06 · answer #1 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, a revision of the Constitution is not needed. What is needed is for our elected officials to realize that what is in the Consitution is exactly what was intended. There are too many times that someone puts their own spin on something and it winds up clouding the issue. No interpretations are really needed, but that's what happens and that is why things are so fuzzy when it comes to constitutionality of a law.
Let's take the Patriot Act as an example. This piece of tripe is so clearly unconstitutional it's sickening. It infringes on so many of our individual rights as citizens it's pathetic. And yet, under the guise of 'protecting us from terrorists,' we allow this garbage to go on. That's what the 2nd Amendment is for: this allows private citizens to be armed and have the ability to protect themselves.
Quite frankly, if I'm on a plane headed for anywhere, I'd feel safer knowing that everyone on the plane is armed and ready to defend it against hijackers rather than rely on a solo Air Marshal.
2006-07-27 21:34:22 · answer #2 · answered by Lonnie P 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
excellent question. Extremely thoughtful. I don't have a ready answer for this question but it is surely one that I would care to study. It requires considerable thought. There are both pluses and minuses to rewriting and leaving it alone. Gads, this one may take me a long while to come up with something reasonable. I do not know who you are but you got me thinking.
2006-07-27 21:41:45 · answer #3 · answered by wunderkind 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, but with a twist.
Not everyone should be allowed to vote. You should have to take an intelligence test first. So that way stupid people would not be making decisions of importance.
2006-07-27 21:25:15 · answer #4 · answered by Jon H 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NOPE, DON'T TOUCH IT, ever !
2006-07-27 21:26:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋