We live in a modern age, but conform to a constitution that offers more protection to a single person, than it does for the majority. Is this what our forfathers had in mind, to have things cramed down our throats because one person out of 100 claims it violates his rights, and all must to conform to accomodate this one person?
2006-10-12 01:38:41 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Good God people, I KNOW what ammendments are for!! Don't attack me for suggesting the constitution is old and outdated. I just think too many people hide behind things written in there that really wasn't meant to be that way when it was written.
2006-10-12 02:20:24 · update #1
I have lots of ideas for amendments, and I've already talked a number of times here on Y!A about what I consider to be a very important proposal for an amendment, only to have virtually everyone tell me that they disagree.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AgvsVmGPBdlOTTC5cv1XG_Dsy6IX?qid=20060922074009AAB54Qd
I'm not concerned with how old the Constitution is, but I am concerned about the fact that some provisions are very vague and that they should be clarified -- like the 14th amendment.
I am astonished at how many people giving answers here keep on saying that individuality is more important than the majority. The Constitution never says that! The Constitution provides a structure for how the national majority shall rule and it delegates limited powers to the national government and provides only a few, simple, spare (but important) rules about what the majority cannot do. And look at this guy who claimed that the Constitution has a clause which reads "the rights of the people shall not be infringed." Ye Gods! How can people claim that the Constitution says "ya-da-ya-da" when it does not say that!
2006-10-12 02:42:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Constitution should not be changed to fit todays society. The Framers intentionally protected the rights of individuals rather than the majority. Following the Articles of Confederation, the Framers realized the importance of a strong national government to counter the rights of the people. Back then, just like today, many people are uneducated. Therefore, in my opinion, the common person, when assembled together, do not necessarily know what is best for the majority. The Framers never had the intent of anything being crammed down our throat, but the way to fix that is to abolish the ACLU and then form a "less bias" organization to "protect" individual rights. The problem has become that the minority is being over protected by such groups that "have our best interest in mind."
2006-10-12 01:52:49 · answer #2 · answered by vegasbrother99 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Our form of government, based on the constitution, has been the most successful in history. Don't mess with a good thing. Yes, we may need to amend it from time to time. The framers were brilliant in setting up the separation of powers, checks and balances, and an ammendment process that doesn't allow an ammendment to be made too easily. This prevents temporary public opinion from changing a document based on fundamental principles.
2006-10-12 01:47:54 · answer #3 · answered by Eric H 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is the job of the Supreme Court of the United States to interpret the Constitution. They create case law every session that says what the Constitution "really means." They do so in light of a cautious, yet meaningful, understanding of current cultural and moral trends. This allows the Constitution to be more fluid and accommodating of changing times. If you don't believe me, try following the case law and SC justices' comments on capital punishment.
2006-10-12 03:54:32 · answer #4 · answered by jurydoc 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
First,
If one persons rights are trampled, all of our rights could be trampled. you don't have to conform for one person - but you have to let them express their own personal freedoms. if we (as a country) start repressing certain ideas then, at some later date, our OWN ideas could no longer be in favor with the government and they would repress us.
We are constantly "rewriting" the constitution via it's interpretations in the courts. some of this is good, some of it is not so good. but case law put a modern framework on it.
we have a hard enough time passing a budget, it would be forever to write a new constitution and the thing has worked for over 200 years - so it must be pretty good.
2006-10-12 01:52:42 · answer #5 · answered by jewells_40 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. They tried that, but Communism fell in the Soviet Union and all through Europe.
The single individual is the one who needs protection from the majority, and in this modern age with ignorance and propaganda rampant through the media and Internet, the protection of individual liberty is needed now more than ever.
A person can claim their rights are violated. It is up to a wise judiciary and the law to determine if they are correct.
We re-do the Constitution and we will hasten our destruction as a country.
2006-10-12 01:44:08 · answer #6 · answered by kingstubborn 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
he constitution was written for the protection and rights of the people , one at a time or as a group .
One whinner can't get much attention , a group can , but even one can get his day in court .
Liberals want to change the constitution , conservatives want to leave it alone ( conserve it ) .
Our forefathers spent years hammering out the wording and more than 1 argument .
Technology has changed , the basic rights of a free people have not .
Every purposed change I've seen in the last 50 yrs was repressive of some right of the people and giving more power to government .
The most inportant words to be found in the constitition are very basic , " THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED " .
2006-10-12 02:06:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
one thing you need to consider is that the majority is not always right. In fact the constitution was written to protect that one person from the majority. Pretty neat huh. No we do not need a new constitution the one we have worke fine .
2006-10-12 01:45:43 · answer #8 · answered by bungee 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. The constitution was written rather ambiguously to allow for changing times. It addresses human rights, which should never change. Additionally, it offers ammendments.
2006-10-12 01:41:28 · answer #9 · answered by Hunter J 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The Constitution should not be screwed with. It's worked so far and should remain like it is.
Some Atheist organizations have attempted to destroy what our forefathers had in mind. Like "The Separation of Church and State".
That was just a rumor they started to meet their own goals. NOWHERE in the constitution does it say anything about the separation of Church and State.
Leave it alone.....
2006-10-12 01:47:59 · answer #10 · answered by Cal 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋