Has the US Constitution become outdated and should it be trashed?

Question

What parts of the Constitution are behind the times?

What parts of the Constitution have been changed for the better and what has changed made things worse?

Answer 1

The genius of the founding fathers was this, they understood that the world would always change, and therefore made it possible for the USA to change with it. They new that some rights and laws would have to change to keep up with an evolving world. You don't have to scrap the Constitution, but rather make it apply to the world we know.

Answer 2

To understand any answer to your question you must understand the intent of the Framers to write and ratify the Constitution of the United States.

In short, the intent was to create a general government under a federalist, representative republic.

That general government was intended to be entirely defined by the powers delegated to it within that Constitution and indirectly those powers barred to the States.

At the time of the ratification of the Constitution each State already had a Constitution and each State was declare as, Free, Independent, and Sovereign in the Treaty of Peace signed in Paris in 1783. The general government as created in the Constitution has freedom and independence to act, with the necessary sovereignty, only in the implementation of the powers delegated to it.

This was, and is, a Constitution of the States in that they are the creators of it, and this through representatives of the States writing the Constitution and representatives of the States ratifying the Constitution as assembled in conventions unique to each State.

The Constitution neither creates nor grants any Individual Rights. Individual Rights preexist the Constitution and have resulted through evolution of English Common Law. Many believe that the 10 Articles of the Bill of Rights are a source of rights, not so. The bill of Rights occurred as a political compromise to ensure the ratification of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is not a list of rights, rather, it is restraints on the created federal government. They are of two types, the first eight are exclusionary by excluding the general government from doing specific acts. The final two are declaratives in that they declare absolute truths.

These Constitutional structural items require little alteration and such alteration can only occur though the Amendment Process. Primarily those changes have been to expand the franchise of rights, such as women voting. However, there has been some other changes which are less than desirable. For example, the 14th Amendment never reached Constitutional requirements for ratification but it was applied anyway. Or, 17th Amendment where Senators were selected by the popular vote.

Interpretation is more in the laws enacted by Congress and the United States Supreme Court opinions relative to those laws. For example, the believe that the Constitution allows people to have guns is wrong. The only mention of arms in the Constitution is in the 2nd Amendment and it simply bars the general government from passing any laws about the people being armed. The Right to be armed predates the Constitution.

In other words, leave the Constitution alone.

Answer 3

That's what a lot of liberals and neo-cons think. The liberals don't think the people should be armed. They trust the politicians with weapons. They don't like the idea of recognition of God.

The neo-cons have trouble with being restricted from unreasonable searches. Also, they don't think that it is important that the accused has a public trial, can face their accusers, has the right to consult with an attorney and is protected from torture.

They both can see no reason why Congress should declare war. What the hell, let the president send troops whenever he wants. The part about gold and silver being the only legal tender wouldn't allow them to inflate the currency. That would force them either to raise taxes, or cut spending. That would never do.

And the most troublesome, the Tenth Amendment. This is supposed to prevent federal intervention into areas not specifically authorized by the Constitution.

As for which amendments have been detrimental, the most obvious is the sixteenth, which gave us the income tax. The direct election of senators (rather than having them elected by the state legislature) was an attack on the Separation of Powers.

Answer 4

I am foreign, so I dont know much about it.
But the Ameriocan Constitution has a thing that I considere very good, i.e, It does not change at every 15 years like it happens in many other countries. It is a stable constitution.

Answer 5

The Constitution is a brilliant document. It clearly states the priciples that our country values. The fact that it can be amended and that changes must be made very carefully and ratified by the people adds to the arguement for its staying power.

Answer 6

I think the constitution is fine, but we should interpret it a little better and if we feel the need to make new legislation which goes against it, we should amend it, not break it as we've been doing for so long now.

Answer 7

The Constitution is a great document. The only part I do not like is allowing everyone to have guns. Besides that, it is great. It should not be changed.

Answer 8

The US Constitution is excellent and is NOT outdated at all. Only the interpretation by Judges that find stuff written in there that is NOT written in it!

Answer 9

i think its a good constitution because it protects our rights as citizens

Answer 10

Hell no our Constitution is not obsolete and how dare you to even suggest it. Thad damned Idiot Bush has done enough damage to it already