Is there anything about the Constitution that we should change?

Question

Term limits, bicameral legislation, Bill of Rights, electoral college, Balance of power, or anything else.

Please include reasons why you feel that the authors included it in the Constitution, and the reasons why it shouldn't be there.

I'm asking for balanced answers that weigh positives and negatives, not just rants.

MikeR,
I don't think you meant anything bad, but people do not have to be natural born to be citizens. Naturalized citizens should not be ignored in your answer.

Drake,
I see the fact that more people are voters now, and not just land owners, is more reason to have the electoral college.
Our founding fathers agreed that we are all states that are united, hence the name United States. They wanted to ensure that the most populous states don't dominate the elections. Otherwise, a state like California, whose citizens might all vote one way, could completely nullify the votes of states with small populations. The electoral college ensures that the voice of every state has a voice, and I don't think it should be changed.

Mark G,
I think that the Bill of Rights is a very provocative document. When they wrote the first amendment, it was revolutional, and in my opinion, a very radical idea, because words are often the cause of explosive situations. Our forefathers knew that blame was to be placed on action, and not words.
Nowadays, we see freedom of speech as a given, and we think that living any other way is unfair.
I think the right to keep and bear arms is something that is very provocative also, but the inherent freedom that it gives is undeniable, regardless of the damage it might allow. The authors knw that blame is to be placed on action, and not simply the possession of a firearm.

Rorshach,
I like what you are saying, but a law that states that politicians must do what they say they are going to do would disable politicans from changing their minds, even if the change was the result of change in circumstances, such as attacks on the nation, or even a personal epiphany.

dirty t,
You can see above my response about the Electoral College.
You mention domestic threats as a reason to have the right to bear arms. The possibility of a domestic threat didn't go away when Indians stoped raiding. The possibility still exists today. Look at VT.

Just my opinion- I don't see that the fact that munitions have improved as reason to give up the right to keep and bear arms. If anything, it is all the more reason for the innocent to be capable of defending themselves. Plus, if it was illegal to own weapons for self defense, then only the criminals and the government would have guns. The good, law-abiding citizens would have no chance of defending themselves against either.

I also see no distinct relationship between the right to bear arms, and the disaster of Hurricane Katrina. The resulting pandemonium was the result of an unpreparedness of citizens and the gov't to respond to a disaster of those proportions. Next time, we'll do better.

Answer 1

I'm happy with everything. thank you.

Answer 2

I'm not sure I can think of anything in the Constitution that needs to be changed, though some items might benefit from clarification as to their original intent, as in "the right to bear arms". I think some things might be added, though, for current day situations the founding fathers could not have conceived of. The influence of money in politics is an enormous problem. A fully publicly funded system for federal elections would a great idea if it be conceived in a fair and workable way.
As a followup to your comments, what I meant in mentioning the "right to bear arms" as something that could use some clarification is that given the context in which it is stated, there is no clear agreement as to how far the right to bear arms extends. An argument has been made that all that is being expressly guaranteed is the right to keep an armed militia, presumably to counter the possibility of an an authoritarian central government that decides not to abide by the Constitution. Obviously, it has been interpreted quite differently by some.
I'm not sure exactly how your comments about freedom of speech pertain to the idea of campaign reform. Nothing in my comment has anything to do with either extending or limiting that freedom. The Supreme Court has held that limiting spending is tantamount to limiting free speech, but I believe that argument to be specious.

Answer 3

The Electoral College is a holdover from the days when voting was restricted to white, male, property owners. Even they were not trusted to make an intelligent decision in electing the President.

Today people of all races and both sexes can vote, so long as they are 18. The electorate is much better educated than ever before. It is time to install direct election of the President and Vice-President.

The Second Amendment does not serve us well. The designers were familiar with a dangerous frontier and with the American Revolution. They clearly intended the right to bear arms to mean that local militia could be organized to deal with hostile Indians or domestic threats.

Somehow the ideals of the Founding Fathers got lost, and the right to bear arms now extends not only to the National Guard (which is not subservient to the states, but to the feds, who send them to Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving cities like New Orleans open to natural disasters), but to any crack pot who wants a gun. The Founding Fathers never dreamed of automatic and assault weapons, but were familiar with single-shot muzzle-loaders.

This amendment should be changed to reflect the world we live in today.

Answer 4

yes agree with you on term limits, think that there are two many people that occoupy seats all their lives that do not bring any thing new into the public forum. think that the electoral college should be left alone otherwise a sitting president would just send loads of money into the 7 most populated states and not worry anything about the least populated. would like to see the House to be shrunk by 5 to 10 percent of its members. it would cut cost for the government. less pork being asked for less trips all over the world, less security needed for these people...

Answer 5

Probably electoral college. I do not see a need for it anymore considering we have now allowed the general public to vote not just landowners and state legislators. I think the electoral college had depressed votes because elections seem to matter in about 4 states Florida, PA ohio and other battleground states. If you live in NY or CA and want to vote republican your vote is worthless for president and the same goes for if you live in Texas or Alabama and want to vote democrat. But then again I think if it were like this it could lead to even more voter intimidation and voting fraud nation wide considering what is at stake in close elections like we had the past 2.

Answer 6

If I could, I would go back try to convince them to take out, or at least modify the "cruel and unusual punishment" language. In modern times, this have become a tool for slime balls to get special meals, privileges, and worse. I would also have them write in a rules and penalties for citizenship. I do not feel that non-citizens should have all the same rites and privileges that native born people do!

Answer 7

We need to add an amendment
"all speech from the floor of the house or senate or from an elected official to his/her constituents, shall be treated as if under oath and subject to federal perjury law. Also, all political advertising must adhere to the truth in advertising laws."

Answer 8

I consider the form and the ratification technique. i've got not got self belief the Liberal "living rfile" concept wherein they might "interprete" it to intend despite the hell they choose for with out ratification.

Answer 9

No, the law of unintended consequences might bite us in the rear.

Answer 10

yea, a copy for every household