In our changing times, does the constitution need to be re-interpreted?

Question

or should we strive to keep its "original intended interpretation"?

Answer 1

I certainly think we need to rethink the right to bear arms issue,When the constitution was written..arms were not aka's or weapons of mass destruction.They were one shot guns that needed to be loaded by hand and then reloaded and it was not something easily had.The gun lobby has supported the right wing for so many years that gun toting in America is a right that should be rethought.So ,the answer is yes ,we do need to reinterpret the constitution. Very thoughtful question ,by the way.I look foward to the response.

Answer 2

Our Constitution is a perfect document. All of the original "intended interpretation" has worked for over 300 years and there is no need to reinterpret. As things change in our society, things come along that our Founders could never have imaged during those times. What makes the document so perfect is that it can be amended to address the new information without changing the original intent.

Our Constitution was loosely based on the Magna Carta which has been perfect since the 1200's and has stood the test of time - with it's original intent kept in place.

Fortunately, for "we, the people", it is not easy to make amendments to our Constitution....it is a very serious matter and is taken serious by those who consider it.

If it weren't for our Constitutional protection, our current administration would have completely done away with it. As Cheney said, "it's just a piece of paper"....

Answer 3

The Constitution should be interpreted strictly with its original intent in mind. If any written constitution is interpreted loosely, then that just defeats the purpose of having a written constitution at all, and there'd be nothing stopping the government from interpreting whatever it wanted to run roughshod over our rights. That being said, there is a constitutional procedure in place for amendment. The amendment process is difficult to prevent sweeping changes that aren't good for the country. The Constitution sometimes needs to be updated and there's nothing wrong with that.

Answer 4

The answer is NO a resounding NO. The Constitution was a document that was formulated to withstand the test of time. Again, I refer to the Federalist Papers. Please read the thought that went into the arguments that were presented by Thomas Jefferson. Read the ideology that went into the writing of said document and the amendments that followed. If one were to remove the 2nd amendment, the 1st would soon follow and on and on. It was written for the people by the people. Government should not be allowed to tread on our God given rights as spelled out many years ago. Our right to bear arms is a right that was put in place so that if the government were to become too powerful, We the People could take up arms against them. Our Freedom of speech is always protected by the first amendment as is our right to post these messages.

Answer 5

The biggest problem we currently have with the Constitution is that it has already been "re-interpreted" beyond recognition. I am willing to bet you would consider the "original intention" a MAJOR improvement.

Edit: I LOVE mel's answer. I read my copy at least twice a year. Many people that CLAIM to defend it exhibit no evidence they could identify it it you read it to them. Just yesterday, I responded to someone on Yahoo Answers that had the gall to list the constitution as his source for an answer that proved he knew NOTHING about the document.

Answer 6

What are you speaking approximately? The shape isn't a static rule e book of assets you may and would't do. this is only a depiction of the courting of the stability of powers as properly as limits on federal capability and ensures man or woman rights. The Louisiana purchase wasn't interior the form, yet Thomas Jefferson did that besides even inspite of the indisputable fact that he replaced right into a strict interpreter of the form. we want the type to remedy problems in unique approaches the founders did not evaluate.

Answer 7

originally when the constitution was written; many things were interpreted differently anyways. all men were created equal, didn't include African Americans however it they were not even considered human! i personally don't think it needs to be re-interpreted. it is pretty clear. people in power try to violate our constitutional rights but it is not because they misinterpreted it. it is the nature of the beast. i wished you would have brought up an example of what you think that may need to be re-interpreted.

Answer 8

There is no need to "re-interpret" the Constitution when it can be changed through a process called an amendment.

Answer 9

I think if we start editing/re-interpreting the Constitution, we start undermining our country. It's still a relatively new country. Our best hope for its survival is the Constitution.

Answer 10

By who?
Everyone has a different interpretation of the Constitution.