Should we get rid of the constitution

Smeagol said:

The Constitution has within it provisions for modification to adjust with the times. I think it could use a couple of amendments:

1. Give the POTUS the line item veto however allow line item expenditures to be overturn by the same number of votes the initial bill passed by, still keeping the budget as congress' baby.

Click to expand...

I agree with what ttwtt said here.

2. Eliminate the Electoral College.

Click to expand...

I dislike this idea. It would lead to small states having almost no impact on the election. I could support proportional giving of electoral votes, or electoral votes given on congressional district, but only after we have some nonpartisan manner of redistricting.

3. Ban corporate and union campaign donations.

Click to expand...

I could agree with this.

4. Limit super-pack contributions to the same amount and rules regulating the campaign.

Click to expand...

Also this.

5. Ban lobbyists from donating to campaigns.

Click to expand...

And this.

6. Repeal the 17th Amendment.

Click to expand...

I can't agree with this, until we have some nonpartisan way of redistricting. Gerrymandering would control the House and the Senate.

7. Standardize all ballots nationally.

Click to expand...

I don't see a need for this.

8. Grant every citizen with one of those new "real ID" driver's licenses a passport, since the same information is required at application.

Click to expand...

I'd be okay with this.

9. Any American citizen spied on by the government upon the conclusion of the investigation must be notified at the initiative of the government, given the data collected on him and given the option of having that data destroyed and never accessible by the public under the FOIA under an expanded right to privacy.


Just a few...

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how enforceable that would be.

sawyerloggingon said:

I am curious as to who in here agrees with this guy.

"AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html

Click to expand...

He has it exactly backward.

I say that a great deal of this nation's problems are the direct consequences of failing to uphold and obey the Constitution. Our system of government is broken because we have allowed it to deviate so far from the principles written into the Constitution, and to claim powers and authorities over us far in excess of what the Constitution was written to allow.

Captain America said:

I don't think we need to ditch the constitution but neither do I think we should be held in bondage by it and unable to change it with the times.

I consider the constitution to be a living document. A great blueprint that requires adjustment now and then.

Click to expand...

The Constitution includes the process by which it can be changed, as needed. This process is, by wise design, long and difficult, to ensure that it will not be invoked frivolously.

Those who say that the Constitution is a “living document”, are those who support policies that are unconstitutional, and know that there is not enough support for these policies to get the Constitution amended as necessary to allow them. Therefore, they simply make invalid excuses to disregard and disobey the Constitution.

MaggieD said:

…and our Constitution, instead of working for us, works just the opposite.

Click to expand...

No. It is not the Constitution that is failing to work for us. It is our public servants, who fail to obey the Constitution, who are working against us instead of for us.

Bob Blaylock said:

The Constitution includes the process by which it can be changed, as needed. This process is, by wise design, long and difficult, to ensure that it will not be invoked frivolously.

Those who say that the Constitution is a “living document”, are those who support policies that are unconstitutional, and know that there is not enough support for these policies to get the Constitution amended as necessary to allow them. Therefore, they simply make invalid excuses to disregard and disobey the Constitution.

Click to expand...

Why, that's just silly.

It's a qualified "yes" answer from me.

Yes, because the anti-federalists were correct about the constitution granting too much authority to the federal government. But it should only be replaced with something which rectifies the "too weak" aspects of the Articles of Confederation and the "too strong" aspects of the Constitution. I'd use many principles from the Swiss Confederacy as the basic foundation for the new "Goldilocks" constitution, tweaked for the larger, more diverse US.

There's nothing inherently wrong with your constitution, just the way it's sometimes incompetently interpreted, such as by the self-professed constitutional law expert currently occupying the White House.

My response to the actual question would be - "And replace it with what?"

Tucker Case said:

It's a qualified "yes" answer from me.

Yes, because the anti-federalists were correct about the constitution granting too much authority to the federal government. But it should only be replaced with something which rectifies the "too weak" aspects of the Articles of Confederation and the "too strong" aspects of the Constitution. I'd use many principles from the Swiss Confederacy as the basic foundation for the new "Goldilocks" constitution, tweaked for the larger, more diverse US.

Click to expand...

I went to bed last night gratified that nobody in this forum had voted yes. Some of these wack job libs in here that I expected to vote yes did not and I thought that was encouraging, so much for that!:lol:

Imagine if we were to legislate some kind of law or constitutional change that dictated the unchangeable path of American citizens 200 hundred years from now. We would be dictating to them how they should live based on conditions today. Emphasis on the word "dictate." Just throw the word "freedom" out the window.

As a previous poster stated there are measures in place to change the constitution. It is a difficult and lengthy procedure and rightfully so. But nothing is etched in stone. Americans should be free to navigate their own well-being and not tethered to some archaic ruling of centuries gone by. This is as true today as it was when the constitution was written.

The constitution should never be dismissed entirely, in my opinion. I am one of those who voted "no" in the poll. But a free America should be able to make changes as the generations see fit. We should not be enslaved to the will of past generations.

sawyerloggingon said:

I went to bed last night gratified that nobody in this forum had voted yes. Some of these wack job libs in here that I expected to vote yes did not and I thought that was encouraging, so much for that!:lol:

Click to expand...

So you disagree with the idea of decreasing federal authority?

Tucker Case said:

So you disagree with the idea of decreasing federal authority?

Click to expand...

I disagree with getting rid of the constitution. The constitution is about limiting gov authority. Obama hates it for that reason and says it only tells gov what it can't do not what it can do.


"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society…. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution … that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change…. I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through courts… The Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day … The Framers had that same blind spot … the fundamental flaw of this country. "

sawyerloggingon said:

The constitution is about limiting gov authority.

Click to expand...

This demonstrates a distinct lack of any meaningful historical knowledge of the USA. The constitution only exists because people wanted to expand federal authority.

Tucker Case said:

This demonstrates a distinct lack of any meaningful historical knowledge of the USA. The constitution only exists because people wanted to expand federal authority.

Click to expand...

You could not be more wrong. The constitution is about limiting the power of gov and if you read the obama quote you would realize that is exactly why he despises the document and circumvents it at every opportunity.

sawyerloggingon said:

I am curious as to who in here agrees with this guy.

"AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html

Click to expand...

Jefferson was a proponant of creating New Constitutions every X number of years. It's not exactly some crazy idea.

The Constitution has failed at some points in history but the question would be...what would replace it, what would it look like, how would it correct any shortfalls in our current constitution? The only problems I have with our current constitution is how elections are done and how Corporate Personhood has been interpreted.

sawyerloggingon said:

You could not be more wrong. The constitution is about limiting the power of gov and if you read the obama quote you would realize that is exactly why he despises the document and circumvents it at every opportunity.

Click to expand...

The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution had one purpose...to expand Federal powers. If the people of the United States wanted some loose federation of states they wouldn't of junked the Articles of Confederation.

Also...lets be honest here....the Federalist papers were just Madison and Hamilton convincing individuals to junk the Articles of Confederation and adopt a stronger Federal authority.

sawyerloggingon said:

You could not be more wrong.

Click to expand...

I am so, so disappointed with our education system right now. Seriously, don't take my word on it. Learn something. Read the anti-federalist papers, or a history book.

This is- sorry, should be- common knowledge. I learned this **** in 5th grade. We're ****ed as a nation if people do not know the history of the goddamned country. Frankly, it's downright offensive that people decide to have political opinions about that document whilst they remain that deplorably ignorant of the ****ing thing. It's an utter disgrace.

iliveonramen said:

The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution had one purpose...to expand Federal powers. If the people of the United States wanted some loose federation of states they wouldn't of junked the Articles of Confederation.

Click to expand...

That is a rather weak argument for a strong federal government. They wanted stronger than they had in the Articles, but they didn't want the federal government to be the key gear in the machine. The constitution still establishes a weak federal government with only a short list of powers.

Cephus said:

We shouldn't dump the Constitution but I've always thought that we ought to keep it up to date through a system better than amending it. Basically, amendments today are almost impossible to achieve so no one bothers. That leaves the Constitution full of language and ideas that simply are not applicable today, it forces the Supreme Court into the position of deciding how a document written 237 years ago applies to the modern world when, in reality, it probably doesn't. However, the Supreme Court doesn't have the ability to simply say "this no longer applies", they have to keep hitting it with a hammer until it is made to apply, even if the founding fathers would have had no clue.

We're getting to the point where some parts of the Constitution are just absurdly abused.

Click to expand...

Why do people keep saying this? Why wouldn't the constitution work in the modern world in the way it was written? Why do you need an expansion of government today outside those powers? Why isn't power scope timeless?

Yes, we should get rid of the constitution. We should dance around naked while we burn the sucker and then piss on the ashes to put out the flame. Immediately after doing so, we should ransack the White house, loot the houses of all the rich politicians, forcibly redistribute all wealth until we can all afford to party and then draft a new manifesto eliminating all states rights and restructuring all human interaction according to the dictates of a politburo carefully screened for idealogical purity.
Power to the people, dude!


well, I just hope that gives him what he wants

Henrin said:

That is a rather weak argument for a strong federal government. They wanted stronger than they had in the Articles, but they didn't want the federal government to be the key gear in the machine. The constitution still establishes a weak federal government with only a short list of powers.

Click to expand...

The point is that the anti-federalists were right about the constitution granting too much authority. The issues today are no different than that which they brought up before it was even ratified. They envisioned it being used exactly as it has been because of the fact that the potential was there from the very start. The split between Hamilton and Madison, who were both proponents of ratification, was based upon the same types of arguments had today. Madison miscalculated by assuming that it would not be used the way that the anti-federalists feared. Our modern political spectrum is a uniquely Hamiltonian one, because both republicans and democrats have accepted his principles of expanding the document in different ways, often without even realizing it.

The document allows for the creation of too strong of a federal authority.

Anagram said:

I agree with what ttwtt said here.



I dislike this idea. It would lead to small states having almost no impact on the election. I could support proportional giving of electoral votes, or electoral votes given on congressional district, but only after we have some nonpartisan manner of redistricting.


The Constitution has within it provisions for modification to adjust with the times. I think it could use a couple of amendments:

1. Give the POTUS the line item veto however allow line item expenditures to be overturn by the same number of votes the initial bill passed by, still keeping the budget as congress' baby.
I agree with what ttwtt said here.

And this.



I can't agree with this, until we have some nonpartisan way of redistricting. Gerrymandering would control the House and the Senate.



I don't see a need for this.



I'd be okay with this.



I'm not sure how enforceable that would be.

Click to expand...

I dislike this idea (eliminating the Electoral College). It would lead to small states having almost no impact on the election.

The present system leaves a lot of PEOPLE with no impact on the election. Democrats living in so-called red states feel like voting for President is a waste of time. I have a Democrat friend who lives in Atlanta who said as much to me last fall. Conversely, the millions of conservatives in California and New York have effectively no say in the presidential elections.


1. Give the POTUS the line item veto however allow line item expenditures to be overturn by the same number of votes the initial bill passed by, still keeping the budget as congress' baby.
I agree with what ttwtt said here. Veto overrides require more votes, for good reason. The POTUS should NEVER be given that much power. If a budget passed by 51%, and the president is of the majority party, then any "compromise" items, added by the minority party, will be removed making the budget a mere formality.



I happen to think the deficit is a big problem in America. Pork barrel spending by Congressmen is a problem. I see giving the POTUS the authority to save the taxpayers some of their money by refusing to spend it (but with congressional approval), is only a good thing. All this would do is make congress vote for spending items on their own merit and end the manipulation of other Congressmen and the President forcing them to agree to blow money bees wax research and bridges to nowhere by attaching them to bills that fund food and water for our troops.

I'm kind of confused about ttwtt's answer. He said he preferred keeping the veto override at 2/3s vote including for my suggestion of just line item vetoes, which gives congress more power to overturn line item vetoes but then said President shouldn't have that kind of power (to have his line-item vetoes overturned with a simple majority). That's not giving power to the President, its restricting it. The whole idea is to give the President the authority to tell congress not to attach spotted owl taxidermy classes in Omaha to the ability to buy bullet proof vests for our troops.

I honestly wonder if the conservatives who oppose the line item veto actually oppose the line item veto or are they in reality they simply oppose the current President being short-sighted and strongly tribal in their political positions.

http://articles.philly.com/1987-08-...tem-veto-veto-power-abuse-in-federal-spending

Henrin said:

That is a rather weak argument for a strong federal government. They wanted stronger than they had in the Articles, but they didn't want the federal government to be the key gear in the machine. The constitution still establishes a weak federal government with only a short list of powers.

Click to expand...

It depends on who you're speaking of. There wasn't this uniform voice of what exactly government should look like. From day one there were competing visions on the power of the different branches.

This is a problem I have....Libertarians/Small government types project their beliefs onto the founders.

From day 1 there were battles between the size and strength of government...and ultimately...a lot of proponents of smaller government expanded the power of the federal government while in office.

Also...the Constitution does no such thing. It's vague and left open to interpretation for a reason. I'd like to point out that as early as Jefferson the Government led by a small government guy bought a whole lotta land and divvied it up and that power is not in the constitution if you take a literal view.

I see no reason why a full update of the constitution would be a bad thing. A great deal of supreme court common law could be folded into the document itself and put into black letter law, rather than relying on controlling cases. Contentious issues like the reach of the commerce clause could be settled and put into the constitution. Rights that are flimsier in our present law, like privacy, could be afforded the strength of a full amendment. We could have a version that doesn't contain language of slavery, even though it's officially crossed out now. The core principals, however, wouldn't change. The character of this country has not dramatically altered. We still believe in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We still believe in limited government. We still believe in checks and balances, delegation of powers, representative democracy, equal treatment under the law, and more. The ideals of the constitution are certainly still the core ideals of the nation, but the form of the constitution is outdated and could use an update.

iliveonramen said:

I'd like to point out that as early as Jefferson the Government led by a small government guy bought a whole lotta land and divvied it up and that power is not in the constitution if you take a literal view.

Click to expand...

Lots of people are all about limiting other people's authority, not necessarily their own. I think Jefferson was one of those people. :lol:

Tucker Case said:

Lots of people are all about limiting other people's authority, not necessarily their own. I think Jefferson was one of those people. :lol:

Click to expand...

Very true...also Madison ended up reinstituting the National Bank when he realized he needed to raise funds for war against England.

That's what gets me with this idea that "The Founders" were some monolithic anti-government force. They must of skipped their history lessons that the first divisions were between the founders based on federalist and anti-federalist views of America..