Is it time to rewrite the Constitution?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-02-26 04:44pm

Personally, I think the Constitution is needlessly verbose and cryptic. I think it needs to be rewritten in simpler language, with less room for "interpretation" (read: legal maneuvering). Also, it should be written to include examples of what it's talking about, that way we have some idea of what context to go from when interpreting it.

The only thing I'm afraid of is that, if we rewrite it, we'll be worse off because religious bigots like Bush will include their own little clauses which put holes in the wall between Church and State or fascists like Ashcroft putting in stuff that outlines conditions under which citizens' freedoms can be suspended indefinitely, and thus get away with whatever they want.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-02-26 04:46pm

In complete agreement here Durendal, I'd love to get it re-written but not in this current Political sceane, or any for some time to come, The Seperation of Church and state would likley be eliminated no matter which party(Save the National Atheist Party and all fifty of its members) is in power

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-02-26 04:47pm

You leave it the way it is you`re screwed,you rewrite it you`re screwed either way you`re screwed

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-02-26 05:27pm

Yes, most definetly.

Post by **haas mark** » 2003-02-26 05:29pm

I agree with the above two posts. [yawns and crawls to the bus stop to go home and go to bed...]

Ted C · Post by **Ted C** » 2003-02-26 05:39pm

HECK NO!

A clarification document might be helpful, but there's nothing really wrong with the US constitution. You definitely don't want the growing fundie movement to get a shot at changing the foundations of the US government.

DarthBlight · Post by **DarthBlight** » 2003-02-26 05:53pm

No, we shouldn't change the Constitution. It is a document that has so far stood the test of time (28 amendments in 226 years, only one of which has been repealed) and may very well continue to last as long as people are willing to follow it. Yes, we have people that want to change it for what many of us see as the worse, and that is why it is so important that we get involved and stay involved. Vote, correspond with representatives, organize people and make sure your voice is heard. I know, you've probably already dismissed me as some sort of cow-eyed idealist. Yes, I have my ideals, it's what's keeping me going in life. However, that doesn't mean I don't see the reality. We got Congressman who are becoming out-of-touch with the people they are supposed to represent and rather follow the siren call of big business and special interests. Well, they are going to continue to follow those calls until people vote their butts out. If the senator is so awful, vote the bum out.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-02-26 05:57pm

Clarification of what I think.

No laws should be changed. The current system works well enough and we can always write up an amendment.

However, I believe it should be tightened and clarified somewhat; especially in regards to the 1st and 4th amendments.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-02-26 06:07pm

The Consitution is intentionally vague. Why? Because by doing so, it allows room fro growth and interpretation. Such judicial interpretations have allowed us to have such land mark cases as brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade. These cases were based on judicail interpretations of the Consitituion that those called "strict constructionists" oppose vehemently.

Strict constructionists believe that if it is not clearly stated in the Constitution then it is not a right. The judicial branch has no right to read into the Consitituion what is not there...completely ignoring the fact that if everyone viewed it as they did then we would still have segregation and the right to choose for a woman would not exist.

Broad interpretation of the Constitution has made this document a living thing, growing with the nation, going through the same growing pains that this nation goes through. It has worked for centuries with relatively few revisions BECAUSE it is rathe ran open ended document.

Trust me, if we tried to rewrite it now it would be a FUCKING MESS. You want clarrity from the same people that wrote the Tax Code??? You want to lose your fucking mind...try reading it some time.

If anything, it will become even more unreadable...and frankly the document as it stands now is not. Try sitting down and really reading ti and you will see that it makes sense.

DarthBlight · Post by **DarthBlight** » 2003-02-26 06:10pm

First Amendment at best just a clarification on church and state
Second Amendment, maybe some clarification (I don't support out-and-out banning guns, however)
Third Amendment isn't even used anymore, but should still be on the books if it should ever happen. Nothing really confusing about it, really. You don't have to give room and board to a soldier in peacetime and there needs to be an act of Congress for it to happen in time of war.
Fourth Amendment should remain as-is, I think. I don't know what your exact complaints are, so I have to be a little sketchy.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-02-26 06:34pm

Cryptic? The Constitution uses some archaic language, but as far as legal documents go, it's as plain English as you could ever hope for. The Constitution was made vague ON PURPOSE, partly because the Framers were tired of bickering over minor legal points in a sealed room in Philadelphia in July 200 years before air conditioning was invented, but mostly because every man there realized the country was going to grow and change in the future and they didn't want the Constitution to become irrevelant.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-02-26 06:45pm

Stravo wrote:Strict constructionists believe that if it is not clearly stated in the Constitution then it is not a right.

Just a nitpick, Stravo. Strict constructionists believe that the Constitution is a limiting document for the Federal government (if it doesn't expressly give a power to the government, the government can't do it), but they do NOT believe that INDIVIDUAL rights are limited to those expressly mentioned in the Constitution. Most strict constructionists, in fact, favor a strict interpretation of the document because they feel an expansive Federal government is a threat to freedom.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-02-26 09:05pm

I say it's fine as it is, if some bigot is using it to prove that America was supposed to be a theocratic nation, then someone can just bring up the letter from Thomas Jefferson where he coined the term "Seperation of Church and State".

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-02-26 10:04pm

Strict constructionists believe that if it is not clearly stated in the Constitution then it is not a right.

That would be an untruthitude. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments exist for this very reason.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-02-26 10:07pm

My opinion; keep your dirty paws off my Constitution. Rewriting it may be well-intentioned, but you can be sure that another Constitutional Convention would just denigrate into an I'll-support-your-disgusting-amendment-if-you'll-support-mine session due to the what would be an inevitably ecletic group of framers and the system of partinsanship that is dominant in America today.

LordChaos · Post by **LordChaos** » 2003-02-27 02:17pm

I'll support re-writing the constitution only if it's done by the same people who wrote the current one. AKA - keep your filthy paws off my constitution. It's as non-cryptic as it can possibly be. Or would you rather it be in leaglese?

Post by **NecronLord** » 2003-02-27 02:52pm

LordChaos, you honour us with your esteened prescense...

Death from the Sea · Post by **Death from the Sea** » 2003-02-27 02:54pm

gotta say to leave it be, Stravo and the others are right on it being vague on purpose. I remember my govt. teacher saying something about the problems caused by constitutions that are more specific: 1) they become too long 2) cannot be interpreted to fit the times 3) causes over various problems I cannot remember.

Basically the framers of our constitution did a superb job.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-02-27 03:00pm

It's fine the way it is. The amendment process is there for a reason.

Though it would be nice to have an annotated guide to it for those that get bogged down in the language.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-02-27 06:20pm

In the current political climate....FUCK NO! I dont want my civil rights striped from me. Now should we get a government full of atheist social liberals then we can talk

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-02-27 06:36pm

Right, because only atheists can do things right.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-02-27 06:47pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Right, because only atheists can do things right.

I'd put much more trust in a strict atheist to make fair and impartial laws rather than a devout Christian. One has no religion influencing his decisions; the other does.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-02-27 06:51pm

Durandal wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:Right, because only atheists can do things right.
I'd put much more trust in a strict atheist to make fair and impartial laws rather than a devout Christian. One has no religion influencing his decisions; the other does.

That's a bit of a non-sequitur. As long as the theist upholds the separation of church and state, I see no reason why he or she should be considered less qualified. Belief or lack of belief in a god does not mean the person himself is not capable of being fair.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-02-27 06:52pm

Humanism and religion are not exlusive to each other, you know. I would certainly be worried about locking even one fundie in a room to write up a new Constitution, but I would have no problem with a mix of atheists and moderate, secularist Christians, or Muslims, or Jews, or whatever.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-02-27 06:59pm

No, because plenty of secularist Christians have stupid ideas like the Founding Fathers were devout Christians, and our laws are framed on Jesus' teachings. And I have heard such things from secularist liberal Christians--not entirely their fault as they were fed bullshit from every direction, but a indication nonetheless of the ignorance of the average theist.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Is it time to rewrite the Constitution?

Should we scrap the Constitution and start over?

Is it time to rewrite the Constitution?