I think it is.

 

With today's modern technology, 24/7 news cycle, ability to purchase and manufacture weapons(even dirty bombs and things of that ilk), in the know bloggers and whatnot I can't help but feel like that if our forefathers knew this was ahead of them that they would have structured the constitution much differently.

 

In this day and age a little computer savviness will land you Obama's schedule for the next two days with time and location. I don't feel like the forefathers would approve of the entire world being able to pinpoint Thomas Jefferson's exact location with a stroke of a key. Are you sure that was their intent with the first amendment?

 

In this day and age anybody can purchase military grade weaponry and stockpile their weaponry and I'm sure some of my coworkers have a larger cache than some small countries. Are we absolutely certain that our forefathers thought that would be possible when they wrote the second amendment?

 

 

These are just minor examples and there are many many more. I just can't help but think that if our forefathers were around today and they were charged with rewriting the constitution that it wouldn't look anything like what they originally wrote. The world has changed so much since 1787 but we still follow rules from 1787. That doesn't make sense to me.

 

 

Am I alone?

No. You are not alone.

 

But not only is it not outdated. It is timeless. There is nothing 'dated' about the Bill of Rights. They are the corner stone to keep us free from tyranny. They tell us what natural rights are so important to us that no government can remove them without us allowing it to happen.

 

The first amendment is not about Obama's schedule. It is about the ability to speak out and specifically speak out - against the government. In forums, in public, in private. etc.

 

I did a long post on this subject. The Bill of Rights are specific things being protected by the People against the government. It is because these rights existed before this entity called government existed and 'The People' (capital P) created the Constitution to protect themselves from the Frankenstein they knew that could come about. The founders and authors of the Bill of Rights have proven to be timeless in their thinking.

AR-15s are not military grade weaponity. The term 'Assault Rifle' was created by Newton, CT resident Josh Sugermann specifically to scare people. There are hunting rifles much more 'powerful'.

 

But the 2nd amendment says 'arms'. 'Arms' are for military use. 'The People' need to ability to enforce 'their' constitution if so needed. Suzanna Gratia Hupp says it so well at the end her famous testimony. "The 2nd Amendment is not about ducking. Its about our rights, all of our rights (as she points to the People) to protect ourselves from all of you guys of there (pointing to the Congressional panel)."

When the forefathers wrote the constitution almost everyone did own "military grade" weapons.

 

Thomas Jefferson used to answer the door to the White house himself.

 

I think the Constitution is as close to a perfect document as anyone has ever written for it's purpose. It was purposely written so that it could be applied to situations that the founders could never envision. With the political climate that now exists can you imagine what happens if there is ever a serious effort to "update" it? We have several thousand pages for the healthcare law. A new Constitution would be millions and quite frankly there is no one in Washington now or in the foreseeable future that I trust to do it.

It's not just outdated, it's fundamentally broken. That's not popular to say in a country with such a serious level of ancestor worship (seriously, people capitalize Founding Fathers and everything. Moses got upset with the Israelites for less devoted idol worship).

 

The biggest problem is the basic mechanism of government, how we select our representatives. It's broken and can't be fixed within the system.

 

Think about it. In the 20th century, we went around writing new constitutions for countries all over the world, even for major powers like Germany after WWII. We didn't give a single country our system of government.

 

A perfect document? I'm going to say that starting with including a provision of how much of a person a slave should count as for the lurpose of allocating representatives pretty much takes 'perfect' off the table. The original sin of our country is something we're still paying for today, and required a completely extra-constitutional solution in a four year civil war to resolve.

 

The Federalist papers made pretty clear that the document was written to prevent political parties and regional factionalism; that didn't exactly pan out.

It's not just outdated, it's fundamentally broken. That's not popular to say in a country with such a serious level of ancestor worship (seriously, people capitalize Founding Fathers and everything. Moses got upset with the Israelites for less devoted idol worship).

 

The biggest problem is the basic mechanism of government, how we select our representatives. It's broken and can't be fixed within the system.

 

Think about it. In the 20th century, we went around writing new constitutions for countries all over the world, even for major powers like Germany after WWII. We didn't give a single country our system of government.

 

A perfect document? I'm going to say that starting with including a provision of how much of a person a slave should count as for the lurpose of allocating representatives pretty much takes 'perfect' off the table. The original sin of our country is something we're still paying for today, and required a completely extra-constitutional solution in a four year civil war to resolve.

 

The Federalist papers made pretty clear that the document was written to prevent political parties and regional factionalism; that didn't exactly pan out.

 

The Constitution is not outdated. Everything in it allows for safe guards, checks and balances, and constant change. What is outdated is the Public's desire to keep up with what their Government is doing. People have no idea who they are voting into the House or Senate. They allow corrupt, lazy, and out-of-touch career politicians to dictate the path of the country. They do not know how their Reps vote on the vast majority of the Bills. They do not even know the attendance of their Representatives.

 

The Easy solution is to rewrite the Constitution. Set term limits and the like. However, you still have the same exact issue, b/c the people drafting a new Constitution will be the same people whose desire to preserve self-interests have led us to where we are right now. The problem isn't the Constitution. The problem is with us. The people who put those into office who wield their positions like swords.

I wouldn't call it a perfect document. Especially since it was written so long ago. I don't disagree that we are also part of the problem with who we elect but it just seems odd that a government is still running wih the literal version of rules wrote in the 1700s. That doesn't even sound right.

I have no problem with some of the basic tenets of the constitution but I am all for modifying it to reflect our current culture.

What changes would you purpose? Besides, Yuengling beer being sold nation wide.

I have no problem with some of the basic tenets of the constitution but I am all for modifying it to reflect our current culture.

Excellent topic. Constitutional tweaking every so many years sounds good in theory, but with the two-party divide, consensus for change might be impossible. If we can't even agree on filling judicial vacancies, how would we tackle something like the rewriting of the 2nd Amendment?

When the forefathers wrote the constitution almost everyone did own "military grade" weapons.

 

Thomas Jefferson used to answer the door to the White house himself.

 

I think the Constitution is as close to a perfect document as anyone has ever written for it's purpose. It was purposely written so that it could be applied to situations that the founders could never envision. With the political climate that now exists can you imagine what happens if there is ever a serious effort to "update" it? We have several thousand pages for the healthcare law. A new Constitution would be millions and quite frankly there is no one in Washington now or in the foreseeable future that I trust to do it.

:thumb:

Excellent topic. Constitutional tweaking every so many years sounds good in theory, but with the two-party divide, consensus for change might be impossible. If we can't even agree on filling judicial vacancies, how would we tackle something like the rewriting of the 2nd Amendment?

You would:puke:

Excellent topic. Constitutional tweaking every so many years sounds good in theory, but with the two-party divide, consensus for change might be impossible. If we can't even agree on filling judicial vacancies, how would we tackle something like the rewriting of the 2nd Amendment?

There is a very good reason for the difficulty to make changes to our Constitution.

What changes would you purpose? Besides, Yuengling beer being sold nation wide.

 

That is a good one.

What changes would you purpose? Besides, Yuengling beer being sold nation wide.

 

It's tricky. As I said I do agree with the basic tenets of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I think my curiosity is piqued as to what would the forefathers come up with in today's world if they had to write the Constitution today. Would they structure it the same? I don't think they would. And if the forefathers did restructure it today just for us would it still be readily accepted as it is now by those who feel the Constitution isn't outdated? I can't help but feel like they would make a lot of changes to the Constitution.

 

I can't say that I currently have anything in particular or well thought out that I would change but if I was presented with an opportunity to be a 'forefather' to help rewrite the Constitution I'd be very willing to get to a consensus and feel confident that a consensus would be reached if I was involved.