Is It Time to Update the Constitution? Fareed Zakaria is one of the most thought-provoking bloggers out there, IMO. This is a very good argument FOR updating the US Constitution.

Love Zakaria. Always has great stuff. I think I like the idea of updating to a more modern Constitution, but I can't imagine the legal and social battles if it were proposed.

It will be interesting to see what Iceland comes up with. If, like me, anyone is curious as to what Iceland's constitution looks like, the link is posted below:

 

Constitution of the Republic of Iceland

 

As for us, I can't even imagine what that process might look like. The federal constitution clearly does not empower the federal government to dissolve itself and create a new constitution, so the several states would each likely have to vote within their own legislatures to have a new constitutional convention and send delegates selected as the various states deem necessary. The United States constitution is designed so that change is deliberately slow. Perhaps in a nation of 320,000, it's slightly easier to get everyone together on this. I cannot even imagine what writing a new constitution would look like these days.

 

Rockmom, is there anything in particular that you find the current constitution to be lacking or do you just think that the document, perhaps due to its age is difficult to interpret or understand and we'd be better off starting fresh?

It will be interesting to see what Iceland comes up with. If, like me, anyone is curious as to what Iceland's constitution looks like, the link is posted below:

 

Constitution of the Republic of Iceland

 

As for us, I can't even imagine what that process might look like. The federal constitution clearly does not empower the federal government to dissolve itself and create a new constitution, so the several states would each likely have to vote within their own legislatures to have a new constitutional convention and send delegates selected as the various states deem necessary. The United States constitution is designed so that change is deliberately slow. Perhaps in a nation of 320,000, it's slightly easier to get everyone together on this. I cannot even imagine what writing a new constitution would look like these days.

 

Rockmom, is there anything in particular that you find the current constitution to be lacking or do you just think that the document, perhaps due to its age is difficult to interpret or understand and we'd be better off starting fresh?

 

I feel that a constitution written for a nation of 13 states, and a much smaller population is, with a completely different set of issues and priorities should be subject to current scrutiny and possible amendment, or even possible redaction of some parts. I feel that as much as any of us want to, none of us can fully understand the intent of the forefathers, for they could never, EVER have imagined the days in which we now live. The basic principles apply, in my opinion. But, there are some Articles to which I feel need revision. For instance, I think we need to clarify the Freedom of Religion. I feel we need to re-examine the 2nd Amendment. I feel that I that that we've twisted the document to fit our goals at times, and others ignored.

 

In all, I don't know that we need to scrap the whole thing and start over. But the constitution is probably the most misinterpreted document in US History among everyone. The wording is, in my opinion, not clear. There seems to be no end to the ways that one can interpret any individual aspect to fit one's goals. And two of the most often debated are the Separation of Church & State and the Right to Bear Arms. I'd begin with those two. I also think that Freedom of Speech is too broadly interpreted to mean that pretty much, anyone can say anything. But that's not at all what I glean the intent to be.

 

I bow to Constitutional scholars and their interpretations, as they obviously have much more knowledge and understanding. But only to a point. Even among themselves, there are differences of interpretation.

It will be interesting to see what Iceland comes up with. If, like me, anyone is curious as to what Iceland's constitution looks like, the link is posted below:

 

Constitution of the Republic of Iceland

 

 

This is really interesting:

Article 63

All persons have the right to form religious associations and to practice their religion in conformity with their individual convictions. Nothing may however be preached or practised which is prejudicial to good morals or public order.

 

Article 64

No one may lose any of his civil or national rights on account of his religion, nor may anyone refuse to perform any generally applicable civil duty on religious grounds.

 

Everyone shall be free to remain outside religious associations. No one shall be obliged to pay any personal dues to any religious association of which he is not a member.

 

A person who is not a member of any religious association shall pay to the University of Iceland the dues that he would have had to pay to such an association, if he had been a member. This may be amended by law.

I think this should be kept:

 

Article 73

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and belief.

 

Everyone shall be free to express his thoughts, but shall also be liable to answer for them in court. The law may never provide for censorship or other similar limitations to freedom of expression.

 

Freedom of expression may only be restricted by law in the interests of public order or the security of the State, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights or reputation of others, if such restrictions are deemed necessary and in agreement with democratic traditions.

Why would we want to change our Constitution just because tiny Iceland is changing theirs?

Our Founnding Fathers created a document that can last as long nation lasts.

If there is a needed change there is a process for making such a change.

Too many do not understand the Constitution, because they do not know the history behind it, including Obama and his "negative rights". The Constitution was written in such a way that we have as much freedom as one would want, unless you want no government at all. Our Founding Fathers knew that a government with too much power was a government of tryanny. For that reason they gave government limited, but powerful powers and also denied government control over certain aspects of our lives. Leaving everything not mentioned in the hands of the states and/or the people. Why would you need any more freedom or a new document? Unless you think individuals are not smart enough to take care of theirselves and government needs to spell out eveything.

Obama's "negative rights" shows a lack of understanding of why the Constitution was written the way as we know it today. Obama believes there are rights out there that have been left out, but all our natural rights are already spelled out in the Constitution. The document gives us equality, after a couple of changes, but some people do not know what this equality actually means. It is about equality before the law and that all of us have the same chance to be free and achieve. It has been said before, it does not guarantee the outcome. Some want the outcome to guaranteed, that is not the purpose of the Constitution, nor should it ever be.

Why would we want to change our Constitution just because tiny Iceland is changing theirs?

Our Founnding Fathers created a document that can last as long nation lasts.

If there is a needed change there is a process for making such a change.

Too many do not understand the Constitution, because they do not know the history behind it, including Obama and his "negative rights". The Constitution was written in such a way that we have as much freedom as one would want, unless you want no government at all. Our Founding Fathers knew that a government with too much power was a government of tryanny. For that reason they gave government limited, but powerful powers and also denied government control over certain aspects of our lives. Leaving everything not mentioned in the hands of the states and/or the people. Why would you need any more freedom or a new document? Unless you think individuals are not smart enough to take care of theirselves and government needs to spell out eveything.

Obama's "negative rights" shows a lack of understanding of why the Constitution was written the way as we know it today. Obama believes there are rights out there that have been left out, but all our natural rights are already spelled out in the Constitution. The document gives us equality, after a couple of changes, but some people do not know what this equality actually means. It is about equality before the law and that all of us have the same chance to be free and achieve. It has been said before, it does not guarantee the outcome. Some want the outcome to guaranteed, that is not the purpose of the Constitution, nor should it ever be.

 

What is your opposition to negative rights, which the U.S. Constitution is chock-full of?

I believe there are no negative rights. Our rights are spelled out in The Bill of Rights.

If you want a change, go through the amendment process.

 

The so-called negative rights are just a way of saying people want the government to do something for them, instead of doing it theirselves.

Some of the things he cites were things specifically discussed and debated back when the constitution was adopted. The equal representation in the Senate in particular, which I like as a balance against tyranny of the majority. Also the electoral college, while not as effective in that regard still serves, in a small way, to give smaller states and smaller populations more of a voice than they would have if we were simply "one man, one vote."

I believe there are no negative rights. Our rights are spelled out in The Bill of Rights.

If you want a change, go through the amendment process.

 

The so-called negative rights are just a way of saying people want the government to do something for them, instead of doing it theirselves.

 

I'm a little confused. The typical discussion of negative rights as I've heard it involves defining them as as right NOT to be subjected to an action of another person. Freedom of Speech is a negative right in that it prohibits the government from abridging that freedom. It's usually talked about as things the government shall not do to its citizens (negative rights), like prohibit free speech, versus things the government shall do for its citizens (positive rights), such as provide for national security. I think we're defining "negative rights" differently.

I feel that a constitution written for a nation of 13 states, and a much smaller population is, with a completely different set of issues and priorities should be subject to current scrutiny and possible amendment, or even possible redaction of some parts. I feel that as much as any of us want to, none of us can fully understand the intent of the forefathers, for they could never, EVER have imagined the days in which we now live. The basic principles apply, in my opinion. But, there are some Articles to which I feel need revision. For instance, I think we need to clarify the Freedom of Religion. I feel we need to re-examine the 2nd Amendment. I feel that I that that we've twisted the document to fit our goals at times, and others ignored.

 

In all, I don't know that we need to scrap the whole thing and start over. But the constitution is probably the most misinterpreted document in US History among everyone. The wording is, in my opinion, not clear. There seems to be no end to the ways that one can interpret any individual aspect to fit one's goals. And two of the most often debated are the Separation of Church & State and the Right to Bear Arms. I'd begin with those two. I also think that Freedom of Speech is too broadly interpreted to mean that pretty much, anyone can say anything. But that's not at all what I glean the intent to be.

 

I bow to Constitutional scholars and their interpretations, as they obviously have much more knowledge and understanding. But only to a point. Even among themselves, there are differences of interpretation.

 

RM, you need to not defer to Constitutional scholars. With the only a few exceptions the Constitution is a document that is not hard to read and not hard to understand. The 2nd amendment is probably the worst in terms of mechanics but most of the rest of the original Bill of Rights are a gift to all Americans and to all free people.

 

The Constitution literally belongs to the people. It starts with "We the People...". And remember the 'P' is capitalized. The original Bill of Rights contains the building blocks to a free society. Without these building blocks of individual freedoms tyranny from a centralized, powerful government would trample the people, as King George was doing to the colonists.

 

The Constitution was designed to prevent tyranny and oppression, not create a utopia. Along the way it had to be amended or added to to grant basic human rights to all regardless of race, womens rights and letting 18 year old vote. Otherwise a lot the other amendments deals with....taxes!

I'm a little confused. The typical discussion of negative rights as I've heard it involves defining them as as right NOT to be subjected to an action of another person. Freedom of Speech is a negative right in that it prohibits the government from abridging that freedom. It's usually talked about as things the government shall not do to its citizens (negative rights), like prohibit free speech, versus things the government shall do for its citizens (positive rights), such as provide for national security. I think we're defining "negative rights" differently.

 

I believe you may be right, now that you have mentioned it.

But, my belief is that he wants to add so-called rights that are nothing but government hand outs.

RM, you need to not defer to Constitutional scholars. With the only a few exceptions the Constitution is a document that is not hard to read and not hard to understand. The 2nd amendment is probably the worst in terms of mechanics but most of the rest of the original Bill of Rights are a gift to all Americans and to all free people.

 

The Constitution literally belongs to the people. It starts with "We the People...". And remember the 'P' is capitalized. The original Bill of Rights contains the building blocks to a free society. Without these building blocks of individual freedoms tyranny from a centralized, powerful government would trample the people, as King George was doing to the colonists.

 

 

The Constitution was designed to prevent tyranny and oppression, not create a utopia. Along the way it had to be amended or added to to grant basic human rights to all regardless of race, womens rights and letting 18 year old vote. Otherwise a lot the other amendments deals with....taxes!

 

James Madison would be proud of your comments.

How did I know the 2nd would come up..........