Are We Overdue A Rewrite of the Constitution?

2015-08-28T02:26:47-04:00

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s23.html

Our Constitution, that we swear to support and defend, is over 200 years old. It was, at that time, an entirely different world. There is ample evidence that the Founders did not expect, nor desire the nation to be governed by the same Constitution for as long as it has been. George Washington expected the Constitution to last between 20-25 years. Thomas Jefferson even wrote to Madison, "On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.--It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal."

Here, he clearly says that it's not enough to simply be able to repeal laws or amendments, but that every 19 years, the old laws (including the Constitution itself) should be washed clean and rewritten.

What do you all think about that?

I sit down to write to you without knowing by what occasionI shall send my letter. I do it because a subject comesinto my head which I would wish to develope a little morethan is practicable in the hurry of the moment of makingup general dispatches.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 28 at 2015 2:32 AM

2015-08-28T02:32:19-04:00

Nope, it’s the Constitution. That’s why we make amendments. The Constitution is the foundation. Could you imagine with the status of our current government and bureaucracy coming to agreement on a new Constitution. I sure couldn’t. They can’t manage to balance the budget, let alone derive a new Constitution. Our Constitution is the foundation of this country. We the living, as referred to often in the article, can build upon it through Constitutional Amendments. The article referenced is a diatribe of little substance to justify a new constitution, in this guy’s opinion.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 28 at 2015 2:38 AM

2015-08-28T02:38:51-04:00

So we should toss out a document because it was written centuries ago by the founders, all by virtue of something a founder stated centuries ago? Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense. I'm good with not fixing what isn't broken. Personally, I like having the freedoms guaranteed to me presently, and I would question you as to who you think would be drafting a new constitution and whose best interests those drafters would be serving.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Aug 28 at 2015 2:49 AM

2015-08-28T02:49:28-04:00

I don't agree. Changing every 19 years makes the Constitution subject to the whims of temporary passions. I think it is good that the Constitution is changeable, but difficult to change - this ensures that changes have substantive support.

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Aug 28 at 2015 2:49 AM

2015-08-28T02:49:56-04:00

No.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 28 at 2015 6:23 AM

2015-08-28T06:23:15-04:00

MAJ Bryan Zeski,

Excellent question Sir. The intent, protections, and liberties assured to the people in the US Constitution have been constantly attacked and usurped by a plethora of special interests (corporations, the banking industry, the intelligence community, faith-based organizations, etc) before the ink on the signatures was even dry.

I believe the US Constitution is near-perfect with its current ratified amendments. It should not be touched unless otherwise properly amended. What we could do away with is every other single law or piece of legislation ever passed by any body of congress after 1776. We should also wipe clean every single Presidential (Executive) Order left standing. If we do this we can rebuild our nation upon the sturdy foundation of the US Constitution. Furthermore, every single piece of legislation which passes Congress and is ratified by the POTUS should then be put to a popular vote by the people. Doing this ensures that special interests can no longer force their agendas down our throats, and that the law that governs us all has been approved by a majority of those which it will govern. The Federal Reserve Bank will be abolished, and Congress will go back to regulating the printing of money, in turn regulating inflation, and the re-reinstatement of the gold reserve. It is time to clean house, but you can be guaranteed a new constitution drawn up by those in power will only further the enslavement of the US citizens.

Those are just a few ideas I've been thinking over the last decade or so as I watch my country follow the path of the Roman Empire.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Aug 28 at 2015 6:29 AM

2015-08-28T06:29:12-04:00

MAJ Bryan Zeski . We can amend the Constitution any time we like and have done so many times. So the ability to "change" it is already built into it.

Which rights do you think we should forfeit or create? The idea of God given rights is timeless. The right to speak, assemble, bear arms, practice your religion should not be "negotiable" with the current generation who may not be nearly as smart as previous ones. Can you imagine if we rewrote it during the 60's or 70's?

Jefferson and Madison wrote to each other (and to others) many things. What they ( Constitutional Convention) landed on, agreed to and had ratified was the US Constitution. They left the ability to amend it so that future generations could alter/change but the put a high bar for the change.

You might recall the Jefferson was not a writer or a representative/delegate of any state at the Constitutional Convention.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Aug 28 at 2015 6:48 AM

2015-08-28T06:48:45-04:00

If you look at the Constitution itself, you will see it is actually designed to be difficult to pass Laws. The system is built to make it hard to give power to the government (Law). Although we have a method to Amend it is even harder to do so that the Legislative process, and it should be.

We've only tweaked it a handful of times in our 200+ history, and a third of those were in the first 20 years. As we go deeper, we find that most of the changes were "mechanical" and foreseen. We either knew they were coming, or they were just bugs.

I agree that we should look at the Constitution often. Constantly. Things do change. The world does change. That doesn't mean we have to change the Constitution... but we should look at it.

I'd almost say we need a Constitutional Convention every so many DECADES... but my fear would be someone wanting to change things just because they had the opportunity.

Response by SSG Ray Strenkowski made Aug 28 at 2015 7:58 AM

2015-08-28T07:58:14-04:00

I can't even express in words how much I oppose this suggestion.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Aug 28 at 2015 8:03 AM

2015-08-28T08:03:11-04:00

You think things are crazy now with all the knee-jerk reactions done within the Government, could you just picture how bad it would be to re-write this document?? Let's just use gun control for an example. Do you think, if re-written, we would still have the 2nd Amendment? Let's also look at freedom of speech. With all these things happening like that crazy "F*ck the Flag" blog, do you think we would maintain that right?

The government has a hard enough time trying to balance a budget, it would take them longer than 19 years to even figure out where to even start re-writing this document.

Response by SSG Leo Bell made Aug 28 at 2015 8:04 AM

2015-08-28T08:04:12-04:00

I don't think it should be touched personally. Who would rewrite it, and the person who would rewrite it who's interest who he have.

I.E. ( would it be some rich person looking out for the rich only, would some liberal write it for liberals to benefit them)

This is why I say it should be left alone. Plus let's not forget our right as civilians being taken away. They have been fight forever to take our rights away to bare arms. Who wants that and we would lose allot of others rights also. Some might be added but again who will they benefit?

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 28 at 2015 9:08 AM

2015-08-28T09:08:55-04:00

Our constitution was written so that changes can be made. Also its interpretation by the Supreme Court changes.

New is not always good and can also be very bad.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Aug 28 at 2015 9:21 AM

2015-08-28T09:21:28-04:00

I agree it should be reviewed periodically but maybe we should review the way our government is working and change it so it conforms more to the letter and spirit of the Constitution. If changes are needed, they need to be scrutinized so they aren't being put in as knee jerk reactions to "temporary passions" as Capt Seid Waddell put it and will better our government and way of life for the long term outlook.

That being said I think some terms in the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Amendments need to be better clarified/defined as IMHO, they are open to very broad interpretation. Again just MHO, some examples would be: "well regulated militia" in 2A, "freedom of speech" which currently includes the overt "action" of burning the US flag, "equal protection of the laws" and it's application to children of non-citizens in 14A.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 28 at 2015 9:25 AM

2015-08-28T09:25:12-04:00

No. No way in hell would I agree to a wholesale rewrite of the Constitution. Too many people in this country would love to see the 13th Amendment repealed. Too many people who will tell you to mind your own business about what they do want to dip in your business.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Aug 28 at 2015 10:05 AM

2015-08-28T10:05:58-04:00

I have to imagine it would be difficult doing maintenance on an Alienware computer using an old Atari manual... The whole point of amendments is to keep it relevant to the world around it.

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Aug 28 at 2015 10:10 AM

2015-08-28T10:10:13-04:00

No!

Response by MCPO Robert McCombs made Aug 28 at 2015 10:33 AM

2015-08-28T10:33:02-04:00

While I don't disagree with some of your assumptions and ideas, I do NOT believe our current society could put together a group of citizens to write a constitution that would be impartial and fair to ALL citizens.

Our country has become too divided. We have too many people that lean far to the left or far to the right. Just look at our ELECTED officials. They are elected because of what they promise. Promises that are seldom kept, but still what a large majority want from our government. Yes, special interest are heavily involved, but that happens on all sides, so people vote what they believe will be best for themselves instead of what is best for our country.

And, who would decide who is invited to sit on this panel of citizens that write the new constitution? To think special interest would not be involved is ludicrous. In the original drafting the states sent the delegates. While they were divided on issues, especially state rights vs federal powers, I believe we as a nation are even more divided today. The Republican led states would send heavy hitting conservatives and the Democrat led states would send heavy hitting liberals. Hmmm, I think we already have that mix. It is called Congress. And NOTHING gets done there. This country has forgotten how to compromise. I either get everything I want or WE don't get anything attitude. Both sides (Republican and Democrat) believe they have given up too much in the past, so they are set in their ways and refuse to compromise.

You say, "Honestly, I'd rather we put together a collective of scientists, philosophers, artists, military leaders, economists, humanitarians, and similar groups...". (Who are our "military leaders"?) Would these similar groups include lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc. or even more controversial members of anti-government militias, or gun enthusiast, or individuals that whole-heartily believe in state rights over federal rights (power), or some other groups that don't believe that our current government is in their best interest. If your idea is NOT to include these groups, especially the controversial groups, then who is going to be looking out for their best interest?

You also state, "Since you ask for specifics about what is outdated:
1. There's no requirement for equality under the government for all people in the current Constitution.
2. The Second Amendment seems to essentially give the right to any type of weapon to anyone.
3. Elected office has become a career instead of a temporary duty - leading to vast amounts of corruption (and also, the exact reason we NEED a revamp).
4. Privacy - we have allowed ourselves to give us extreme amounts of privacy to the government for surveillance in the name of security.
5. Basic human rights - As in, let's be clear that torture is wrong and that we don't participate in it.
6. Military appropriations - should the Army still be an annual discussion? Or should have we crossed the threshold to needing a standing Army?
7. Tax structure..."

1. There will NEVER be equality under the government for ALL people under ANY constitution. Black Americans gained "equality" some time ago, the LGBT community recently. Whose next? People that believe in bestiality, people that believe it is ok to have more than one husband/wife? The list can go on and on.
2. I don't disagree there should be some limits on the arms that ordinary citizens can own, but who is going to decide what is right. Some people believe nobody should own guns and some people believe there should be no limits.
3. I whole-heartedly agree that Congress and Supreme Court Judges should have term limits just like the President.
4. We haven't given up our privacy rights, the Federal Government took them under the rues of National Interest. In my opinion, the use of National Interest is what needs to be defined and if ever invoked needs to put on a ballot for the American citizens to decide.
5. There is a whole lot more to Basic Human Rights. Torture is a very miniscule part and pales in comparison to fundamental freedoms (of rights, of speech, from fear, etc.), in my opinion.
6. I believe that the military should always be discussed. Our current military budget is ridiculous. We have way to much "fat" in the military budget. Do we actually need the size of the military we have. I can debate both sides, but I do believe we have too many redundant parts of the military. Why do we have an Army, Navy Marine, Air Force (and I'll even throw in the Coast Guard)? There are many good arguments to combine a few, if not all, of these components. And don't get me started on the blubber (too much to be called fat) in the civilian portion of the DOD.
7. Whose to say our tax structure is not currently fair? What is fair. In my opinion, a flat tax is fair. Everyone pays the same proportion of taxes compared to ALL income (e.g. 5% or 10%, etc) with zero (0) deductions. That is fair. But some would say that is too harsh on the low income and the higher income isn't paying enough. If we are all are eligible to apply and receive the services these taxes pay for, then in my opinion, we should all pay proportionately.

I could go on and on, but I'm sure many are saying to themselves (and even some out loud) that I've rambled on too long.

But one last thing :) In my humble opinion, until the American citizens wake up and truly realize that our country is in need of some serious leadership that will make decisions and compromises that are in the best interest of our country I don't ever see things changing and actually getting worse. The way I see it, the only way to do this is to replace ALL of Congress and the Supreme Court Justices.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Aug 28 at 2015 11:17 AM

2015-08-28T11:17:16-04:00

What aspect of the Constitution is out of date and needs revision, replacement or deletion? Is there not provisions for modifying or adding amendments to the Constitution? Isn't there a means of subverting the Constitution now using Executive Actions? IMO, the Constitution is timeless and if the Founding Fathers (yes, Fathers) had intended for it to be totally rewritten, they would have made it easier to do so with a Constitutional Convention. Good reference for this subject can be found here, if interested.
http://www.nccs.net/will-the-great-american-experiment-succeed.php

Our political institutions have found a way to make a career of being "servants of the people" and that was not considered by the Founders. The problems of our nation is NOT the Constitution, but those that represent us, and they are controlled by oligarchies/plutocrats. If there was a single amendment I could drive through the process, it would be term limits as with the Presidency.

BTW, you guys make me proud with your support of the document we know and love.

Will The Great American Experiment Succeed?

The Founder's ideas have worked because they were based on enduring principles which recognized human imperfection and the need to structure a limited government of laws, dependent upon the consent of a people who, themselves, understood the principles.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Aug 28 at 2015 11:45 AM

2015-08-28T11:45:51-04:00

I can not agree with changing the documents created by our Founding Fathers. However, I will support adding/removing laws on top of the Constitution to keep up with the times. The words of the original documents will not be removed, but whatever is added on top of that can be subject for removal.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 28 at 2015 12:53 PM

2015-08-28T12:53:36-04:00

Not overdue at all. What we are overdue for is for us to enforce the Constitution as written and intended (Federalist Papers provide context), instead of what we want it to mean. Further, redefining words and then applying them to the Constitution doesnt change the law. Its not a living document until it is amended. Reinterpretation does not make it a 'living' document.

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 28 at 2015 11:19 PM

2015-08-28T23:19:29-04:00

I personally believe that the Constitution was written with the intention of transcending time. The core document still holds true and is still practical even to this age. We the people have lost sight of its actual meaning in regards to the balance of power in the government. (I'll end it there because the rest will just get disrespectful).

Response by Maj William Gambrell made Aug 29 at 2015 1:46 AM

2015-08-29T01:46:02-04:00

The constitution needs to be changed for many reasons. It does not apply to today's world that has changed so much since their time. For Example, freedom of speech has become freedom of destruction within our own country. We have become wimps to politicians defying the constitution, both people and executives.....especially executive policies. I highly doubt if our Four Fathers would have known what we would have become as a result of their constitution, but if they had known I am sure they would have made it adjustable.

Response by SPC Paul Rogers made Aug 29 at 2015 12:11 PM

2015-08-29T12:11:29-04:00

I believe that the stated time frames of 19 to 25 years are too short of a period. For a document such as the constitution I believe it should be written in a manner that will endure at least a hundred years. After the first hundred years it should go under review to determine how accurate and useful it still is and, assuming it is not rewritten then, every twenty year thereafter. With that being said I agree with you that it does largely need to be updated rather than constantly patched with amendments.

To those who believe the Constitution is the end all/be all, I refute that the core beliefs of freedom don't have to be discarded with a rewrite. A rewrite will not necessarily scrap the original ideas, it will just update and reinforce the ones that are still relevant and add relevant amendments into the document itself rather than as a series of add-ons.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Aug 29 at 2015 4:27 PM

2015-08-29T16:27:34-04:00

The Constitution is not the law. It is a blueprint for a Republic. It is a very idealistic vision of individuals living in harmony, respecting one another's rights, and taking responsibility for their own decisions and actions. It's an ideal that we never fully attained.

Look at how far we came, how well we succeeded as individuals and as a nation under the old one. We didn't begin to backslide (economically, socially, culturally) until we allowed those who preferred centralized control of everything to misinterpret the Constitution and pervert it.

Cultural mandates (such as the dominion of men over women) as well as racial prejudice got in the way. By and large we corrected and moved past those things but never fully attained the true vision of the framers of the Constitution. I think it would be nice to give it a try before we discard it for another, don't you?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 29 at 2015 8:00 PM

2015-08-29T20:00:11-04:00

Jefferson is well-known for several things other than the Declaration of Independence (which was heavily plagiarized) or his presidential actions; mostly Sally Hemmings and knowing next to nothing about the Constitution.

Response by PO1 Glenn Boucher made Aug 29 at 2015 8:07 PM

2015-08-29T20:07:43-04:00

While in theory it would be ideal, it would never be practical.
Our politicians can't even balance a budget every year, how would they ever be able to draft, edit and pass a new Constitution? With the current administration we have in place if it were there turn to write a new constitution and new laws we would be a nation in dire need of saving more so than we are now.

Response by PO3 Sherry Thornburg made Aug 29 at 2015 10:29 PM

2015-08-29T22:29:12-04:00

The constitution has been augmented through new amendments over time. I'm sure it will be augmented again in the future. The founders themselves found their number too split about slavery to do more than make imperfect compromises they themselves didn't like. Time changed enough to allow women voting rights and to remove the requirement of land and property restrictions on voting as well. Adding amendments and removing them when things like prohibition turned out to be a bad idea, keep the constitution from being a dead outdated document. If enough interest is created to get rid of, say, the electoral college, it can be done.

Also, the first writers went to some lengths to write a document that dealt with universal macro issues rather than tiny details. So what was all important to consider 250 years ago, isn't set in stone causing problems now: Such things as, whether a witch should be stoned, burned or imprisoned in a barrel.

Response by SPC Luis Mendez made Aug 29 at 2015 11:30 PM

2015-08-29T23:30:36-04:00

Agree, the Constitution to make it a living Document should have been revised/updated at least every 50 years beginning in 1800. Incorporating the amendments into the Main Text and removing what was previously amended.

Unfortunately too many people believe that is some Sacred Document delivered by Celestials beings from Heaven in chariots of fire. So such a suggestion to them sounds sacrilegious.

I remember in the late 70's Pat Robertson or some other TV preacher, even went as far as to suggest the US Constitution was "Inspired" by the holy spirit. Now that to me at least, is the most sacrilegious thing to say, worst yet I think is Blasphemous.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 30 at 2015 3:02 AM

2015-08-30T03:02:57-04:00

Why would we??????

Response by MSgt Steve Miller made Aug 30 at 2015 9:01 AM

2015-08-30T09:01:48-04:00

No possible chance! The constitution is without a doubt the only reason we are the last stand for freedom on this planet. Rewriting it every 19 years would only provide a huge pathway to losing that freedom. Yeahhhhhh….then we could live like everyone else. There have been 27 amendments to the constitution to date. The document is 226 years old. Therefore, (on average) there has been a change every 8.3 years. Is that not enough already?

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 30 at 2015 10:29 AM

2015-08-30T10:29:18-04:00

Major, I think that to make such statements while associating yourself with those Oak leaves is a violation of several sections of the UCMJ as well as the Alien and Sedition Act - which I am sure you are familiar with being such a great student of history. It was sponsored by the Federalists and signed by John Adams.

Response by MSgt Alex Taylor made Aug 30 at 2015 5:07 PM

2015-08-30T17:07:36-04:00

The US Constitution is fine the way it is. It is the people who interpret it in their ways that should do more research into the true meanings behind each section. To change it for the sake of change is insanity. Considering it is the fabric behind our laws, we should tread carefully in any amendments. Over time, we have not had a large number of amendments for a reason. The basic rights granted have been far reaching and withstood the test of time.

Another reason not to screw with it is this, I took an oath to defend our Constitution as it was written when I raised my hand in 1999. If our government chooses to amend it, I will follow said amendments whether I like it or not, because I swore to uphold the entire Constitution. If you throw it out entirely and replace it with something new, then one has to ask, am I obligated now by my oath to defend the old or the new? The ramifications of that question would tear our military to shreds. Tread very lightly through this minefield.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 30 at 2015 7:53 PM

2015-08-30T19:53:35-04:00

"The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. "

Written into the constitution is a method by which future generations can decide as to whether or not they are to continue to be "bound by previous generations". That is the ability to amend the Constitution. The ability to change that Constitution resides in the will of the People to move that process forward. So, if the People wish the Constitution to be changed, they will do so, like they have on 27 occasions. This eliminates this concern of binding a document to future generations. If the People will the change, the change will happen.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Aug 30 at 2015 8:46 PM

2015-08-30T20:46:08-04:00

It's called an amendment.

Response by 1LT William Westervelt made Aug 30 at 2015 9:33 PM

2015-08-30T21:33:51-04:00

The Constitution should be left alone. If anything, we should introduce a few new amendments -- like a limit to the term length and pay for Federal legislators.

For every Citizen who cites a point that needs changing in the Constitution, you can find a dozen that think it should be left alone. Take gun control for example: you believe we are way past the days when the citizenry needs weapons equal in power to the military; I disagree. Vehemently. If we have the right to life and property, then we also have the right to defend our life and property -- even against the government should it come down to it.

I also think and feel that most problems people have with social legislation is due to a belief that the Federal government should be legislating our social lives. I also disagree with that. An example: marriage shouldn't be touched by the government, therefore the government shouldn't care who's getting married -- now we don't have to worry about gay rights being legislated.

The Federal government should be small, but it has become bloated. It's trying to stick its hands into any area of our lives it can. There is a large push to polarize the populace in order to keep us ignorant of the run on our rights. Our States have been federalized into homogeneity and we don't have many choices. The choices we do have, are carefully considered and handed to us by the very oligarchy that is regulating our rights away.

It isn't the Constitution that's the problem. It's the people who continue to get elected and the sleeping populace that keeps electing them. Rewriting the Constitution won't help, but rebuilding D.C. might.

Response by SSG James Arlington made Aug 31 at 2015 12:02 AM

2015-08-31T00:02:42-04:00

For good or bad, the Constitution is virtually impossible to amend. 37 states would have to agree to an amendment.

Response by SPC Nathan Freeman made Aug 31 at 2015 1:20 AM

2015-08-31T01:20:38-04:00

If we study the history of what the fathers went through, you will see the wisdom of the constitution. We have the bill of rights to protect us from overbearing governments. The first and second amendments assure that the government is more afraid of us than we are of the government. They help us protect the other rights and the constitution itself. Japan didn't attack our mainland because there was "a gun behind every blade of grass" The problem isn't with the laws. The problem is with the lawless.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 31 at 2015 1:44 AM

2015-08-31T01:44:19-04:00

No, it's just fine the way it was written...if we can keep idiot courts and Congresses from interpreting it a million different ways. What we need to rewrite is any statute or legislation dealing with or pertaining to the Congress, the SCOTUS, and the Executive Branch. Right now, I'd be very happy if they were eliminated, and we started over from scratch!!!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 31 at 2015 1:44 AM

2015-08-31T01:44:44-04:00

We could use more amendments to the Constitution, but in no way is it time to rewrite it. Those same provisions that we want to change, brought everyone over here in the first place. Besides not even Donald Trump with all the talk and fluff he brings won't be able to rewrite the Constitution. Once people realize they've gone off floating in the deep water for too long, they'll find their way back to the shore.

Response by SPC George Rudenko made Aug 31 at 2015 3:56 AM

2015-08-31T03:56:16-04:00

Due or not, there is no way that 2/3 of house, senate, president, and 26 states pass it. We are all too individualistic.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Aug 31 at 2015 9:30 AM

2015-08-31T09:30:01-04:00

Sir, we've had the only form of government that has lasted mostly in the same manner it was formed. If we allowed the ability to change the constitution based upon a set number of years, we'd cheapen the document and we'd end up with politicians and presidents who's only purpose would be to jockey for position in the hopes of being the next to make their mark on it. This would be as distarous as the amendments that banned and then legalized alcohol. It would make the constitution much the same way as the SCOTUS is nominated; a political appointment to further one's own agenda; not nessicarily the publics at large. Leave it as is, but set laws around the framework of it, and allow those to be challenged after a certain number of years, or no years at all.

Response by SGT David T. made Aug 31 at 2015 10:24 AM

2015-08-31T10:24:27-04:00

I disagree that it needs to be completely rewritten. I would be in favor of amending certain things like eliminating the electoral college, term limits for Congress, an amendment to ensure that interpretations are consistent with the intent of the founders, and maybe a few other things. The chances of an amendment passing now is pretty much nil because we are far to divided as a nation. Perhaps if we stop being offended by every little thing and start having a respect for each other and different viewpoints we might be able to change this collision course we seem to be on.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 31 at 2015 1:52 PM

2015-08-31T13:52:48-04:00

There are several major changes I would make. In my opinion, we don't see enough amending and repealing within that document.

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Aug 31 at 2015 1:56 PM

2015-08-31T13:56:22-04:00

I believe the U.S. Constitution is a living entity just as relevant today as it was two-hundred fifty years ago; therefore, the American society should be redefined. Unfortunately, most of the third-world countries exist without any type of tangible "constitution," which invites unethical practices and non-existing infrastructure. Nation-building is expensive and requires cooperation from other nations, any takers?

Response by LCDR Jeffery Dixon made Aug 31 at 2015 3:08 PM

2015-08-31T15:08:44-04:00

Our Founding Fathers, the likes of what have never been seen again, wrote the Constitution because they knew the difference between a Republic and a Democracy. They feared and hated the concept of a Deomocracy and attempted to keep future Executives from over-riding the will of the people. The first five Presidents were the greatest minds of the 18th Century. Most people have never studied the Constitution (no High Civics class does not count) nor do they know what The Federalist Papers were or who wrote them. This was the great debate. Governments seek more reach and more power. States and the constitution attempt to limit the over reach of the Executive Branch.

Response by SN Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 31 at 2015 5:05 PM

2015-08-31T17:05:25-04:00

I wouldn't trust anyone now a days to rewite the constitution.

Response by SSgt Terry P. made Aug 31 at 2015 5:10 PM

2015-08-31T17:10:26-04:00

Who would rewrite it? How would it be validated? Surely not the politicians, the only thing they can agree on is their pay raises and expense accounts.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 31 at 2015 5:16 PM

2015-08-31T17:16:12-04:00

Why is this even a question? To protect the Constitution and our way of life is why I signed up for the Army in the first place. And yes, that is the sole reason. If I wanted money for college I could have taken my JROTC scholarship. I may not be college educated, but I do know, that if our country has lived off the Constitution that was written over 240 years ago, then we don't need to re-write it. To me, if it changed, then there would be no reason to continue serving as the Spirit of Freedom and Liberty would no longer exist. Not to mention, in my own opinion, those that died defending the Constitution would be in vain. We make amendments, as was done in the past. The current form of government may need to be changed, limiting terms for lawmakers and such. But in no way shape or form should the the United States Constitution be re-written. Again, that's why we have amendments. I can go into alot of other detailed way to make changes, but I'm not going to, as all those changes are expressed by a plethora of other service members on this page.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 31 at 2015 7:06 PM

2015-08-31T19:06:15-04:00

Simply, no.

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Aug 31 at 2015 9:14 PM

2015-08-31T21:14:06-04:00

Yeah, not going to go with the Constitution being re written. Just do not think it's a good idea....can you just imagine all of the fighting/arguing/bickering that will go one...it'll take years and years just to get it re written...

Leave it as it is and amend it along the way, but re write it? No way.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 1 at 2015 1:05 AM

2015-09-01T01:05:45-04:00

No, there are plenty of ways to make amendments, last one in 1992. We should start changing some to start giving term limits, and ban politicians retiring to become lobbysts. Why do I get the feeling that most don't even bother to read it?

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Sep 1 at 2015 12:57 PM

2015-09-01T12:57:31-04:00

Oh God, I can only imagine the whacked amendments that would come out. While we have religious freedom, only if believe in my version of (fill in the blank). Hell we can't even agree on what half the amendments actually mean now. Half the SCOTUS wants to use International Law to determine cases, and the other half won't excuse themselves for things they obviously should excuse themselves from (hunting with Oil Barron's, and ruling on while on lower courts or representing issues in front of lower courts comes to mind).

Response by SSG Robert Webster made Mar 27 at 2017 5:42 PM

2017-03-27T17:42:14-04:00

Interesting interpretation since US Constitution and its immediate predecessor the Articles of Confederation were greatly based upon the document known as the Magna Carta, which was still in effect 562 and 572 years respectively. And its (Magna Carta) first clause to be repealed happened in 1829 (614 years later), where even today there are still three (3) clauses still in effect approximately 800 years after the fact. The majority of the clauses that have been repealed of the Magna Carta, however are still viable in the codified statutes of English law.
Even more interesting is that my (our) parents and grand-parents generation could and do see this better than our peers and our children as evoked in the following statements:

The prominent lawyer Lord Denning described Magna Carta in 1956 as "the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot".

In many ways still a "sacred text", Magna Carta is generally considered part of the uncodified constitution of the United Kingdom; in a 2005 speech, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Woolf, described it as the "first of a series of instruments that now are recognised as having a special constitutional status".

And now we have a number of people that want to rewrite our Constitution on both sides of the political spectrum? I'm sorry, but I will defend my property and my freedom when you try to encroach upon my personal territory which by the way is inclusive of my property, freedom, rights and my arms to prevent that encroachment. Thinking about that - isn't that what the Barons did to King John, when they forced him to agree to the Magna Carta?

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Mar 30 at 2017 4:22 PM

2017-03-30T16:22:05-04:00

No, it is still relevant.

Response by MSG Jay Jackson made Mar 31 at 2017 10:25 AM

2017-03-31T10:25:00-04:00

We have a process to amend the USC as we progress as a nation. Follow the rules and it should all be ok. Go around the rules you screw shit up. The founding fathers were very smart about protecting the freedom that had cost them so much. Maybe we need to have a war of independence every few decades to remind the newer citizens of the price to be free!

Response by SFC Ralph E Kelley made Jan 6 at 2019 6:55 AM

2019-01-06T06:55:26-05:00