After reading this disturbing report, I'm beginning to wonder if we should just trash the Constitution. What do you think?

Consider:

• According to this poll, the Constitution lacks popular support.
• Congress and other federal entities routinely flout constitutional limitations.
• Apparently, only 36% of Americans believe Congress should actually follow the Constitution!

If most Americans do not believe the Constitution should be legally binding, and if our own public officials demonstrate by their actions that they apparently believe the same, why do we have a Constitution at all? Why not trash it?

So should we trash it since keeping it is apparently un-democratic as suggested by the above study? Should we instead move to a more arbitrary form of government? Why? Why not? If not, what should we do given that the Constitution lacks popular support and that it is routinely flouted by those who are supposed to be bound by it?

I do think a new constitutional convention would be a good thing. It's not because I think the constitution is fundamentally flawed, in fact I think it is in many ways a work of genius, but y'know, things have changed a little bit in the past two centuries and we have learned a little bit during that time too. Many of the factors and factions that drove things like the composition of the house and senate, or the existence of the electoral college, are no longer relevant. Some of the powers enumerated in the constitution hardly make sense, while others - e.g. intellectual property - have gained in prominence and deserve fuller treatment. A new constitution could be more coherent and more relevant, while the process of creating one could get the citizenry much more involved in the political process. The constitution is, after all, not a holy document. It's a work of the best minds at the time, perhaps better than any we have today (or perhaps not) but still bound by the limitations and perspective of that time. We're long past due for Constitution 2.0.

The Libertarian thinker Lysander Spooner once wrote an essay titled: "The Constitution of no authority" stating that the document became invald as soon as the founding fathers generation had passed away(though you have to ignore that bothersome line in the Constitution talking about "posterity" to believe him) I doubt many people would go to that extreme. My advice? We should have a series of amendments passed(or attempted to pass) that wil once and for all settle the question as to what is constitutional and not, in regards to programs and other items.

http://www.lysanderspooner.org/

I think the United States has had a fantastically successful history in serving the needs of the present generation and allowing for reform for future generations. I see no dire need whatsoever to toss the Constitution out and start over.

It works because change is difficult and creating a process that allows more fluid change would eliminate the very thing that makes our system work well. (It is flawed, but it is the best model I have seen at work)

It ain't broke, don't fix it. Unintended consequences will arise that would cause more problems than it would fix.

The beauty of the Constitution is that it can be changed. The idea to completely trash the Constitution and start over is ridiculous. It is true that the Constitution might be outdated and in need of some serious changes but that is why we allow for amendments. Trashing the Constitution would have serious negative repercussions on our society not to mention our economic system. To do this would put us back into the stone ages. The United States is the richest country in the world but the national debt is enormous, to trash the Constitution would completely crush the public's trust in the stability of our government. There is a quote that I remember but I forget where I heard it, but it is something to this affect, "the framers of the Constitution knew what all great men know, THAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW EVERYTHING." They allowed for change so we can fix things as times change.

Like what? In what particular way do you believe the sky will fall if the current constitution is replaced with another? Why haven't other, surely weaker, countries not collapsed when they changed their constitutions? I suspect that the people who actually wrote the constitution, shortly after leading a revolution, would look upon this idolatry with dismay. They certainly weren't afraid of change; why should we be?

My guess is those that would actively attempt to replace our Constitution would primarily come from the far left and far right ends of the political spectrum. There is little chance of these forces uniting.

What repercussions? Are you kidding me? Our whole economic world is based upon the fact that people believe we have a stable government. I am not against change at all, but once again that is why we have amendments. To completely trash the Constitution is pretty extreme.


First of all these "weaker" countries would probably have collapsed had they not changed there constitution. When you've hit rock bottom there is no place to go but up.


This is hardly a fair comparison. We are nowhere near a revolution. The framers of the Constitution revolted as a last resort, they tried for years to bring about change but they had no avenue to do it. My guess is this is the very reason they allowed for amendments. They knew things would have to be changed in the future.

The Constitution is a living document. It was somewhat vague in many areas so things could be interpreted according to what the thought process of subsequent generations was. Also, in it was written the process by which the government should go about making amendments to the document. The Framers allowed for change; in fact, they expected it. They knew that in future years, the country may not have the same needs as it did in their time, or that some things would need to be altered to keep up with the changing times. In over 200 years, only 27 amendments have been made. 10 of those were added within the first two years of the Constitution's existance, so actually, in the 200 years after, only 17 amendments have been needed. That's pretty darn impressive. If the Constitution were to be trashed and a new one written, I highly doubt a group of people alive today could create a document as successful as the current one.

Personally, I don' t think there's really much wrong with the Consitution except for the Electoral College.

If we throw out the Constitution, and have a Constitutional Convention to draft a new one, it would start with a blank computer file.

Perhaps George would like it changed to a monarchy. Could he get enough support?

Corporate managers would likely use their company's ability to donate cash, and to lobby to ensure that it was a country run by the corporations, and for the corporations.

Perhaps corporations would prefer slave labor, or abolishing unions, health insurance, OSHA, and minimum wage.

Would we end up with a theocracy?

Would all future immigrants become illegal?

Would the NRA manage to retain the right to gun ownership, or would all weapons need to be surrendered?

Would we even have a right to vote on the new Constitution?

I have listened to too many comments about how the country should be run, from people with "special interests," to think that the process of starting from scratch would provide us with a superior document to the one that we have now.

To scrap the Constitution and work on its replacement would produce anarchy, as all of the laws would be subject to change and the branches of government would be de-legitimized. It would be a major mistake, and certainly not a pretty sight.

Perhaps if the citizenry of this country were better educated about the Constitution, it would have more widespread support. Maybe we could replace one of the "reality shows" with a series on the Constitution...

Nah...It would never happen.

Perhaps some change is needed. It's hard to keep government in 2003 limited to what the founders thought government should be in 1795. The ingredient of change is one that we must make accomodations for. While many things don't need changing(bill of rights) we could try and hammer out more specifically the rights given to states and the people.

I like the Constitution the way it is, though I could wish some of the language were sufficiently clear to be immune to misinterpretation. It seems to me the problem with the Constitution is really a matter of having judges that can read and apply it, not read things into it that suit their own political leanings. It doesn't need to be rewritten, it just needs to be applied in the way that the Founders intended. There might be a need for specific amendments, but the procedure for that is well established and sufficient.

So many special interests would definately clog up any constitutional convention, instant communication and other issues that were not possible back then actually kept some brevity in the constitution, I think we would end up with an impossibly large document, though some huge watershed crisis may fix that (for instance, if GW was caught on tape engineering the coup that brought him to power, and in collusion with the corporations, something really egregious and criminal subverting of the constitution that set the entire political scene on it's ear). I think only four real areas need to be addressed : 1) Limiting church power further
2) limiting corporate power further
3) making a reasonable restriction on firearms, something that allows in right to own firearms, just with some responsibilities.
4) Intelectual and copyright/internet issues.

After reading the article it appears the reason that so many people would not support the constitution today is they disagree with what Congress does!

For example: from the article.

Also in the poll, POA said 63 percent of respondents believe Congress is using the Constitution as an excuse to ban school prayer; only a fourth of the population think lawmakers and political leaders really believe the Constitution bans such prayers.


Thus a large part of the country is not happy with the secularist agenda of liberal orgs. Like the ACLU that wants to ban all reference to God in public life. This issue alone, from the numbers above, seems to be enough to give the Constitution a thumbs down and this week there will be a big Supreme Court decision on the word god in the Pledge of Allegiance. If it is removed by the court IMO there will be a significant backlash.

No, the Constitution should not be trashed. One of the reasons that most people polled don't really care about it is that nobody in the political world seems to be interested in protecting it. The Constitution should be preserved, unConstitutional laws [cough, AA, cough] should be trashed.

CP

nebraska29:

We already do, the 9th and 10th Amendments.

I suppose I should have been more clear in my original question. While scrapping the Constitution and starting over is an option, the real thrust of my question was should we scrap the very IDEA of a Constitution altogether being that a very large portion of people do not believe the Constitution should limit Congress, etc? If a Constitution is not to be followed, then why have one? If most people believe the government should be able to act outside of the Constitution and not be limited by a Constitution, then isn't it undemocratic to continue having one? And further, when even those running our own government have utter disregard for the Constitution's limitations on their power, we've essentially already trashed it, just not formally.

I believe education about the need for a Constitution, and the limiting role of a Constitution is a necessity given that so many people apparently misunderstand or do not appreciate the purpose of having a Constitution.

I think that freedom of speech should be revised so that no one may produce a product that advocates violence against a real look like person or group.

Actually intellectual property rights don't forbid the behaviour you're describing. All they do is establish ownership of said intellectual products and provide an avenue for settling disputes; civil law.

Here we are, a group of politically interested people, debating whether or not the Constitution should be changed or scrapped all together.

First, to get a new Constitution, or scrap the current one, we would need the governing bodies in 34 states to agree that a Constitutional Convention should be held. Take a look at the red states / blue states map-- it'll never happen.

Allow me to exemplify this by being minimally observant:

In 2000, we had a presidential election. In said election, the party that did not win the presidency claimed that the election was "stolen". For many people, this was the last straw. They were sick and tired of the government trampling the will of the people and "selecting, not electing" the president.

Well, here we are three years later. What has been done? NOTHING. And, nothing is the understatement of the year. I have read of no legislation introduced by any elected official offering a means by which we can repair a system the feel is broken. I have read of no political groups that have had any success in convincing the general public that the electoral process needs to be reworked.

Now, if such an emotional issue as the supposed theft of the office of the presidency isn't enough to band people together in support of common goals, I don't know what is! We've seen a lot of anti-Bush protests, but haven't seen a single organized group of people pounding the pavement in an attempt to rework election law.

And this is the most important point I think I have to make on the subject-- even those with genuine interest and daily involvement in politics do not follow through on their intentions.

I think this lack of follow-through is caused by a fundamental lack of understanding of the Constitution.

Copyright law? Covered.
Election law? Covered.
Citizen rights? Covered.
Constitutional changes? Covered.
Guns? Covered.

I have stated before, and I'll say it again-- the public at large are very poorly politically informed.

Our Constitution establishes a democratic republic for a reason-- the public are not to be trusted to make the right decision. Call it elitist if you want, but I would be much more satisfied with a 2% turnout of informed voters than a 100% turnout of ill-informed voters.

When in need of a medical specialist, do you ask your garbage man, or your doctor? No offense to garbage men, but you ask a doctor. Why? Because they are educated and informed regarding the subject matter, much more so than the average garbage man.

So why is it that people still think that public opinion has any bearing on what is right and what is Constitutional?

If I never cracked open the Constitution, I probably wouldn't vote. If I did vote, I probably wouldn't vote for the person I believe will uphold the Constitution-- I would vote for the person whose promises fulfilled my desires.

The Constitution doesn't matter to those who don't understand or can't comprehend it. It would be quite easy to argue that greed takes priority over constitutionality to those who know little of the Constitution.

Is that a bad thing? Certainly not. We all can't be doctors. We all have the opportunity to become doctors. But we would never consider practicing medicine without an education.

Why is this any different?

A public opinion poll is certainly not justification to strike down the Constitution. Heck, it's not even enough to amend it, or even read it in a funny accent.

The Constitution has served us fine, and will continue to serve us fine. Current "popular" opinion should have little effect on the document that lays the foundation for our freedom.

Mike

Not only is the average citizen woefully ignorant, he is terribly selfish in his interests. I say work on the parts that need to be modified die to the passing of 2 centuries, and leave the rest of it alone.
Trashing it? No.

1) I agree totally, since this seems to be the one of the few nations in the world that religious diversity is enough that a two people can go to the same church, pray to the same god, and even sleep through the sermon, but have two vastly different oppinions on the very essence of their god, or even one of his teachings. Secularism is what the founding fathers intended for the fledgeling government.

2) And I agree here, say does anyone know what the difference between a lobby and a bribe is....give up, different letters.

3) Actually this is what the founding father's intended, the gun nut down the street with his many guns does not a well organized malitia make. And not only that but back in that era you didn't have to say, responsible use, it was either implied, or just common sense....which people nowadays in America seem to not have.

4) As far as this goes, I think that we do need to define when something is copyrighted, or make it easier for copyrights and trademarks to be obtained.

The Constitution doesn't address enough problems and issues of today's society. I wouldn't say "trash" it as much as I would say it needs some heavy revising. Individual vs. state vs. National rights needs much more attention than it's currently given. For example, drug laws, abortion rights, etc.

If you call extremely divisive controversy over almost anything imaginable (okay, I'm exaggerating a little, but there are a lot of issues that the Constitution doesn't resolve) an example of the Constitution "serving us fine," then that's your prerogative. But issues like the death penalty, drug legality, prostitution, abortion, separation of church and state, gay rights, and welfare (just to name a few) etc. are not explicitly covered in the Constitution, because if they were, there wouldn't be such different interpretations of it depending on where you are. They are left up to interpretation, which leads to the issues never being resolved because one group is always trying to get the other to see things its way. The Constitution, written over two centuries ago is outdated at best. Nations change, and their laws should reflect that.

Hugo

Pretty well sums up why rewriting the constitution would be damn near impossible. Whatever side didn’t get EXACTLY EVERYTHING they wanted would just start screaming that the other side had just performed a coup. At this point in time the majority of Americans are simply too selfish and ignorant to act in the manner that something as powerfully world changing as this would be. In a time where compromise is a four letter word and understanding and respect for different points of view and even sadly culture is almost non existent, how could we possibly successfully rewrite the Constitution.
Ask yourself this question. How many people do you know who actually have a real working knowledge of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the basics of how an economy functions. How elections are designed? The Constitution is fine. As long as everybody is arguing about what is right and wrong with anything it is doing it's job. If ever you get enough people to agree on anything changes will be made.
However If ever you get enough people to agree on anything to make a change I believe the headline will read like this "Flying Pigs Report Frozen Hell"


Churches have no power. None. They may be currently whining about how they are being” persecuted” but they write no laws and can’t make you do a thing if you do not wish to. Lawmakers however will always be influenced by their religion the same way I would be influenced by my Agnosticism and Objectivism. Laws that violate the separation of church and state are routinely shot down.

Limiting corporate power? The only way to do that is to completely remove any ability to regulate business at the same time offering absolutely no support for business. No tax breaks, no job protections, no “protecting” businesses against foreign competition. If your product can’t stand on it’s own merits, Good Bye. However that means Unions are screwed because those jobs go with it. However on the bright side you remove the chance of corruption and you get a strong business community as the weak companies exist on merit and are not propped up because of political interference by greedy politicians and those who need to protect obsolete jobs so they’ll get re-elected.

There are enough laws on the books currently. Honest citizens shouldn’t have to fear being made into criminals because of ridiculous bureaucracy.
Criminals will always violate gun laws. This is part of being a criminal. Legislating honest citizens who own guns is silly as they Don’t break laws. Respect for the potential of a firearm is almost a religion to gun owners.

Intellectual and Copyright laws. Ouch! The infighting on these will be savage and delightfully viscious. I foresee many dead lawyers littering the Halls of Justice over the fights these subjects are going to create. The arguments and need for clarification and new rules on this stuff will be more earth shattering for society than anything else going on now.
Power of the Individual vs. the Power of the Corporation. Protection of the Individual from the Corporation vs. the Protection of the Corporation from the individual. YUMMY! All political junkies should be thrilled at the prospect of witnessing all of this.

Trashing the Constitution? Never!!!

Rather, friends, lets get back to it. We have strayed sooooo far away from its tenets, it is hard to recognize its features.

The beauty of the Constitution is that it strictly limits governments influence on our lives. That is true liberty.

So many have been dumbed down to believe that Uncle Sam is there to solve all their problems.

Benjamin Franklin pointed out that America was created as a representative constitutional republic....one with check and balances built in, with a Constitution, with a federal government of limited power and scope, and a system in which the individual's inalienable rights were recognized and protected.

Today we have a federal government that acts without regard for the Constitution.

In "Taking America Back", Joseph Farah states that "...the Constitution is today little more than a historical relic. The basis for the rule of law in America has been twisted and perverted beyond recognition. The document once understood by farmers, ranchers, and other ordinary people is now interpreted by lawyers and judges to mean, in many cases, just the opposite of what it says".

The answer, IMHO, is not to abandon the Constitution...but to get back to its roots and follow it!!!

....and the Revolution is coming.

But the original constitution is very old and designed for a widely dispersed society composed of farmers and ranchers et al. The America of today is a very different place with a lot more people living a lot closer together. As societies become more compact, you tend to need more government intervention to resolve disputes etc.

Besides, democratic countries don't NEED a constitution, Britain aint got one and does just fine. The rule of law is upheld by the people of a country agreeing to respect it, not because a piece of paper tells them to.

I couldn't disagree with you more. The Constitution was not just made for the times...but for all times. Thats why it was made general enough. Jefferson intuitively understood the danger we faced as Americans-how national priorities could easily shift, how the rule of law could be lost, and how easily man could be corrupted. Thats what he was getting at when he called for a revolution every generation or so-to reverse the trend towards tyranny.

I would submit to you, and to all, that that time is now. It is time for a Second Revolution to get back a true representative republic.

To address your version of democracy...European style or otherwise...I would respond this way: Democracy is little more than mob rule-dictactorship by majority opinion. Majority rule was never the intent of our founders. They believed in the rule of law...not the rule of men.

Benjamin Franklin pointed out that America was created as a representative constitutional republic...one with checks and balances built in, with a Constitution, w/ a federal govt of limited scope and power, a system in which the individual inalienable rights (given my God, not man) were recognized and protected...not one based on the direct vote of the populace.

Why don't Democracies work? Well I am glad u asked....

AS Joseph Farah points out aptly, democracies are merely temporary or transitional forms of govt. They can only function until a majority of voters discover they can vote themselves money and other goodies from the public treasury.
At that point the majority votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits to them and the economy collapes because of increased taxation and spending.

Sound familiar?

GrigUSA, considering that it takes a 2/3 majority of Congress to amend the Constitution (including trashing it) it's obvious that the Founding Fathers wanted it to last forever. They most likely were afraid that corrupt Congresspeople would get elected and try to trash it which is why they wanted and hoped that 2/3 of the Congress would remain true to the principles of the Constitution. No the Constitution should not be trashed; it should be strengthened with more Amendments.

If the will of the people can push a 2/3's vote.....so be it.

Hey I got to quote myself.



I have lost track of how many times in my life I have heard about how VERY soon Good Americans are going to rise up and reclaim America from the "Godless Heathens, Welfare Queens, Nazi Christian Coalition, Blacks, Immigrants, Liberals, Conservative Bigots,gays,,," the list is long and never ends.

In my opinion the Constitution is perfectly fine and is more than adequately serving its purpose.
In our history We always get things done and for the most part it works well. Whenever things begin to get to out of balance events happen to restore the balance. Taxes went nuts liberals had way too much control We got Reagan. People got tired of too much conservative republicana we got Clinton. The liberals didn't learn their lesson about thinking you are ever in total complete control over everyone we got gingrich. The Contract on America repubs got too high and mighty Americans gave us 4 more years of Clinton.
Gore vs Bush
TweedleDee vs TweedleDum
Without the tragic events of 9/11 we would be arguing over the same pointless "My way or the Highway" whining that leads to the revolution statements and why I referenced something I mentioned earlier. We have a very small majority in this country who believe they are the RIGHT ones and everyone else is too stupid to know any better. They are split evenly and evenly distributed on both sides of our political spectrum. Liberals vs Conservatives. Neither side truly beleives the rest of us are smart enough to think for ourselves or even worse do not care if we are.
We will be given instructions on how to eat, think and believe. Whenever they are denied something they wish to be so we hear all of the "A revolution is coming" or the "vote was stolen" "The American people threw a temper tantrum" ( Peter Jennings I believe after the republicans won big with the Contract) or the "Desperate Need" to pass an Amendment to "Protect" marriage from gays.

Whine Whine Whine.

Politics in America aint always pretty. Hell it NEVER is. We have almost as many opinions and combinations of opinions on almost any subject you can pick as is statistically possible. We are a very passionate people so we are gonna fight about what we care about. We also love to argue. It is almost a national pastime. Yet for all of it America and her Constitution are doing very well. When it was needed we stood strong and when it is needed we will stand together. All the rest of the time it is going to resemble a family reunion where everyone has had too much to drink.

We do not need anymore Amendments and there will be no more Amendments any time soon. The Constitution shouldn't be trashed it doesn't need to be protected CAUSE IT WAS BUILT DAMN GOOD.

But the rule of law can only be maintained by the will of the people. Law is a social construction, not something in its own right. The laws of the US are uheld because the citizens of the US believe in them. It is the will of the majority that these laws be upheld.

You don't need a constitution, you just need a society that accepts the rule of law as the normal way of doing things.



Well that all sounds very nice, but in the end, all rights are given by man, (although they may claim God as the source). People only have inalienable rights aws long as other people choose to treat them as inalienable. The govt of the USA may be a few degrees seperated from simplistic majority rule, but the underlying system is still held up by the fact that the majority of people want it that way.

I have no idea whether the constitution in its current form, with or without amendments is good or bad or needs improving. I just think its largely irrelevant to the way in which the US is governed.