[davisfh]

"...we may need to re-evaluate and update this fundamental document periodically,"

What a frightening prospect that is.

[Fintan]

A new European Constitution, if it comes into being, may eventually outshine the American document simply by virtue of its comprehensiveness and modernity.

Uh, I don't think so Skippy...

[Sam Cree]

Thanks for the barf alert.

"Without a written Constitution, the United States would have likely fallen into obscurity before the Founding Fathers were laid to rest"

Without a written Constitution, the United States would have likely fallen into socialism, as the citizens voted away their rights in return for the empty promises of charismatic politicians.

There is already a mechanism, amendments, in place to change the Constitution whenever we wish. It is good enough.

So far no foreign constitution has come close to our document, which takes "rights" to mean those rights which are concerned with individual freedom and personal liberty, as opposed to "entitlements," which can only be granted by allowing government the ability to arbitrarily take from one citizen to give to another.

Once rights are something that the government "provides," such as "the rights of the elderly to lead a life of dignity and independence," then the government is also empowered to take them away. In fact, it cannot provide anyone with anything without taking away from someone else.

Our Constitution is unique and precious in that it protects our rights from the government rather than making government an all powerful authority that is the bestower of rights, as in other countries.

[The FRugitive]

What was the proposed "equal rights amendmant" about?

[inquest]

Isn't that just like a typical lib? All he does is make a bunch of sideswipes about how our Constitution isn't "modern" enough for him, but gives us absolutely no indication of what he thinks is wrong with it. Tell us what you think is deficient about it, THEN propose some changes. Oh, wait - that would mean people might hold him accountable for what he has in mind for us. Scratch that idea.

[TheRedSoxWinThePennant]

I am just going to stop reading anything written by a college professor. I just cant take their absolute insanity anymore

[Timesink]

If we, in the United States, had the opportunity to refine and update our Constitution at the dawn of the 21st century, what a unique opportunity it would be.

We DO have the opportunity, just as we have every day since the document was adopted. YOU, "Professor," just don't like that said opportunity requires a huge number of Americans to agree on any such fundamental change. YOU just want to change the rules so that you would have a several-orders-of-magnitude better chance to force upon the rest of the nation new rules that YOU know are extremely unpopular. Nice try, but you'll always be a loser.

[Marie Antoinette]

The process for amending the U.S. Constitution, in a piecemeal fashion, is so difficult that any proposed amendment even mildly controversial (such as the Equal Rights Amendment that gasped its final breath in 1982 after 10 years of floundering about) is almost doomed to failure -- making it difficult to bring our fundamental charter in line with changing times, changing technologies and changing societal norms.

This is why I don't ever want to see a constitutional convention. What is being defined these days as "norms" are abberations and freaky wierdness. No way do I want a bunch of oddly educated, liberals, socialists, homosexual, abortionists. involved in rewriting our constitution.

Mr.M

[Teacher317]

Constitutional Convention to address our changing times? Sure! The Founding Fathers may not have expressly foreseen the Communist Manifesto and the UN, but they would certainly have wanted to make provisions against entanglements with either.

We need to repeal the 16th Amendment, make property rights secure against unneccessary seizures (for golf courses, scenic interstate spots, animals, etc), explicitly forbid the Judiciary from making law (should only able to declare laws unConstitutional), and addresss the open border/immigrant benefits issues.

Unfortunately, the Socialists will find a way to ramrod some utterly horrid ideas through, so it probably isn't a safe bet.

[x]

Europe will face the same problems with its constitution that we did and for the same reason: is the union a loose confederation of sovereign states or is it a nation that requires some degree of centralized government?

That doesn't mean that our constitution was flawed. Rather, it worked well: power was set against power to increase and preserve individual liberty. But it would be wise if Europe were to spell out some things that were left out of our constitution: particularly the process of leaving or dissolving the union, if a nation or region desires.

It seems like all recent constituions have incorporated the idea of judicial review which developed here in the US. There's something to be said for allowing judges to decide the constitutionality of laws but it's not always a good thing. Judicial review can provide a means of increasing federal power at the expense of other government units and the beliefs of large parts of the population.

[Publius]

A constitutional convention, i.e. a convention aimed at writing a constitution, is implicitly forbidden by Article V. Read "A Convention for Proposing Amendments...As Part of This Constitution" for details.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[MonroeDNA]

How many jobs were lost because of this?

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

There not going to update it periodicly they will ignore it and write laws contrary to it just like they have been for 100 years

[July 4th]

To this author, I say, "You need the people before the paper." You can't just write something, and expect everyone to play along and fall into line. When the founders crafted our Constitution, it was in response to all of the failings they'd seen in other governments. It was an acknowlegdement of a shared American experience.