New US constitution?

[Last Roman]

Here's an idea, should the US create a new constitution? One that is more current with our modern culture and society as well as political setup? Since amendments are so hard to pass, should we just start with a clean slate?

Here are some pros and cons I can think of:

pros:

-would shake the American populace out of political apathy
-more "current"

cons:

-obviously a divisive issue
-a potentially disastrous step which could give government more power


I'm sure there are more pros and cons which just aren't coming to mind at the moment.


so what say you? aye or nay and why.

[Rush Limbaugh]

No. Lets try using the original as intended first.

[Last Roman]

heh, somehow I knew you'd be the first to post

anyhoo

wouldn't you agree that we tried that and got pretty close to it for the first 80-90 years?

[El Brujo]

The problem with a new constitution is that it would be created in part by Democrats. I don't want their retarded socialist ideals enshrined in such an important document. Secondly, if we can just up and replace a constitution like that, then it will make it even more worthless than it is now.

-a potentially disastrous step which could give government more power

No, it will give government more power, if only by the very nature of the undertaking.

-would shake the American populace out of political apathy

Fat chance.

-more "current"

Not necessarily a good thing.

In conclusion: Nay

[Last Roman]

The problem with a new constitution is that it would be created in part by Democrats.

not necessarily, why just have congress write it up? I would think something more bi-partisan would take place.

I don't want their retarded socialist ideals enshrined in such an important document.

The Republicans are socialist to a degree as well. Like it or not, America has plenty of socialist policies now.

[El Brujo]

The Republicans are socialist to a degree as well. Like it or not, America has plenty of socialist policies now.

I know all this. It is why we can't afford to actually justify and forever make sacred these policies in a new constitution. Right now there is still some very slim hope of swinging back towards libertarianism, but after this goes down government theft will be here forever and ever amen.

[Rush Limbaugh]

Lets not enshrine the nanny state to put it simply.

[Sétanta]

No. The Founding Fathers ideals were timeless. That is, they could work in any era. What we need to do is actually try and live up to those ideals, instead of creating a monolithic/nannystate/overbearing government.

[Rush Limbaugh]

No. The Founding Fathers ideals were timeless. That is, they could work in any era. What we need to do is actually try and live up to those ideals, instead of creating a monolithic/nannystate/overbearing government.

+1 rep

Not only that the Founding Fathers were brilliant men and statesmen. Do you want to compare them to this lot?

We have the executive and legislative recording new lows in the polls and peoples opinions of SCOTUS is not far behind

Do we want the people who are now in power making our constitution for us . Hell no.

[Duke_of_Bavaria]

Well it would be about time, I think the US constitution is outdated. But that's just because I find the right for anyone to buy a gun to be idiotic.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

No.

But feel free to have a secret convention in Philidelphia.

[GrnEyedDvl]

No. The Founding Fathers ideals were timeless. That is, they could work in any era. What we need to do is actually try and live up to those ideals, instead of creating a monolithic/nannystate/overbearing government.

Agreed.


Duke of Bavaria, How do MY guns hurt YOU??? The idea of taking the right to defend yourself away from a person makes me sick. I own 27 guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition, whats it hurting? I enjoy sporting clays and competitoin shooting, and if some prick comes in my house or accosts me on the street, then hes a dead prick. I carry in public all the time, never an issue.

[MasterOfNone]

George Washington warned the American people about this:

Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts.

(Farewell Address, 1796)

A Claremont Institute article puts it well:

The size, scope and purposes of our government are no longer anchored in and limited by our Constitution. For conservatives who want to restore limited government, their first order of business is to restore the authority of the Constitution's original intent. The American people need to be reminded of the source of their rights and persuaded that limited government is good; that the principles of the Constitution—which are the natural-law principles of the Declaration of Independence—are timeless, not time-bound; that without those principles, the noble ends set forth in the Constitution's preamble can never be achieved.

See: http://www.claremont.org/publication...ept_detail.asp

[Duke_of_Bavaria]

Duke of Bavaria, How do MY guns hurt YOU??? The idea of taking the right to defend yourself away from a person makes me sick. I own 27 guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition, whats it hurting? I enjoy sporting clays and competitoin shooting, and if some prick comes in my house or accosts me on the street, then hes a dead prick. I carry in public all the time, never an issue.

They don't, you're sane. But there are always some insane people out there, basic logic says that you can do more harm with a gun than a knife.

[GrnEyedDvl]

Most gun owners are sane lol There are over 200 million guns here, 60 million gun owners. Thats 3 times the entire population of Iraq. Guns arent the problem, you hit on it in your reply. People are the problem.

The guys that did Columbine broke 19 existing gun laws, one that prohibited the sale of handguns to anyone under 21, another when someone else purchased for them. Make all guns illegal and criminals will still get them, just as people still get pot and cocaine and everything else.

Then there are all the crimes PREVENTED by someone with a firearm. The anti-gun crowd likes to pretend this doesnt happen. The media is stuck on the idea that fewer guns = less crime, and wont actually report anything to the contrary. The react on the emotions of something like Columbine, and ignore all the criminals that are stopped by the presence of a firearm in the hands of an ordinary citizen.

I have been a certified firearms instructor for 12 years. I hold 4 out of the 5 possible ratings (no black powder for me) and used to do a lot of concealed carry instruction on the side. I havent held a class for a few years because I have been busy doing other stuff, but I still keep very current on what happens locally with firearms. When I moved here in 1994 there were a total of 1300 people in the entire state with concealed carry permits, only 104 in my county which is the second largest in the state. Today there are over 35,000, several hundred of which I helped issue. Compare the crime rates:

Colorado crime rates 1960 - 2006
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/cocrime.htm

Yes crime has gone up at more than the rate of population growth if you just look at 1960 then look at 2006. But compare the numbers in the early/mid 1990s (can anyone say Brady Bill?) to 2006. Just a few:

Murder:
1991 199
1992 216
1993 206
1994 199
1995 216
Brady Bill expires 2004
2004 201
2005 173
2006 158


Now yes there are a LOT of other factors that influence those numbers, not just gun control. Illegal immigration for example has almost tripled burglary and car theft numbers, the average person arrested for those crimes doesnt even speak English. Another reason to let people carry a gun, yelling at someone who doesnt understand English and then waiting 10 minutes for the cops to show up is no solution. A gun speaks its own language.

Accidental deaths in Colorado, 1990 - 1998 age 0 - 15 yrs old.


Source:
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/IB/ColoFirearmsDeaths.htm

I propose some serious bicycle control bills: nobody under the age of 21 should own a bicycle, there should be a national registration of bicycle owners, riding your bicycle in public requires a permit issued by the local sherrif, there should be a 5 day waiting period before you get your bicycle, you shouldnt be able to own more than 2 bicycles, you have to pay a $200 fee to ride your bicycle, if someone steals your bicycle and gets killed you are responsible.

Ridiculous arent they? Yes there are stupid people who own guns, yes there are people who own guns who dont give a crap about anyone else. But I would argue there are FAR many more people like that who own cars and boats and 5 gallon buckets that cause far many more deaths.

Other sites with similar info in other parts of the country:
http://firearmsclasses.com/carry_facts.htm
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html
http://www.2asisters.org/press/facts.htm
http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories...046-7178.shtml

[Feliks]

Passing an amendment is difficult by design, if it was easy, we'd get conflicting amendments which only represent the passions of the majority, not a document which protects minorites, which is what we have now. As the founding fathers demonstrated, democracy is often best served by undemocratic means.

[Tom Paine]

The English Parliament of 1688 did a certain thing, which, for themselves and their constituents, they had a right to do, and which it appeared right should be done. But, in addition to this right, which they possessed by delegation, they set up another right by assumption, that of binding and controlling posterity to the end of time. The case, therefore, divides itself into two parts; the right which they possessed by delegation, and the right which they set up by assumption. The first is admitted; but with respect to the second, I reply: There never did, there never will, and there never can, exist a Parliament, or any description of men, or any generation of men, in any country, possessed of the right or the power of binding and controlling posterity to the "end of time," or of commanding for ever how the world shall be governed, or who shall govern it; and therefore all such clauses, acts or declarations by which the makers of them attempt to do what they have neither the right nor the power to do, nor the power to execute, are in themselves null and void

The Constitution is a document binding in posterity. Multiple Founding Fathers, signatories of the Declaration of Independance, argued against this. Another, possibly more important than any such signatory, did so to, and it is he I quote above. Do you really think a Constitution written two centuries ago, written with slavery, with discrimination, with a single religion for the state, in mind is the perfect document to govern you now?

[Rush Limbaugh]

Do you really think a Constitution written two centuries ago, written with slavery, with discrimination, with a single religion for the state, in mind is the perfect document to govern you now?

Yes. And there is no state religion.

[Tom Paine]

A single religion for the state is not the same as a state religion: at the time essentially everyone was, publicly at least, a Christian, and if they weren't they were reviled for it.

So: slavery is good (they supported that, almost to a man - in fact those who didn't opposed the very Constitution-in-perpetuity you espouse!), racism is good (see above), and so on?

[Rush Limbaugh]

A single religion for the state is not the same as a state religion: at the time essentially everyone was, publicly at least, a Christian, and if they weren't they were reviled for it.

So then whats all this nonsense that the US isnt a christian nation and the FFs were all deists?