Should the U.S. Constitution be updated, and if so, what changes would you apply?

Sure, it's currently one of the best written governing documents that humans have historically produced, but nothing is perfect and you have to be really careful about it. How about just finishing what Roosevelt proposed back in 1944? A second Bill of Rights. It still seems to be a pretty good idea.

The only problem I see is the major push for a "constitutional convention" to actually change it is being driven behind the scenes by monied interests that would love to figure out how to charge you for breathing. I love libertarian ideas of personal responsibility and accountability for your actions, as well as the NAP; but the behind the scenes stuff that is funding some of the rhetoric on the national stage is pretty subversive, and the "Tea Party" is a perfect example. Monied interests would love for you to vote in more 'freedom' so they can charge you more, or start charging you for something everyone currently gets for free.

So I would be really careful on how and what is allowed to happen. Specifically because of history, as mobs are not thinking individuals discussing things; they just gather around something so they can throw in anything they disagree with, and watch it burn. Not even comprehending if they have been manipulated to burn their own protections.

Some of the christian religion factions (Dominionism especially) have been trying to subvert the first amendment as soon as it was signed. No better than any of religious theocracies around the world. Which is why the first amendment was put into place in the first place. And over the years the religious folks have been successful in changing America's motto, pledge, or adding their creeds to the money, etc; mainly due to their erroneous 'persecution complex'. But they are all surreptitious violations of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Which is there to protect their religious views in the first place.

To have this discussion, you really need to really discuss it.

Updated? No. Added to? Yes. For example, there should be an amendment that prohibits lawmakers from writing exemptions to the laws for themselves.

Honestly, I like it how it is.....I just wish it was honored and enforced. Most of the Bill of Rights has been swept away, or dis-empowered in the name of corporate or state interests.

I would strengthen (or reinstate) the Bill of Rights, and include a robust provision for personal privacy both online and off.

REPEAL the 16th Amendment.
Use tariffs, tolls, fees for service & fines to fund the Federal govt or have the State's Comptroller General collect taxes in accordance with state law & apportioned by population & economic productivity & then send to Federal Treasury each year.

REPEAL the 17th Amendment.
Power to the States, Power to the People.

A process for "updating" the Constitution is already in place. It's called the Amendment process. It's not easy, but changing the Constitution should not be easy, but vigorously debated and well thought out.

I've got several suggestions for amendments, but the one that is most important to me is that I want to see Section 1 of the 14th Amendment re-written. Specifically, this sentence:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That sentence is far too vague, and the way that the US Supreme Court interprets it is far too often to take advantage of the vagueness to strike down laws that they do not like. The Court itself has claimed that, with regards to the Due Process Clause, "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." Two problems: 1) the first half of that assertion is completely false, nothing at all in the Constitution obligates anyone to define liberty, and 2) there is no way to do that task objectively, such decisions have to be subjective, and therefore the second half of that statement is completely and outrageously hypocritical. The Court mandates its own moral code whenever it decides when a person deserves to have liberty from a law made by a legislature, and the "liberty" did not come from any other clause of the US Constitution. Likewise, the use of the Equal Protection Clause is completely subjective.

I have drafted a re-write of Section 1 of the 14th. My proposal is that the states should continue being obligated to respect MOST, but not all, of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. My proposal leaves the 2nd Amendment out, so states are allowed to adopt gun control measures, and I specifically say that McDonald v. Chicago will be void. But the courts are not obligated or permitted to "define liberty," or decree that states have to respect any "unenumerated rights." I also say in my proposal which kinds of discrimination states are not allowed to engage in: discrimination based on race, national origin, sex, or religion. The equal right to vote shall continue to be respected; the principle of "one person, one vote" shall continue to be enforced; and redistricting must be done by independent redistricting commissions, not state legislatures. Lastly, I conclude with a brief paragraph that condemns the Bush v. Gore decision.

This is, as it has always been, a very slippery slope.

This question should be broken down into many MANY sub-segments and asked as a series of questions.

I would like to see some changes to the Constitution, but as always realize that once the genie is out of the bottle it's darned hard to put him back in again.

I believe everyone should read the Constitution. I can not believe how difficult it is to get a printed copy. I would love to carry a copy with me so some of the "mental giants" out there could read what they think they know!

No, the Constitution should remain as it is because the only changes possible today will be at the behest of the people who control the politicians... i.e. the big monied interests.

As flawed as it may be, it needs to remain inviolate unless some glaring problem is found (which is why the change process is included).

What REALLY needs to happen, however, is that the U.S. governments at ALL levels (federal, state, and local) need to start DOING what the Constitution says rather than ignoring it and doing what they "think" it says (or worse, just plain flaunting their abuse of the citizen's rights while knowing full well they're doing wrong).

Yes; this is why we have the Amendment Process, it allows us to adapt the Constitution to withstand the Test of Time.