70
10 votes
Apr 30, 2015

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

Reply to this opinion
subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
linked reply
1 vote,
Apr 30, 2015

How does "Adding to" the Constitution not fall under "Updating"?

'We shouldn't change the Constitution, but we should do things that make it different.' That is essentially what I understand your position to be.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Apr 30, 2015

To update something means to go back and change things that have already been written. Adding to means that new laws must not alter any part of the Constitution that have already been written.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
2 votes,
Apr 30, 2015

Then I don't think that's a sensible approach to the Constitution. There are plenty of things in the body of the Constitution that people throughout history have at some point decided are not worth keeping.

The 3/5's clause in the body of the Constitution was overturned by the 14th Amendment, and rightly so. The Constitution gave the determination of voting rights exclusively to the states until the 15th and 19th Amendments determined that states could not prohibit the right to vote based on race or sex.

Regardless I don't know how fruitful this discussion will be as I foresee it degenerating into an argument over what "update" and "added to" mean.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
60
main reply
5 votes,
Apr 30, 2015

Agreed. There are so many people that are against the constitution claiming it's "old." Essential human rights never get old. They are always vital and necessary. People then say it should be more specific, but no. If it were too specific, it would be outdated all the time with new technologies. The unspecificness of it is what makes it apply to everything, which is good.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
57
7 votes,
Apr 30, 2015

The Constitution is not about human rights, it's about setting up a system of government. It IS old, and obsolete, and needs to be updated. The Bill of Rights is the only part that concerns essential human rights. It's obsolete too, since there's no mechanism to actually enforce it; the 4th Amendment, for instance, hasn't been in force for decades.

I propose we create a new Constitution which mandates the Condorcet voting system, and eliminates the tricameral system of government in favor of a European-style parliamentary system. Our system looks good in theory, but doesn't work very well in practice. The European systems work much better in practice and allow minority parties to have some power.

Edit: I also propose a somewhat modified Bill of Rights, to update it with the times. For instance, in the EU, privacy rights are very strong, unlike here, and that should be added to our BoR. People in 1776 didn't have to worry much about databases or surveillance. The freedom of religion bit should probably be modified a bit so that people can also have freedom from religion if they choose, and also so that religious freedom doesn't lead to denying other rights, such as children not getting proper medical care because of their parents' insane religious beliefs. The Second Amendment should also be modified and clarified (in modern English) so that we can finally stop arguing about what exactly it means.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
67
3 votes,
Apr 30, 2015

The constitution is not about "human rights". It is about limitation of the power of the Federal government and that is _all_ it is about. That is the entire raison d'etre of that document, the limitation of power granted to the Fed. If you want "human rights" documentation, then write you own. The constitution is enough for most of us with only the very vocal minority feeling left out, probably because they want the government nanny to coddle them from cradle to grave.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
50
2 votes,
Apr 30, 2015

What about the Second Amendment needs clarification?

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
50
main reply
2 votes,
Apr 30, 2015

The Constitution, as the libs are fond of saying, is a "living document". It can be modified through the amendment process. The authors created it to be difficult to change with the intent of keeping the will of a mob from adding or removing bits and pieces to suit the whim of the day.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
2 votes,
Apr 30, 2015

The authors created it to be difficult to change with the intent of keeping the will of a mob from adding or removing bits and pieces to suit the whim of the day.

Sounds good in theory, but in practice this didn't stop them from banning alcohol using an Amendment.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
2 votes,
Apr 30, 2015

It also didn't stop them from overturning that ban.

subscribe
Challenge someone to answer this opinion:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: