Is the US Constitution outdated?

[NicoMoon]

In recent years the worth and effectiveness of US Constitution has been challenged .

Does it fulfill it's promise of equality and freedom? Is it still functioning, or is it time for a change?

[speckledbird]

Methinks many know not what of which you speak, Oh Mighty One, therefore, dumbfounding and silencing them.

It has become increasingly apparent in recent weeks that many are ignorant (illiterate, uneducated) to The US Constitution, what it says, what it stands for, how it works. How, then, can something be outdated, if we know little to nothing about the said something (all due respect here).

Equally unsettling and disturbing is the lack of knowledge of Elected Officials to the term "Democracy" insofar as it relates to, or differs from, the term "Dictatorship", as in relationship to accountability, capability and responsibility during disasters or states of emergency.

So, out of the goodness of my heart, on a beautiful Friday afternoon in the Missouri Ozarks, during what should be Happy Hour, I have taken valuable time to provide the following reading resources. Enjoy...more importantly, educate.

The US Constitution: Kindergarten thru 4th Grades
http://www.usconstitution.net/constkids4.html

The US Constitution: 8th thru 12th Grades
http://www.usconstitution.net/constkids.html

The US Constitution: The Main Site
http://www.usconstitution.net/index.html

For those requiring visual effects
Pictures of The US Constitution
http://www.usconstitution.net/constpix.html

Resources for Advanced Readers

Posse Comitatus Act
http://www.northcom.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.factsheets&factsheet=5
Insurrection Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act

xo

[Franklin]

Hi Nico and Specklebird,

I don't think the Constitution will ever become obsolete because the Founding Father were wise enough and humble enough to know that they couldn't think of everything for all times and therefore added the ability to amend the document.

But their wisdom went even further - they were also wise enough to make the amendment process difficult so that it cannot be changed on a whim. We all may feel some frustration now and then and declare that the Constitution is not up to a particular task. Fortunately, we cannot change the Constitution every time we feel frustrated - we must be able to convey that message and convince many others before it happens. In over 200 years it ain't happened but 27 times. That, to me, speaks to the brilliance of the original document.

I would much rather have the Constitution amended than ignored. Some seem to think that we can sidestep the Constitution or stretch the interpretation to the point of absurdity, rather than go through the painstaking process of amending it. But the process is painstaking for a reason - we want to sure that it's necessary and done responsibly.

Some want to amend the Constitution to reflect their own morality or philosophy. I adamantly disagree with this idea. The purpose of the Constitution, from my perspective, is to deliniate the rights of People and the limitations of Government. To amend the Constitution to prohibit the burning of the flag, for example, is to deny people the rights provided by the First Amendment - no matter how reprehensible the burning of the flag may be.

There has only been one amendment designed to restrict the rights of individuals, the 18th (Prohibition). It was a disaster. But, the Constitution being designed with so much wisdom, it was able to be repealed. Let's not make the same mistake again. The Constitution is meant to protect rights, not to enforce morality. I hope it stays that way.

Cheers, Franklin

[speckledbird]

Well said. Kudos and much applause, to you, my friend.

Thank you!

xo

[Faucet]

I think that the constitution should stay and it's rules apply. However I agree sometimes the situation grants not to follow it. I think it cases should also be affected by human morals.

[NicoMoon]

I think that the constitution should stay and it's rules apply. However I agree sometimes the situation grants not to follow it. I think it cases should also be affected by human morals.

That's a bit confusing, Faucet. Care to elaborate? How can we apply the rules but not follow it sometimes?

Where do you find the Constitution to be morally lacking, for example?

[Faucet]

If the crime expresses the violator's feelings but is morally wrong it shouldn't be allowed.

[LadyViper]

I don't think our problems lie within the constitution, but rather in the nimrods that are enforcing it. It is not suddenly ineffective, maybe some revisions are needed but we should not do away with it. I want my rights, and I want all of them just as they are stated today. Giving the okay to change it or ignore it, could prove disastrous for some of us.

[Fluffernutter]

no human document is without flaws and imperfections. if there's a couple of things that need changing, it's allowing the president to appoint the attorney general, that and the supreme court. the other being the winner takes all mechanism called the electoral collage.

also the privilege of the executive department to withhold pertinent intel from congressional oversight on the pretense of national security, particularly when it has to make decisions in regard to international relations.

theoretical checks and balances don't seem to be working. i don't think it's the fault of the constitution though that it's intent, and in some cases even blatantly it's letter, is being ignored.

a document is only a piece of paper unless those involved actually implement it.

something, for the most part, that has only rarely been done with the constitution in my lifetime. (and certainly isn't being done now, not for the past six years at least)

btw the point of a constitution is to protect the people from their government, not the other way around. the whole concept was invented to limit what a government can get away with.