Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

constitution is getting old..

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Does anybody else think the constitution needs to be "updated" for current times. I mean I personally think we should do away with it completely, but even changing it would suffice. What are we gonna do in 2000 years (if we're still around...)? Are we going to still go by these laws and rules that clearly aren't working for us anymore? Times have changed, government should adapt to as well.




posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   
The laws work just fine when they aren't being broken by those in power.

It's the politicians that are getting old; a change is needed, people need to be reminded what this country was founded on and why. The constitution is timeless, just read it yourself sometime.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Here is some info about "The Constitution of the United States"

1) The Constitution is not a law that governs the People.

2) The Constitution IS a law that governs the Government (written by the people FOR the .gov)

3) The Constitution is Fine, the problem is that the government is refusing to be governed by its' rules.

4) Nothing needs to be updated, except perhaps a repeal of the 16th Amendment which indeed needs to be gone


The Constitution Limits the Powers that the Government may exercise, and then splits those powers into separate branches so that they must fight each other (to balance the limited power that is granted)

The problem we have today, is that the Government totally IGNORES those rules and essentially has unified into a big giant monster with No Checks or Balances or Limitations at all!



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Do away with it? I dont think so. What it needs is a "reset" button to put things back where they should be. That's where that whole "tree of liberty" deal comes in.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   
In 2000 years the Constitution will still be modern and effective, as long as the .Gov is forced to abide by it 100%.

By Limiting the power of the government, and Protecting the Power of the Citizens, it is perhaps the most modern document ever written, and the framers of it saw something that NEVER changes.

Power. It has been the VERY same since the beginning of Civilization. A Tyrant gains power and Oppresses it's people.

The Constitution is a Shield against Tyranny and Authoritarian-Totalitarian abuses.

This document would be effective in the year 3030. Simply because the aspects that it covers are timeless and integral to human nature.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by dannyfal
 


Very curious to hear what changes you would make...???

Personally, I agree whole-heartedly with the other replies - it should not be done away with - it should be enforced!



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   
I mean I read it... it seems like it could be better written, less vague, etc.

Out of all of the ATS members, not ONE thinks its time for a change in the structure of our government?



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by dannyfal
 


I think most of us are in favor of a "restructuring" as it were.


The foundation is solid as ever. The "structure" however, is crumbling and full of rats, roaches and mold.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by serendipitynow
 


Well I don't have a background in government and I don't want to sit here and act like I know what i'm talking about. Thats basically why I was asking others, i'm here to listen, not force my opinion on others.

I don't know what I would change... I think i would start from scratch. I think its vagueness that leads to various interpretations in courts that really get to me. But I mean I do agree with the previous posts that if it were followed we'd be in better shape... but at the same time I think we could think of something BETTER



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
I believe what you actually want is what we want also. You just have some trouble articulating it correctly.

We agree, we need to demolish the .Gov and rebuild it from the Foundation(Constitution) upwards.

The Constitution may "seem" vague, but it is actually very precise about what powers the .Gov is allowed to have, and "all other powers not mentioned" are clearly Not Allowed.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Ok well said... but I mean we did make 27 amendments so its clearly not perfect.

I just don't understand why we hold on to it so dearly. I mean I was pretty concerned i'd even offend some people with this post... Glenn Beck or some crap



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by dannyfal
 


Those Amendments are more a testament to mans imperfection than to the documents. It shouldnt be necessary to state that people have the right to speak freely, worship freely or arm themselves freely.

Things like the abolition of slavery and the voting rights of women shouldnt be necessary either. And they wasted two Amendments with prohibition.

REally, we need an Amendment to limit Congressional pay increases? Are they all that corrupt? The moment folks started tossing that one around we should have burned Washington down.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by dannyfal
 


I think the constitution could be updated for readability, but I wouldn't trust anyone currently in power except for a select few to just change the readability. So, I'd rather just leave it as-is. For example, an ATS member claimed to me that congress didn't have to declare war before the president makes it happen. But its right there in the constitution. He pointed out that many presidents have broken that rule and so they must be right because they are the president and they would never do something bad against the constitution (LOL). But more to the point the supreme court upheld the decision to allow war without declaration of war. So apparently even judges are having trouble reading the constitution. It does need to be clarified but I don't know how that would happen without it getting changed around to mean something different from what is stated.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Written words are timeless..The only thing that changes is society and the mindset of those that read those words and interperate them..

I would imagine that when that document was drawn up our reprentitives were part time help for lack of better words..Meaning when they werent busy with household chores and working there jobs,they were our reps..I beleive that things started going down hill is when career polititions started to flower..Coruption follows when it puts moneys in your pockets,when that is your full time job..Its a no brainer..It happens.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
well not to derail my own thread, but lets take the electoral college as an example

times have changed. we have technology in 2009 that wasn't around in 1787.

for example, i believe that whenever a law wants to be passed, and i mean ANY law... people should have the means to electronically vote for it. whether it is an unhackable internet system or a system sold in stores it doesn't matter (i was thinking a social security - name match up so that 2 votes can't be entered by one person).

this way, zany laws will have a less chance of being passed. everything from going to war to passing 800 billion dollar bills to legalizing drugs.

the people aren't involved in the political system at all, the word democracy is a joke.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by dannyfal

this way, zany laws will have a less chance of being passed.


Mob rule would ensure that EVERY zany law passed.




the people aren't involved in the political system at all, the word democracy is a joke.


No, they arent and yes it is. Which is why every zany law would get passed. Mob rule is just more tyranny. Albeit the "mob" would be happy with the tyranny but it's still tyranny.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


well you can look at it as mob rule.. or majority rules
and if these laws get passed by the majority of people then we should follow them (state by state)... i'd rather follow laws that we decide then the ones that the rich people pulling the strings decide

in other words thisguyrightthere... do you think the people of america would make worst decisions than the people in power?



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by dannyfal
 


REally, we need an Amendment to limit Congressional pay increases? Are they all that corrupt? The moment folks started tossing that one around we should have burned Washington down.


haha YES , you are the man



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
I thought the constitution has changed over time. It's called the Amendments. Am I right


Just my 2-cents



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
I believe that if the States would step up and reclaim their constitutional powers a lot of our problems would be solved...

The Fed is getting to the point where it is legislating morality, among other things that it has no business legislating.

If the States stepped up, then each state would represent its people, and if you weren't happy with the way your state handled something, then you could move to a state that did things the way you believed.

Some states would lean right, and the righties would be happy there...
Some states would lean left, and the lefties would be happy there...

Everybodies happy, lol... maybe...






top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join