Is It really not necessary to apply this now these days.What happen to the Constitution ?
129405
Religion just needs to stay out of politics. Once politics start getting influenced by one sect of religion facing up against another sect. It will most likely lead to civil war.
66347
Questions like or similar to this one have appeared here several times.  Other than those who ask such questions to simply get a response to see what others think, often they come up (in my opinion) because the asker (present company excepted, of course) due to a lack of education as to what the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights actually are and mean.\n\nFirst of all, the Constitution of the United States was created to create a general government (in this case a federal government) and the relationship between that general government and the ratifying States and their citizens, as ratified by the several States as representing the citizens of each of their States.   \n\nIt is not a document of laws nor does it grant any rights.  It is a structure which acts as a foundation from which laws are to be enacted which are necessary (and proper) to carry through the powers delegated to the federal government created by those delegated powers.\n\nThe Bill of Rights is the result of an agreement made during the Constitutional Convention to gather the votes necessary to propose the draft of the Constitution to the then standing Congress under the Articles of Confederation.  It first came up (by George Mason) during the discussion concerning trial by jury.  \n\nAt that time 8 of the 13 State Constitutions (the States had real Constitutions prior to the Constitution of the United States) had forms of a Bill of Rights and George Mason had written Virginia’s in 1776.\n\nSubsequent to the ratification of the Constitution of the United States and during the first session of the Congress, James Madison was given the task of drafting this Bill of Rights and in this effort he used the Virginia Bill of Rights as a guide.  His work resulted in a Bill of Rights with 12 articles being proposed to the several State legislatures.  Only 10 were ratified at that time.\n\nBills of Rights are not new to our historical roots, certainly Magna Carta can be considered a form of a Bill of Rights and there were others through the years such as “The Petition of Right [1628] and “The Bill of rights” [1689].\n\nEven so, the United States Bill of Rights is less a listing of individual rights than it is selected controls on the federal government.  This is because of the structure of the Bill of rights, that is, the first 8 ratified articles of the Bill of Rights are exclusionary articles in that they exclude the federal government from doing specific acts.  The final two articles are declarations of basic truths and are therefore controlling of the federal government.\n\nAll of this structure of government can reasonably be considered as being a natural evolution of our heritage of the Common Law easily traceable to the Great Charter of 1215 (Magna Carta) and, in my opinion, founded in the developing Common Law during the preceding 2,000 years.\n\nDuring the intervening years since 1791 (year of the ratification of the Bill of Rights) 27 Amendments have been made to the Constitution of the United States changing that structure.\n\nLegislative statutes are enacted within this structure and the constitutional structures of the various States.  Those enacted laws, in the style of our common law, evolve and produce new laws, as well as new judicial interpretations.  In that sense we do, and yet we don’t, live within what occurred 215 years ago.  \n\nIn such a system, how can it be out of date?  It has lasted so long with relatively little change because its roots and its intent and its content are focused on individual rights.
348312
there is no such thing as a draft any more. It was abolished by the congress in 1973.
389332
It is not in the constitution,  actually no law is in the constitution.\n\nThe laws, and state codes are listed in the state codes.\nThis will be a many thousand page book, and made up of several books to include consumer, traffic, criminal and dozens of other areas.
431517
That would be the appropriate time for Americans to exercise their right to bear arms.  That is the reason that amendment exists - to allow the citizens of the country the right to take up arms against their government when the government is usurping the rights of its citizens.  I would say the scenario you propose is not likely to happen, but the last six years have gotten us pretty darned close!
198160
You should read the constitution before you ask constitutional questions
472540
The Constitution will not go into effect as law of the Land until ratified.\n\nThe (then) current Articles of Confederation were not meant to last forever and needed replacement and enhancements.  These Articles did not specify States Rights versus Federal Rights clearly.\n\nThe Federal Government is broken into 3 branches of Government, to ensure a system of "Checks and Balances."  No single group could get control.  Also, unlike the Articles, the Constitution gave details on how it can be changed in the future (by Ammentments and Ratification).
557872
Dude, calm down.\nFirst of all, the Constitution and its amendments are not laws.  If something contradicts the constitution it is deemed unconstitutional.  Not illegal.\nSecond.  Bush can't write a bill let alone pass a bill.  Did you ever hear that School House Rock song "I'm Only A Bill". . .Only Congress can pass law and write bills.  The president can either sign it, veto it, or ignore it.  Learn some civics.  What you are referring to is Executive Order 13198 (and a handful of others subsequent to this one) executed on January 29, 2001.  And before you go jumping off a bridge, read them carefully.  They don't say what you apparently think.\nThird.  You are incorrect about your interpretation of the Supreme Court rulings regarding whatever specific faith based initiative you are stuck on.  If the Supreme Court has ruled and it exists, you must be wrong.  QED.\nFourth.  Saying that you don't mind as long as ALL religions are represented is a very cute way of avoiding saying what's really in your heart.  If we represent ALL then we really are representing NONE.\nLast.  There are numerous things that are better done by religious and other community organizations (as opposed to the government).  For example, the Catholic Church does a wonderful job providing adoption services for disabled orphans.  A better job than the government.  The church avoids some of the thornier issues regarding church/state by separating its adoption services from its core purpose (to grossly paraphrase, a requirement for receiving federal money).\nBut really dude, calm down.
593967
Everyone is talking about it...democracy is ending.  No one seems to care enough to create the dissention it's going to take to get back the freedoms we've lost over this government's response to "terrorists".  In that vein, are the Democrats asleep in congress? It's obvious there is some kind of concerted effort here to change the constitution.  Bush is redefining his job description without regard for it.\n\n  When ANY city ends putting out news like New Orleans did in this mornings' newspaper-all American cities should take note.  When anyone is held against their will and denied representative council it happens to each one of us.  Corporations cooperating with and giving the government whatever they want and sneaking them privileged information about individuals is a giant red flag. \n\nThousands of our country's young men have sacrificed their lives in several wars so that we could keep the rights that are being taken away from us by this present administration...and that would be an abomination if we let it happen.
463955
Governments reprsent a congregation of power. Power attracts money. Whenever too much power and money gets concentrated in one place, bad things are bound to happen.\n\nOur founders were looking to prevent that by explicitly enumerating the powers of the federal government. All other powers not mentioned in the Constitution and the ammendments that followed were to be in th hands of the states and the people.\n\nWe've been folling away from that doctrine for some time, moreso over the last 6 years. In the current age of executive signing statements, domestic survellince, warrantless arrests and detentions, etc. one would be hard pressed to trust the government.\n\nThe founders of this country didn't trust their own government they created. Why should we trust ours?\n\n~X~
497744
With the government set up to be three separate but equal entity's you would think if there wasn't a law there should be. Constitution has gone the way of the do do bird since Bush has taken office. With his signing statements putting him above all laws passed by congress and his illegal and immoral Patriot act and Military act he has set himself up as king. Thank god democracy is still alive and we have elections, or is this the next to go?
2000
An amendment, duly approved by congress and ratified by the various states, by definition, cannot be unconstitutional. That is the whole point of amendments.\n\nEdit: I just wanted to point out that an amendment does not have to specifically repeal provisions in the original document. Only one amendment ever has, when prohibition was repealed, but every amendment has changed something in the original.
567343
Whether you believe we need it or not, the Preamble and the Bill of Rights, which the Founding Fathers found so important they called them the Rights Which We Hold True. The Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments) are not to be changed, and can not be changed, by law. If we were to give in, change them because we no longer think it is valid, how soon until the right to free speech, the press, freedom from quartering, search and seizure, the right vote, all become obsolete in someone's opinion, and removed.\n\nNo, need it or not, it must stand, because it is part of what we stand for, as a nation, from day one.
173715
Much of the problems we have today are Constitutional in nature, and not simply partisan.  Don't get me wrong, I think the U.S. constitution is an incredible piece of literary "law", but it is almost looked upon with religious reverence, and it's almost impossible to change.\n\nHowever, to address your question:\n\nThe Independent Party.\n\nPlatform Slogan:  Changing America Today for a Better Tomorrow\n\nPlatform Policies: \n1. Strict Term Limits for Congress AND Judges. (Anytime you give someone power for too long, they become more worried about keeping that power than taking care of the people.)\n\n2. Substantialy reduce the size of government.  We don't need an Administration on Aging, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, American Battle Monuments Commission, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Commision on International Religious Freedom, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, Department of Education, Federal Housing Oversight....etc...etc...\n(If you go to firstgov.com, you will see hundreds of duplicate agencies...it's disturbing, there are just WAY too many.)\n\n3. Take half the money saved by getting rid of these agencies and significantly reduce the amount of tax.  In addition, take the other half of this money and aggresively fund scientific research. (Global Warming, Stem Cell Research, Cancer Research, AIDS Research, Food Production, Alternative Energy...and Space Travel [just because I like it])\n\n4. Kick out the U.N. - These guys just don't have a clue.\n\n5. Completely change our immigration policies.  There are just too many rules, and they don't apply to everyone evenly.\n\n6. Flat Tax!!\n\n7. Change the "welfare" system.  This has to be one of the most abused government sponsored programs there is.\n\n8. Every Friday is Pizza Friday!!  (okay, maybe not, but it would be cool)\n\nI know I'm not answering your question with complete seriousness, but Libertarians just haven't been able to gain traction, and without that you can't initiate change.\nI agree with your premise whole heartedly though, America is in need of drastic change, our partisan politics will destroy this country.\n\nAs a side note, you know more about our country than most "Americans" do, maybe that's part of the problem too.
252912
Why?  Quite simply because the constitution was written that way.  One other attribute of the constitution was that changing it is very hard to do.  Changing the constitution to require term limits for US Senators or House Members would require them to support it; and that isn't going to happen now or probably ever.
546941
We've been told that it's to protect us in case the government tries to get a little too tyrannical. I guess the Bill of Rights also protects us from ourselves and some extremely intolerant and conservative people out there. The original writers of the Constitution didn't care for a Bill of Rights, but they had to add it to please some states so the states would join the union.
22320
It was formed to protect the citizenry.  The Constitution is a social compact that limits what the government can do, so as to protect our rights