I know we can make amendments to the constitution; should the language and point of view be made for today's world.
126562
It is already getting an upgrade.  By the time the Bush appointees on SCOTUS get done with it, we won't even recognize it.\n\nIn any case, there is nothing wrong with the Constitution, it designs a very workable and very democratic government.  And it protects the rights of the people by explicitly forbidding the goverment from abridging them.\n\nFunny you should mention language.  Politicians and judges go into contortions twisting the English language in order to bend the plain meaning of the plain language of the Constitution in order to get around the Constitution.\n\nFor example, Bush says that warrantless searches and seizures, which are explicitly forbidden in the Constitution, are his perogative because of Article III.  This article says nothing about that at all.  It does say that the President is the Commander in Chief of the army.\nSo he is saying that because he is commander in chief he can ignore the Constitution any time he wants.\n\nI don't care if you are a Bush supporter and a conservative - you are not doing conservatives any favors by letting them get away with brushing aside the Constitution with language hocus pocus and the sayso of some dude in the White House.\n\nThe oath of office of every official and of every member of every branch of the military is a pledge to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.  Because it is the Constitution that makes America, that makes America work, and that makes America the best governed nation in the world.\n\nLet's just leave it alone, ok?
197989
Nothing is perfect...\n\nThe Constitutional Amendments as they stand are excellent, unfortunately, we do not have these rights like the Constitution says. \n\nWith all the pandering to left-wing activist judges and the 9th "Circus" Court of Appeals, they are slowly taking away our rights and moving toward Socialism. \n\nIf the Constitution was interpreted by the Courts instead of judges legislating from the bench, we would see that our Constitution truly is the greatest living document in the world.\n\nWhy else would we have everyone in the world trying to get into our country?
594996
Please read the first few articles of the US Constitution, or look at a junior high school level civics book.  The system of checks and balances is in place and the press has taken on the duty of watchdog.  Take a look at any of the news networks or on the web.  The constitution is too important to amend it too often!
316918
yes and no I believe anyone can come here if they do it right,I also believe that there needs to be some kind of classes or something for them so they can better understand the law.this way they can learn the right way.No i dont agree with Pres. Bush he aint no man of GOD to say the things that he said.What differance should it make if they did it the right way.
528810
The bill of rights is the first 10 ammendmants to the constitution.
551644
Oh of course it does, and what they thought was very flawed by our standards today. Man kind changes through time, we should not be stifled by some archaic text.
456596
In today's society, we as citizens must........
95327
You absolutely have that right. It is protected by the bill of rights -- right of assembly and free speech.
545282
I agree about our Constitution. This nation was the first nation in the modern world where it was openly acknowledged that no one possesses perfect foresight, so our body of laws had to be flexible enough to accommodate future Americans and their future issues, but solid enough and based upon firm enough principles that they would not be changed on a whim. The principles upon which our system was founded were (and are) so cutting edge that they have become a model for many countries where liberty and equality are at issue. Under the ideals upon which this country was founded, it is easy to see why we are held up as the model against which other countries measure themselves. However, the ideal and the reality sometimes are just far enough apart to reflect duplicity to those looking for c hinks in our collective armor. Suffice it to say that ours is the most effective system operating for most intents and purposes, inconsistencies notwithstanding.
520881
Now that the Dems have the house, they'll ENFORCE the constitution. I am happy.
80389
I think they should go by our Constitution and not by theirs
24511
Only if the government acts according to their constitution.
188350
yes they should do both we should have a choice depending on whether you have got the answer you need!
545279
It is our constitutional right to do so.\n\nThe last time that this was tried it brought about the Civil War.  Is this really what you want?
81183
Yes we can.  \nHence forth and thesp thine words of hitherdom, my leige.
660333
Absolutely not.  My favorite, if not the best, example would be the thousands of gun control laws on the books.  These are clearly in violation of the 2nd Amendment which states quite clearly (in easy-to-understand, one- and two-syllable English words) that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.\n\nAnother example is the way the "necessary and proper" clause has come to mean "convenient."  When the Supreme Court can re-define words in the Constitution to mean whatever they want, then what's the point of having a Constitution in the first place?\n\nThe interstate commerce clause has been stretched to absurd proportions so that Congress can now regulate anything that it wants based on the fact that somebody, somewhere might have once traded with someone in another state.\n\nDoes anyone remember the 9th and 10th Amendments, which tell us that the federal government is only allowed to do those few things which are specifically stated in the Constitution?  And yet there are volumes upon volumes of federal statutes that micromanage our lives.\n\nThe American people, through ignorance and apathy, have allowed their government to get by with this.  I know of no solution.  If the people have more faith in legal interpretations and judges' rulings than in their own ability to understand the simple words written down where all can see, then they deserve the tyrannical, authoritarian state that they are destined to get.\n\nFinally, I want to add that I once took a college course called "Constitutional Rights and Liberties."  But the curriculum was focused not around what those rights and liberties are, but on what judges have said about them.  It was a study in case law.  When people are taught that case law is more important than what the Constitution actually says, the outcome is predictable.  We come to depend on the government to interpret for us the document that is supposed to limit its scope of power.  Isn't this like signing a lease with a landlord that says the landlord gets to decide at any point on any question what the lease says?  Isn't re-defining "necessary" to mean "convenient" analogous to re-defining "$400 per month" to mean "$600 per month?"
243715
No way!\nIt's time America stood up and supported this great document.\nIf we did, there would be less government control in our lives.\n\nTry this:\nhttp://constitutionparty.com