Do you think the consitution should be re-written?
338047
The constitution of the United states is probably one of the most perfect documents written.  When it does not meet the needs of the people, it has a means to ammend it.  That is what makes it even more perfect.\n\nFor the Liberal's who do not like it's restrictions, get over it...  I have my weapons and I will keep them, thanks\n\nAs far as you thinking about Blacks not having rights then, you are right, but at that time in life, it was normal to have slaves.   Right or wrong, it was the way.   They came by later and corrected the mistake with an ammendment.  \n\nIf it was so imperfect, why is it copied all over the world?  Why have there been so few ammendments made??\n\nLess then 100 ammendments to any social fabric for as long as we have existed is amazing.  and we arent even 1/2 to 100 ....
1179727
Most countries already have a seperation written right into thier constitution...but there have been times I wish the church had more pull.\n\n+D
104433
Yeah--Ahhhnold has done such a great job with California that we should let him run the whole place, right?\n\nI think it's worth discussing, but you're talking about a constitutional change.  That requires not just both houses of Congress going along, but 37 state legislatures signing off on it too.  I don't think that will EVER happen.
38124
No. Reinstituting the Draft would be the fastest way for the leading political party (in this case Republicans) to lose the Hill, and the White House for years to come.  Next, the American people would be outraged, especially if the government's justification for it is to augment a war in which 'victory' was allegedly already obtained.  It would be disruptive to the economy (I can just imaginge Consumer Confidence after that announcement...) and the military has been publically saying for so long that it is not needed, that for them to renig now would collapse all faith and confidence the people have in the establishment.
75404
Not that it matters because he can't ever run again but NO.  Frankly, I don't think we should stick with one guy or one party for too long.  It's a bad idea.  If we change things up, we make sure that in the long run, every thing balances out and we don't become a country ruled by only one ideology.  No one has time to grab enough control to make everyone else miserable for the rest of eternity! :)
1099151
It depends on what you mean by "actually."\n\nIn a pragmatic sense, whatever the U.S. Supreme Court says is constitutional is "actually" constitutional.\n\nPerhaps you mean, "Should it be constitutional?"  Well, obviously there are arguments on both sides -- and they were raised in Marbury v. Madison -- but I would have to agree with the Supreme Court:  What would REALLY throw off the balance of powers is if there were no checks and balances to prevent Congress from passing unconstitutional laws.\n\nFinally, perhaps you mean, "Was this what the Framers intended?"  Again, this was argued in Marbury v. Madison.  Probably the answer would be that some did, and some didn't.  However, what is the point of writing a constitution that limits the powers of Congress if there's no way to enforce the limitations?
305614
no, keeping the laws that are already there and IN FORCING them is the answer.... we have laws that has to be obeyed and learned... we also have a language that should be the national language of America !!! English.......
9079
Yes, it is.  The Constitution gives the states the right to draw up there congressional districts.  The Democrats have used this tactic along with the Republicans
886814
The Constitution that we have now is just as perfectly sound today as it was back then.  Leave it alone and start holding our government responsible for their actions as well as their responsibilities like the document stipulates.
134356
Because the Constitution is obsolete, it was written over 200 years ago. Other anachronisms include the Electoral College, etc. \n\nWith politics as they are, it will NEVER be corrected.
22977
The constitution specifically says, "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."\n\nThey clearly anticipated these amendments modifying the original document. In fact, many of the amendments have revised the original. Changing the election of Senators and Representatives to popular election, changing the way the number of representatives was calculated, changing the day Congress convenes, and allowing income tax are just a few of the major revisions to the original that have come about by the amendments.
984235
You better believe it.  The framers were very wise to include these contingencies in the Constitution.\n\nYou get your chance on Tuesday :-)
446204
In a ideal situation we should remove the laws that restrict posession by law abiding citizens.\n\nBut more importantly...\n\nENFORCE the laws we already have.
520416
I'd make it so that congress had to call a jury of 12 regular americans after the president signs a bill into law.  If all 12 americans agree that any one (or more) lines in the bill is unnecessary or unjust, then that part of the bill is invalidated and the rest goes into law.\n\nThink about how many unnecessary spending projects and corporate subsidies, and little rules that hurt consumers would be purged from our laws!  It would be awesome.
166861
During the Convention there was debate as to whether there should be a single head of the executive branch.  This was early on in the convention and many members seemed reluctant to opine.  John Rutledge spoke to this procedural handicap by deploring the shyness of members on this and other subjects.  It looked, he said, as if they feared that once they had declared themselves they could not change their opinions.\n\nAt a different point in the convention Edmund Randolph’s ninth resolve was debated.  This concerned the appointment of inferior tribunals, and in particular who would appoint the federal judges for the States.  James Wilson thought the appointment would best be made by a single responsible person.  Rutledge was vehement in disagreement.  As Chancellor in South Carolina he had carried enormous weight, being nicknamed Dictator John during the revolution. By no means he said now should the Chief executive appoint the judges.  The people will think we are leaning too much towards monarchy.  Rutledge was against establishing any national tribunal except a single supreme one.\n\nAnd then at a different point and subject, the method of voting in the “national legislature” was debated. Would it be by State or maybe by contribution of taxes or some other method.  Roger Sherman wasn’t the focus of the ultimate solution but early on (1776 in the preparation of the Articles of Confederation) he proposed that the votes should be taken in two ways, one by the colonies and the other by individuals (Eventually the Senate and the House.).  This was an excitement generator in the convention.  Rutledge of South Carolina said that the vote of the lower house should be according to the “quotas of contribution” that is according to taxes paid and the tribute each State brought into the national treasury. \n\nAs a note, Rutledge was a member of Committee of Detail and contributed to the slavery compromise.  Also when an early draft of the Constitution was printed, Rutledge handed those copies out to the members of the Convention.\n\nDuring the convention debate the subject of slavery came up many times and often cause heated words.  Morris of New York once stated Must the North then send its militia to defend the South against such institution (slavery), should the need arise and slaves rebel against their masters?  Wretched Africans! The vassalage of the poor has ever been the favorite offspring of aristocracy!  Rutledge respond with saying, that religion and humanity had nothing to do with the question.  Interest alone is the governing principle of nations.  Rutledge meant to turn the discussion from the rights of human beings to the conveniences of trade and commerce and he succeeded.  Rutledge further stated The true question was whether the Southern States shall or shall not be parties to the Union.  Let the North consult its interest and it would not oppose the increase of slaves to harvest commodities of which it would become the carrier.  \n\nOn 15 September, the final work day of the convention, Delegate Daniel Carroll of Maryland reminded the members that no address to the people had been prepared, a matter he considered of great importance, further, that the people had been accustomed to such on great occasions.  John Rutledge objected stating, on account of the delay and that it would be improper to address the people before it was known whether Congress would approve and support the Constitution.  When the time came, Congress could prepare such an address, and the members of this Convention could explain to their constituents at home the reasons of what has been done.\n\nObviously John Rutledge was a man of his State, as were nearly all of the Founders, loath to relinquish much power of the States to a general government.  I suggest that you acquire the writings of James Madison as the minutes of the convention and you will find additional indications of the mind of John Rutledge.\n\nJohn Rutledge, elder brother
797688
A. of course.\n\nNot to mention the fact that state constitutions cannot override the federal constitution and they are binding only to the state they're written in.  The best they can do is expand the rights of its citizens and protect their interests.
832069
They should extend their new political power to reflect the will of the people. \n\nAll politicians need to get off the rhetorical carousel and work for the people they are supposed to represent.\n\nYour question almost sounds like you want the same old thing. Hope I'm mis-reading.