Should the US Constitution be rewritten often?

[Anonymous]

Some of the founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson, thought that any constitution should expire after 19 years to avoid generational tyranny. I agree; the Constitution was written by people who had never even seen a car, let alone a modern gun or online/televised media. These people also had vastly different values than we have (only white men could vote at the time, for example). Should the US Constitution be rewritten every 20 years or so, so that:

- We are governed by people who are actually alive right now
- The constitution isn't such a mess (many redundant amendments - the 18th, then the 21st repealing the 18th, things like that)
- The constitution is relevant to the values and challenges of modern day

Or should we stick with the exact same constitution?

[MikeInHawaii]

It is Amendable. Here are some Amendments I’d like to see:

Term limits for Senators and Congressmen. That was first proposed in 1789!

Term limits for the Supreme Court justices or a minimum age of 55 and a maximum of 80. The idea of lifetime appointments was long before people routinely lived to be over 90.

Mandate a balanced budget except in time of war.

Require all bills before Congress state the tax that will pay for them and cite the clause in the Constitution that authorizes them to exist.

Forbid spouses, children and siblings of presidents from ever holding the office. A dynasty is just as bad as a lifetime president.

[Asker]

Great ideas

[MikeInHawaii]

I forgot, allow a line item veto.

[crossdressingrihno]

If I'm being honest so much of our country is super stupid. The idea of our country actually being run by our people is horrifying. People talk about Trump being the worst president we ever had and stuff like that but what they don't understand is that if they got their way we would have nuclear armageddon.

Americans talk about wanting to help other countries yet they never actually take other countries into consideration when it matters. For example such a large group of people think it would be wise to go aid Ukraine. They act like the cold war and Cuban missile crisis never happened.

These are also the same people who think that making a law that guns should be illegal will actually stop criminals from attaining guns despite the fact I doubt criminals care much about the law.

[JohannaSm]

I'm with TJ on this one. The dead shouldn't rule the living. Plus our freedoms should be rethought to include things like online privacy and things the writers of the Constitution couldn't have known would be issues. I agree as well that the first amendment would be more complex and detailed now with the internet and communication technology.

[StevieNix]

"let alone a modern gun"

What does that even mean?

[Asker]

Amendments such as the first and second were made while the founding fathers were alive, which means a high tech gun was a musket. Obviously the second amendment doesn't allow civilians to own tanks, fighter jets, or any of the types of guns that are available now. But nowadays, I think we could word this much better rather than rely on the supreme court to determine what was really meant by the right to bear arms.

[TwoToTooTutu2]

No never. Anyone who says this doesn't understand Liberal Philosophy. The constitution isn't a document of laws written by dead people. It is a list of Universal Human rights that all humans from every point in time should always have afforded to them by their government. Rights aren't granted by a government. The only amendments made should be changes to what people believe the Universal right of man is.

[Asker]

Thanks for the thoughtful answer, great point

[AviatorTom]

That's why there are Amendments to the Constitution. You don't need to rewrite the whole thing (considered by many to be the best legal document ever written) just tweak it every once in awhile, as needed.

[Asker]

True, it is great. The amendments are a great system, although the age of some of them certainly gives the supreme court a lot of leeway in deciding what was meant by them (I'm particularly talking about freedom of speech, religious freedom, and the right to bear arms). But I guess someone has to make that call regardless

[WindAtMyBack]

It doesn't need to be rewritten. Being able to make changes is built in. What it needs is to be adhered to, which it's not.

Personally I wish they didn't do the Constitution and stuck with the Articles. But the original Constitution wasn't too bad. The problem is that we've moved dramatically away from it.

[BeMuse]

The constitution is a compact between the states. It's legally binding. If you don't stick to the compact, you are in breach of contract and then the country ends and all states are self governing entities separate from one another. If you want to make a new constitution, you'd have to have the states ratify it again which is no easy task. Once you break the contract, don't expect anyone to trust you ever again.

[BeMuse]

If you don't believe in stick to the terms of the constitution, you believe in Balkanization and a return to wars among states for dominance. Who do you think will win that war? The South with all the soldiers and natural resources or you shitty soy boy commie enclave?

[BeMuse]

*sticking

[Asker]

Your original response was a good point I hadn't thought of. But why the rudeness in your response? And do you even know where I live?

[BeMuse]

It doesn't matter where you're from... You obviously don't believe in keeping contracts and think you can just throw them away and start over. Contracts must be fulfilled. They can be amended if all parties agree and sign off. That's why there is an amendment process to address future obstacles. Trying to destroy the constitution is an attempt to destroy the country and trigger a civil war.

[RolandCuthbert]

What the fuck? The document forms the foundation of our society. We may want to make the amendment process less complicated, but to rewrite it? Jefferson is only one the contributors to the Constitution. In the end, they decided upon the Amendment process and while I agree the Constitution should not be un-changing. . . there are certain principles enshrined that must remain intact.

[Asker]

I agree certain things should remain unchanged. But why not rewrite it for modern times? For example, the first amendment should obviously be kept, but maybe it should be expanded so that free speech extends into online spaces. Much of the document could use an update, and I also don't see why the things that were written by people who died 200 years ago should be the things to govern us today (although I generally agree with the overall ideas). Why not write it with the people who are alive today?

[NathanDavis]

nope...

this is why you have other bodies of law and not just the Constitution...

like federal and state statutes, regulations and other stuff... I am not a lawyer, but I am sure they would be able to give you a fuller list

[Asker]

Why shouldn't the constitution be changed though? I agree that there are other law bodies, but this doesn't address why or why not the constitution itself should remain static

[NathanDavis]

the constitution is not static... like other users said already, it is the FOUNDATION, it exists in principle... and then we built a nation around it

and the example you mentioned it is a bad one... ¨online free speech¨ is such a trivial and stupid take... if you want to rule over Twitter drama you have regulations in place

[Asker]

No need to get rude with me, I'm just asking a genuine question! And my question then, is why is our foundation based on what a bunch of people thought about 250 years ago? It seems like we're perfectly capable of making our own legal foundation based on what matters to the people who are actually alive right now

[Asker]

And this isn't just me making that up. Founding fathers such as Thomas Jefferson wanted it to be written (although I'm sure other founding fathers wanted it not to be rewritten). So it' s a legitimate question

[NathanDavis]

because that's what a principle is supposed to be...

for all things modern, AGAIN... you have at least three other bodies of law

[driven159]

the heart of the constitution is good would you really want the modern-day government messing with don't you think they have screwed things up enough what would happen if they rewrote a new Constitution with all the logiest would-be putting money into the pockets of the politicians and we would lose what power that we still have, and they could not agree to anything anyway it would take 20 years for them to pass one

[Anonymous]

Considering that most of you dont even understand the existing consitution I think you should leave it the fuck alone.

[Asker]

I don't quite understand your point - are you saying that it wouldn't matter, because people wouldn't understand it even if it were rewritten?

[NathanDavis]

no better argument than this one, really... lol

[Opinion Owner]

No I am saying that you were fortunate enough to be gifted an extremely well thought out constitution which you should be rightly proud of but you dont understand any of it, dont live by it and as a result you and everyone else in the world is now fucking doomed.

But the advise applies to literally anything, if you dont understand how something works, do not presume to 'improve it' or otherwise fuck with it.

Things are frequently the way they are for very good reasons and most of the time things which may appear at face value to be undesireable are actually necessary evils or the lesser of two or more evils.

[Asker]

I would say I do understand it, I think you're assuming a lot about me. I do think it's a testament to the constitution that it's held up this long, but I thought this question was pretty fair, because the document was written a quarter of a millennium ago, and it's worth considering - are we forever going to have the supreme court determining what the original constitution intention was with regards to X issue? Or do we want to eventually have a new one? Your answer is clear, but I think you're dismissing the question as being stupid, which isn't necessary

[Opinion Owner]

Im not assuming anything at all about you, it makes no difference what you know or dont know.

It is patently obvious that a sufficiently large amount of Americans dont understand it to say that the general public are completely incapable of safe guarding the constitution and ensuring any changes were good changes and considering that any changes made would be being written by the mafia which controls your nation, these changes you speak of are unlikely to be positive, freedom protecting changes either.

There is a very simple reason why the constitution has held up so well and that is that the situation doesn't fucking change, it doesn't matter how much time goes past it will always be relevant.

So case in point, the supreme court read a fucking document which clearly states that 'the right to bear arms will not be infringed' and then interpreted those words as 'the right to bear arms will be infringed by the fascists who control the biggest standing army the world has ever seen in a nation which isn't supposed to have a fucking standing army'.

So if even the supreme court cannot be trusted to get even the most basic and obvious thing right, what hope is there that people whos power is restricted by this document are going to preserve it if given free reign to do so?

But please, enlighten me on how you think the document should be changed or updated, there certainly are things which could be added in the spirit of the original idea so lets see if you really do know what you think you know.

[Guy13]

More uninformed, Public Schooled educated, Google fed, and Media idriven Idiocy…

[Asker]

That's pretty rude and uncalled for. Did you read my question? This is something some of the founding fathers thought

[crmoore]

I don't know about "often" but it most definitely does need updates or reform to some extent.

[Cubus]

Look at it from another side: because Us constitution is so much generic, it lasted till today. Not like other countries.

[exitseven]

The Constitution can be amended. This was the intention of it's authors.

[KrakenAttackin]

Do you have ANY idea what it would take to rewrite the Constitution? This would require a Constitutional Convention.

[888theGreat]

it is called amendments and teachers and schools want more money. They are not educating kids now.

[Anonymous]

Our Founding Fathers were granted the wisdom from God to establish the best possible Constitutional Republic possible. LEAVE IT ALONE

[RobEurope]

Should be rewritten to be more lit bruh. No gunz n debt n shieet. We finna go to uni fo free.

[OddBeMe]

No. But we shouldn't be afraid of amending.

[anylolone]

The founding fathers seemed to have thought so.

[jimmy2]

No it's fine as it is

[Jamie05rhs]

Hell no!

[fireforeffect]

HELL NO.