So, the US Constitution...

[Peregrinator]

I want to hear from people who have spent time studying it. Is it perfect? What would you change, if you could revise it? What issues did the crafters not foresee, or just get wrong, in your opinion? Where does it leave gaps that need to be addressed? Or, do you think it is in face perfect, a glorious document that lays down the foundation for a country that can't be improved upon, all the problems coming later, with people perverting it?

 

[SheRemembers]

Ouch. That's entirely too deep to ponder without caffeine on board...

 

[DV81]

great thread idea.
Personally, I think the forefathers could not have predicted the way America would change and the new problems we would face, therefore their ideas seem vague.
Here is a link with great info-
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_q_and_a.html

 

[Peregrinator]

Ouch. That's entirely too deep to ponder without caffeine on board...

So go get some coffee...

Or go post about the swifts. Sophie wanted to know what they sounded like. I couldn't remember any particular noise.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Peregrinator]

great thread idea.
Personally, I think the forefathers could not have predicted the way America would change and the new problems we would face, therefore their ideas seem vague.
Here is a link with great info-
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_q_and_a.html

Do you have specific problems in mind? I can't see how such a document could be anything other than vague at times and specific at others.

 

[Peregrinator]

The Constitution is fine, it's all of the activist inventions and penumbras discovered by the judiciary that threaten it's existence.

But is it perfect? I find it difficult to believe that any such document can be perfect.

 

[ma_guy]

I think the basic document and the Bill of Rights are about right. If I were starting all over again I'd probbaly throw in some additional clarification of things like the Commerce clause and the 2nd Amendment (issues that have been debated for decades...) but that's about it.

Most of the complaining people do about major legal issues have more to do with the ever evolving view of how the Federal, State and local governments should interact with each other.

 

[Cleopatra]

I want to hear from people who have spent time studying it. Is it perfect? What would you change, if you could revise it? What issues did the crafters not foresee, or just get wrong, in your opinion? Where does it leave gaps that need to be addressed? Or, do you think it is in face perfect, a glorious document that lays down the foundation for a country that can't be improved upon, all the problems coming later, with people perverting it?

This is one of those things that I've always wanted to study, but life kept getting in the way.

Perhaps I should make time for more things I really want to do.

 

[DV81]

Do you have specific problems in mind? I can't see how such a document could be anything other than vague at times and specific at others.

the crime rate which has increased due to population increase and conflicts with nations who possess nuclear weaponry. The forefathers wanted everyone to own a firearm but theres obvious danger in that. Also, as far as terrorism is concerned, they only had to worry about the British, not Iranians or N. Koreans.
Times change, rules change.

 

[The Mutt]

The Constitution is fine, it's all of the activist inventions and penumbras discovered by the judiciary that threaten it's existence.

Big fan of the Women not Voting and Negroes are 3/5ths Human parts, are you?

Damn those activist judges!

 

[unregistered]

 

[Peregrinator]

I think the basic document and the Bill of Rights are about right. If I were starting all over again I'd probbaly throw in some additional clarification of things like the Commerce clause and the 2nd Amendment (issues that have been debated for decades...) but that's about it.

Most of the complaining people do about major legal issues have more to do with the ever evolving view of how the Federal, State and local governments should interact with each other.

Thanks for the answer. Could the original doc have addressed the interstate issues? Been more specific maybe?

 

[unregistered]

 

[Cleopatra]

Times change, rules change.

That's the thing. No one can look into the future and see exactly how things are going to change, so how can you write a blanket document to cover it all?

Personally, I would have a section about a review board every 5 years or so that would keep it "current".

But who to review it?

don't mind me. I'm just thinking aloud.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Peregrinator]

the crime rate which has increased due to population increase and conflicts with nations who possess nuclear weaponry. The forefathers wanted everyone to own a firearm but theres obvious danger in that. Also, as far as terrorism is concerned, they only had to worry about the British, not Iranians or N. Koreans.
Times change, rules change.

They surely couldn't have foreseen nukes, but would that change the doc somehow if they could? They had to be aware of the arc of evolution in weaponry and tactics, having just been through a lot of warfare. Can something like the founding doc of a country sensibly address a particular weapon?

And does it matter that the terrorists/enemies are from somewhere different than where they were from when the doc was written?

 

[DV81]

That's the thing. No one can look into the future and see exactly how things are going to change, so how can you write a blanket document to cover it all?

I agree. That is why we have amendments. The writers knew that they didn't have the answers to every problem and that new conflicts would arise which they never had experience with.

 

[Peregrinator]

I doubt it's perfect, or that any group of people can even agree on perfection. It's the best that has ever come down the pipe, to the extent that it isn't, there is an amendment process. Amendment by the judiciary is certain death. In short a "Living" Constitution will, like all other living things, die.

I agree that it's the best so far, in my very limited exposure.

Would it be better if it were static and therefore immortal?

 

[Peregrinator]

I doubt it's perfect, or that any group of people can even agree on perfection. It's the best that has ever come down the pipe, to the extent that it isn't, there is an amendment process. Amendment by the judiciary is certain death. In short a "Living" Constitution will, like all other living things, die.

I agree that it's the best so far, in my very limited exposure.

Would it be better if it were static and therefore immortal?


Cleo, right there with you...hence the thread.

 

[Peregrinator]

That's the thing. No one can look into the future and see exactly how things are going to change, so how can you write a blanket document to cover it all?

Personally, I would have a section about a review board every 5 years or so that would keep it "current".

But who to review it?

don't mind me. I'm just thinking aloud.

Interesting idea...can you imagine the political battles over who would get to be on the review board? Very "Supreme Court Nominee..." and if you think about it, that is one of the functions of the court, in a sense.

 

[DV81]

Can something like the founding doc of a country sensibly address a particular weapon?

And does it matter that the terrorists/enemies are from somewhere different than where they were from when the doc was written?

can it address a particluar weapon? Probably not.
Does it matter where enemies are from? Yes, if they never had to deal with them, they would not know what weapon the enemy prefers, therefore not building sufficient defense.

 

[Cleopatra]

Interesting idea...can you imagine the political battles over who would get to be on the review board? Very "Supreme Court Nominee..." and if you think about it, that is one of the functions of the court, in a sense.

You would definitely need politicos, but how to balance it would be the key. Ideally, they'd all be independants. -laughs-

 

[busybody..]

where in that august document is even ONE WORD

that can possibly suggest to anyone that the rights contained in it

apply to anyone OUTSIDE the US???????????????????????????????????/

 

[Peregrinator]

can it address a particluar weapon? Probably not.
Does it matter where enemies are from? Yes, if they never had to deal with them, they would not know what weapon the enemy prefers, therefore not building sufficient defense.

But is it the place of a doc like the constitution to do more than say, "The Executive Branch shall implement policies to keep the people safe?"