Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How hard would change be? As Mr. Ackerman reminds us, while constitutional change is straightforward and feasible in most countries, “an amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the consent of no less than thirty-nine different legislatures comprising roughly seventy-eight separately elected chambers.”
It's such a bummer that in a constitutional republic you would need consent of a 3/4 majority of the states. NOT.
to answer the OP: yes it is old, not it isnt outdated though.
I’m the OP and never really made that assertion. I posted an op-ed from the New York Times of people who made that assertion. At the time I thought it was a one-off opinion, but I read another op-ed today from USA Today basically saying we need to amend the constitution and do away with the presidency. And Michael Moore called Trump our last president. So apparently this is the next line they’re going to follow in their never ending crusade to get rid of a duly elected president. All because they didn’t vote on Election Day because they were too lazy or mad at the system, and didn’t feel their vote would matter since they were told Clinton had a 98% chance of winning.
Watch. This is the next thing like abolish ICE. It starts with one opinion and then morphs into a movement. And it’s killing their chances of actually winning elections.
That's an opinion. I don't share it and I think many don't share it. Amendments aren't effectively impossible, they're just extremely difficult to pass. That's kind of the point.
The Constitution was meant to be difficult to change, and require a supermajority of Congress AND the state governments, or just the state governments (Constitutional Convention), to agree in order to change it. This prevents the social_flavor_of_the_day favored by either side from being implemented by simple, small majority.
The term United STATES has meaning. States get a say, including small ones.
The problem is those amendments that we actually NEED are not going to ever get passed. We are never going to see Congress pass a dang bill asking for an amendment to cause Congressional and Presidential pay to freeze as it does for the military during a government shutdown. It would need to be pushed for by 34 states because let's face it, Congress wouldn't pass this to prevent government shutdowns.
The Constitution says we'll have a national government with a President, Vice President, a House of Reps responsible to the People, and a Senate responsible to the State Governments. It gives them certain powers, and reserves all else to the States and the people (i.e. forbids the Federal govt from exercising any more powers).
Part of the founders' genius was to include an amendment process, because they realized that things change over time and a governing document has to be flexible to remain viable.
We should get rid of the right to bear arms. The founding fathers could not have imagined we'd be where we are today in terms of weapons. Getting rid of that right would force people to think about their actions. It's easy to be tough when you have a gun to protect you. Let's see how tough you are in conflict without it.
Other than that...I find it stands the test of time. Surprisingly. But that could be because a lot of it is founded on Biblical principles. But like any contract...it's no good if it isn't enforced.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.