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.
It's not outdated. However, it is ineffective at best.
There's nothing outdated about the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rso092
Either the constitution has allowed what the federal government has become in this country, or it has been powerless to stop it.
You elect the federal government. If there are problems, you and you alone are to blame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands
The Constitution is inherently flawed and no one wanted it.
There are no inherent flaws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands
Amendments are effectively impossible in 2018. More evidence that the constitution is outdated.
And your proof of that is what? You have no proof to support that claim. The fact that no one has proposed any reasonable amendments isn't proof, either.
There are four ways to amend the Constitution: An amendment may originate in either the House or Senate, and if approved by 2/3rds vote of both House and Senate, it requires 3/4ths or the State legislatures to approve it; either the House or Senate introduces an amendment, with 2/3rds approval, and 3/4ths of the States approve it using conventions instead of the State legislatures; 2/3rds of State legislatures call for a constitutional convention, and 3/4ths of State legislatures approve the amendment; or finally, 2/3rds of State legislatures call for a constitutional convention, and 3/4ths of State conventions ratify the amendment.
Constitutional conventions need not be broad in scope. A constitutional convention can be limited to a sole issue, like campaign finance reform.
AMENDMENT XXVIII
Section 1
No person shall contribute money, or goods or services in kind, or tangible property to the campaign or a candidate for political office, or to a ballot issue or ballot measure who shall not be legally eligible to vote for the candidate for political office or to vote for the ballot issue or ballot measure.
Section 2
Any person who knowingly or willfully commits a violation of this Amendment shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years and fined not less than 300 percent of the amount involved in the violation.
Section 3
The Congress, the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
That's all you need to restore some sanity to the election process.
It bars publicly-traded corporations, private companies, unions, think-tanks, policy groups and political action committees from contributing monies to candidates or ballot issues.
It bars wealthy donors who don't live in your State from contributing money for ballot issues and for any elected office in your State.
It limits campaign contributions solely to those persons that live within a congressional district.
It bars people who don't live in a city from contributing monies to mayorial races and council seats, and for those cities that have defined districts for city council members, only those living in the district can contribute monies.
That would greatly expand the number of new entrants into politics, since the playing field has now been leveled, and those who couldn't run because they lack the $Millions necessary to campaign for offices like federal representative, mayor and city council.
Potentially, you end up with much better government, and people who are no longer beholden to special interests and the wealthy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer
I've long said that the biggest problem with the Constitution was its lack of explicit penalties for violating it.
Penalties are determined by Congress. If you don't like the penalties, then elect better representatives to Congress.
Is this the newest talking point by Dems? Now another op-ed about changing the constitution. Trump tweets and says some dumb stuff, but he is not nearly as much of a threat to our country as this new line of thinking.
People who claim the Constitution is "outdated", usually haven't even read it.
It 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).
Which part of that is "outdated"?
I've long said that the only flaw in the Constitution, is that it doesn't specify any penalties for violating it.
Yes, it's a document that almost no one takes seriously or believes in. We believe in the American dollar, which is why Trump may ultimately scrap that thing and be able to successfully do so.
I say if the choice is between dollars or the constitution, the dollar wins. We may soon find out.
No, Trump cannot do that. Congress needs to find some cojones and be a check on the executive branch. They don’t do it against the current president because he’s from their party, but they didn’t do it for the last president either really. I think they’re a bunch of weak, selfish people who only care about the next election, so they’re too afraid to do anything controversial. They saw what happened to the Dems after passing Obamacare.
As a brilliant person posted earlier in the thread, a huge problem is the two party system and nationalization of party money in politics.
But if Trump did actual authoritarian stuff and went against the constitution, there would be a check on him. His party is not the type to go for dictators. Too many libertarians and military and small government types for that to fly.
People who claim the Constitution is "outdated", usually haven't even read it.
It 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).
Which part of that is "outdated"?
I've long said that the only flaw in the Constitution, is that it doesn't specify any penalties for violating it.
What president, congresscreep or guv employee has ever admitted to violating the constitution? And yet a good 80% of what they do is a violation of it.
Words on paper have proven ineffective at stopping criminals from committing crimes.
People who claim the Constitution is "outdated", usually haven't even read it.
It 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).
Which part of that is "outdated"?
I've long said that the only flaw in the Constitution, is that it doesn't specify any penalties for violating it.
According to the original New York Times piece, the constitution is outdated because it prevents the majority from deciding elections. Now that they feel they have the numbers, but those numbers tend to be concentrated in fewer states, they want to do away with the provisions that protect the minority from the majority. They also pretty expressly mentioned how difficult it is to get laws for redistribution of wealth, so those two authors are probably socialists.
The penalty for violating it doesn’t matter as long as violation itself can be blocked. I can get arrested for speech, but can get the charges dropped under the 1st amendment. I cannot turn around and penalize the cops who arrested me for my speech, and that’s okay. It still worked as intended.
I can’t believe people feel this way, but I know that this opinion is shared among many up to and including Ruth Bader Ginsburg. At least she encouraged Egypt to not model their new constitution on ours, but to model it on South Africa’s.
Last I looked, this country outpaces all other countries in GDP and overall quality of life. And our constitution is the reason we can’t have dictators. That’s a good thing, right?
The whole "outdated" argument is usually only applied by detractors of the 2A. In our oh so modern and "enlightened" society there is no need for citizens to be armed. But the Patriot Act pretty much did away with the 4th and 5th and the 10th has been long since scrapped. And still folks howl for more infringement on our rights.
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.
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.
But the Patriot Act pretty much did away with the 4th and 5th and the 10th has been long since scrapped. And still folks howl for more infringement on our rights. 
