June 20th, 2011
12:26 PM ET

Is it time to update the U.S. Constitution?

We all know how Americans revere the Constitution, so I was struck by the news that tiny, little Iceland is actually junking its own Constitution and starting anew using an unusual - some would say innovative - mechanism.

The nation decided it needed a new Constitution and it's soliciting ideas from all of Iceland's 320,000 citizens with the help of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. This social media method has worked. Ideas have been flowing in. Many have asked for guaranteed, good health care. Others want campaign finance systems that make corporate donations illegal. And some just want the country to make shark finning illegal.

There is a Constitutional Council. It incorporates some of these ideas, rejects others, but everything is done in plain sight on the web. As one member of the Constitutional Council said, the document is basically being drafted on the Internet. 

Now, why do they need a new Constitution anyway? Well, after Iceland was crippled in recent years by the economic crisis, they all wanted a fresh start. And, anyway, they felt the document was old and outdated, drafted all the way back in 1944.

You might be tempted to say that Iceland doesn't have any reasons to be proud of its political traditions in the manner that the United States does. Well, think again.

Iceland is home to the world's oldest parliament still in existence, the Althing, set up in 930 A.D. The rocky ledge on which they gathered represents the beginnings of representative government in the world. So Iceland has reasons to cherish its history, and yet it was willing to revise it.

By contrast, any talk of revising or revisiting the U.S. Constitution is, of course, seen as heresy. The United States Constitution was, as you know, drafted in a cramped room in Philadelphia in 1787 with shades drawn over the windows. It was signed by 39 people.

America at the time consisted of 13 states. Congress had 26 senators and 65 representatives. The entire population was about one percent of today's number - four million people.

America was an agricultural society, with no industry - not even cotton gins. The flush toilet had just been invented.

These were the circumstances under which this document was written.

Let me be very clear here, the U.S. Constitution is an extraordinary work - one of the greatest expressions of liberty and law in human history.

One amazing testament to it is the mere fact that it has survived as the law of the land for 222 years.

But our Constitution has been revised 27 times.  Some of these revisions have been enormous and important, such as the abolition of slavery. Then there are areas that have evolved. For example, the power of the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, is barely mentioned in the document. This grew as a fact over history.

But there are surely some issues that still need to be debated and fixed.

The electoral college, for example, is highly undemocratic, allowing for the possibility that someone could get elected as president even if he or she had a smaller share of the total national vote than his opponent.

The structure of the Senate is even more undemocratic, with Wisconsin's six million inhabitants getting the same representation in the Senate as California's 36 million people. That's not exactly one man, one vote.

And we are surely the only modern nation that could be paralyzed as we were in 2000 over an election dispute because we lack a simple national electoral system.

So we could use the ideas of social media that were actually invented in this country to suggest a set of amendments to modernize the Constitution for the 21st Century.

Such a plan is not unheard of in American history.

After all, the delegates in Philadelphia in 1787 initially meant not to create the Constitution as we now know it, but instead to revise the existing document, the Articles of Confederation. But the delegates saw a disconnect between the document that currently governed them and the needs of the nation, so their solution was to start anew.

I'm just suggesting we talk about a few revisions.

Anyway, what do you think? Should we do this? And if we were to revise the U.S. Constitution, what would be the three amendments you would put in?

Let us know in the comment thread and we'll post the best ones on the Global Public Square.

Post by:
Topics: GPS Show • Law • What in the World?

soundoff (2,350 Responses)
  1. Dan Nadeau

    Why dont we just put like 8-10 new Constitution items on the Menu at McDonalds and let American's buy them....maybe we can buy ourself out of national debt and get a happy meal toy suprise on the side....

    June 20, 2011 at 6:31 pm | Reply
  2. gregory erg

    This "proposal" is among several circulated by liberal "correspondents" in the last few days. It is a part of prep for elections where these "journalist" are tasked with flooding discussion with irrelevant issues. Anything to take the focus away from the poor performance (on a historical scale) of current administration on all issues, foreign and domestic.

    Otherwise, how do you explain that within just a couple of days Kristof of The New York Times has a bright idea to take example of military on how to run the country and this genius decides to rewrite the constitution (not amend it, mind you). In both examples they know that there will be many geniuses trying their best on the topic. I guess it is an exercise in counting idiots they can rely upon.

    All these "journalists" do is to look for combinations of words that can steer discussion away from real issues before us. Constitutional changes take time and their effect on real life are long delayed. We will have to deal with current problems under current constitution and the best we can do is not to elect people without any experience in real life. People who cling to their role as politicians and vote "present" since they have nothing else useful to offer.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:31 pm | Reply
  3. Annoyed

    Update the US Constitution? It's called AMMENDING THE CONSTITUTION.

    How about the country follow its own laws for once?

    The author, Fareed Zakaria, needs to at least read the constitution because it's obvious he doesn't know the facts. He doesn't seem to know the difference between the House and the Senate.

    Zakaria needs to read the constitution before he tries to write about it.

    On a side note: Ron Paul for 2012 – the only candidate who actually respects the law instead of villifying our country's constitution.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:31 pm | Reply
  4. El Kababa

    Preamble
    Whereas the Free Market is a fair market, which dispenses monetary justice across the land in conformity to God's unquestionable laws of Economics, We, the Assembled Conservative Leadership of America, do hereby Endorse, Sanctify, and Declare this the Real Constitution of our Nation.

    Article the First
    Because the Market gives people only what they deserve, the Wealthy therefore deserve the wealth that the Free Market has bestowed upon them. May God bless the USA and her wealthy citizens.

    Article the Second
    Because the Market gives people only what they deserve, those who are not fabulously wealthy have obviously chosen not to be fabulously wealthy due to weakness of character or limited ability.

    Article the Third
    Because the Market gives people only what they deserve, the poor deserve their poverty - but not sympathy or compassion. Let them eat cake.

    Article the Fourth
    If you choose not to be a corporate workaholic, neglectful of your family, then screw you. If you have an autistic child, then screw you. If you have a chronic disease, then screw you. If you are the child of an illegal immigrant, then screw you. If you're old and sick, then screw you. You got only what you deserved because that’s the way things work. Screw you.

    Article the Fifth
    There is no provision for changing or amending this Constitution. This Constitution was pronounced by Jesus on the Mount. It is what America's founding fathers really meant to write when they copied it from the Bible. It is what Adam Smith prophesied. If you don’t like this Constitution, then screw you.

    Bill of Rights
    1. You have the right to pursue happiness by inventing a new consumer product, founding your own corporation, running up the stock price, underpaying your employees, bribing government officials who get in your way, selling out to a much larger corporation, and thereby becoming fabulously wealthy. God bless you.

    2. You have the right to become vastly wealthier if you are already fabulously wealthy. No law can deny you this right and no person or government can stand in your way. Any way you can get money is a legal way to get money. God bless you.

    3. You have the right to search for another employer if you don’t like your job.

    4. You have the right to purchase a different product in the future if you don’t like the one you just bought.

    5. If you're not happy with these rights, then screw you. You have no other rights.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:32 pm | Reply
    • rhyemskeema

      how officiously retardud

      June 20, 2011 at 6:41 pm | Reply
  5. Kevin Alexander

    I am not opposed to revising the Constitution. The document was created and immediately revised with the Bill of Rights to ensure passage. So it's part of our democratic process to amend it. But I'm hesitant concerning one major issue in this article. To the issue of only two Senators from each state... Well, when we were formed we wanted to ensure that there was equal representation. So in the House of Representatives it's based on population. But the Senate was constructed as a way to ensure that states with a lesser amount of population were heard. Each state has an equal voice. We are a democratic republic. We must allow members of each state to have an equal voice. If not, then all one must do is target high centers of population to get anything passed. That leaves those in the Midwest or other smaller centers of population virtually voiceless. So revising the Constitution... I have no problems with that. But revising it to a degree that significantly alters the guiding principles of our nation... I have some reservations.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:32 pm | Reply
  6. Steve

    To show how out of touch Mr. Zakaria is with the good ol US of A.

    1. Most americans would not be so arrogant to assume another country (Iceland) lacks pride in its own constitution or democratic traditions.

    2. We do revere the US constitution. That includes the provisions therein that allow us to amend it. If the US Supreme Court does not rule the individual mandate to purchase health insurance unconstitutional, or the it isn't repealed by vote, you can be certain there will be an attempt to amend the US constitution.

    3. His ignorance is shown by declaring the electoral college "highly undemocratic". Mr. Zakaria forgets that the form of government in the US is a Republic. It is a "representative democracy" not a pure democracy.

    4. Our bicameral system (Senate and Congress) was designed, in part, to prevent the tyranny of the majority that could occur with a representative system based purely on population.

    5. There are practical issues that make a national vote for president problematic. A. If 2000 was such a disaster in one state (Florida), can you imagine a nation wide recount for a close presidential election? (bonanza for lawyers!!!!) B. No one would put campaign resources in smaller states or rural areas at all if the president were determined by national popular vote. This leads to.. C. The president would push for spending by congress to be allocated toward the large population centers in hopes of garnering the most votes per dollar spent. D. I've often considered electoral votes being allocated by congressional district, but could you imagine how much more district gerrymandering would exist in state houses vs. what exists today?

    A little research and thought wouldn't hurt Mr. Zakaria

    June 20, 2011 at 6:32 pm | Reply
  7. rhyemskeema

    OOOH! Would I be able to "like" and amendment on my Facepage?!

    June 20, 2011 at 6:32 pm | Reply
  8. Jeff

    I think it is a great idea. There just seems to be to many flaws. I think with the Islamic issues nations are facing and the protections given to a religion – religion itself needs to be redefined. You can't have an ideology spreading throughout a country who has governing, military, financial, legal, and religious aspects effecting the country's Constitution. Pushing to let 3rd world countries immigrants come to our countries an instill Sharia Law, build a monument to Islam by GZ, and attempt to INSTILL THEIR WAY OF LIFE ON A COUNTRY THAT OPENED THEIR DOORS TO THEM? Are you kidding me? You come to America, work your butt off, and get ahead and get away from repression. You don't come to America to BRING your repressive religion over and then push then envelope until you hit the boiling point. IN SUM WE NEED A BETTER DEFINITION OF RELIGION. You can practice whatever you want but don't start pushing your barbaric governing tactics in our face.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:32 pm | Reply
    • JeramieH

      Talking about Christianity, eh?

      June 20, 2011 at 6:58 pm | Reply
  9. Iskander

    I would say – let's not get distracted and simply consider this brainstorming. What 3 changes, additions etc. would you like to introduce. Let's stick to that.
    So:
    1 – Free health care for US citizens (only);
    2 – Free education for US

    June 20, 2011 at 6:32 pm | Reply
    • Rob

      Iskander – I sure hope you are joking, or a troll. if you are indeed serious, then you are the problem. "free" is such a misnomer that even you should understand that it isn't really "free" – somebody has to pay for it.

      I know, your solution is to raise taxes on those "evil" corporations and anyone making more than a pre-determined amount of money. Talk about class warfare!!

      June 20, 2011 at 6:39 pm | Reply
  10. Tony

    My 3 recommendations are as follows:
    1. End tax loopholes and ALL CORP. Subsidies. Companies are privately owned for a reason, even if they are publicly traded their owners are the share holders. No body(entity) from small shops to large world wide corporations should be able to operate without paying their fair share of taxes. If people are required to pay taxes no matter what your income level is, then the corporations that make money here should have to pay them as well. It is a privilage to do business in a fair society such as the US not a right or a burden. True we have our share of issues, but we are for the most part a country without dictators.
    2. End the Wars: The wars on education, poverty, and drugs have all failed. In a society where we pride ourselves on freedom, we are in fact not free to do to our own bodies as we see fit. I am not an advocate of heavy drug use however if I so choose to smoke pot, eat shrooms, or even do crack for that matter, it is a medical issue. That does not make me a criminal and it infringes more of a burden on tax payers who are left to pay the bills for jailing non-violent people. Also the money could be used to better educate our people as our current education system is a joke. Our lack of funding for education is a disgrace. It results in more people being unable to adquately find a decent job in order to upgrade their families out of poverty. Poverty is a result of lack of education, know how to get yourself and your family out of it. We spend more money giving large companies tax breaks and subsidies than we spend on improving the quality of lives for our own citizens. Education is the only way to improve our society.
    3. Healthcare is a right not an option. How can we call our nation the best in the world when we have people who literally can't afford to get sick? Most of our citizens are 1 illness away from poverty and we should not have to choose between paying for healthcare or paying our bills or food. Our doctors are the best in the world not because of their pay but because of our standards of higher education for them. We make sure in this country that before you can call yourself DR., you have been tested and certified time and time again, and continued certification once you've finished all that. Resulting in better care for our citizens, but it should not only be better care for our wealthy citizens, it should be for all. The founding fathers believed that "All men are created equal" and in "equal treatment for all". Shouldn't that be for medical care as well? These are just my 2cents. I may not have the best solution, but at least it will make lives more easier to live with us all having the same basics of what it means to be an American Citizen. PS.
    4. Income tax should be abolished for any person making under 50k per year and should start at 10% for each 20k afterwards. With a max of 25% for the top income earners. It's been proven in our history that when people have more money to spend our economy thrives. Companies can hire more workers because demand will be dramatically increased thus they will need more workers to fufill the supply. And companies fail when you give them money to stay afloat while they lose sales. Only 2 possible outcomes, either the govt will go broke and only a few co's will have all the money. Or the co's will go broke with the govt as well and the people will be left with nothing.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:32 pm | Reply
    • Rob

      Tony – I won't even comment on your other suggestions except to say that they are pie-in-the-sky, but not practical, nor sustainable.

      As far as your last suggestion – so what's to control every person from getting jobs making less than $50K / year, and working under the table? If I'm a CEO of a company, I'll just pay myself $49,999 / year, thus, according to your "genius" solution – no taxes for me!!

      How about this – how about abolishing the current income tax system entirely and implementing a very simple idea – a consumption based system? Thus, those who have more to spend will naturally consume more – a person with less money might buy a Yugo, whereas a person with more money might buy a Ferrari, thus this system takes care of itself – look up "fair tax" and get an idea of a very similar system.

      June 20, 2011 at 6:49 pm | Reply
  11. Subhankar

    Mr. Zakaria,
    You write: "And let me be very clear here, the U.S. Constitution is an extraordinary work, one of the greatest expressions of liberty and law in human history. One amazing testament to it is the mere fact that it has survived as the law of the land for 222 years."
    But you seem to have no clue what the greatness of the US Constitution is! Its greatness lies not in its longevity, many atrocious medieval laws of the land have survived longer than that! The US Constitution’s greatness Sir, lies in its core principle – the recognition, for the first and only time in human history, of an Individual's Rights above all else; not Mob Rule, which you seem to so admire!

    June 20, 2011 at 6:33 pm | Reply
    • Jeff

      Don't confuse "MOB" rule with "Majority" rule. You are essentially calling everybody a MOB? No. It's time for change.

      June 20, 2011 at 6:38 pm | Reply
      • Subhankar

        See Paul Lichlyter's comment below. I would hope you want to live in a society based on well thought out and agreed upon principles, not the whim of the moment, feel good, majority vote – which is what a democracy (rule by majority) eventually must disintegrate into in practice. Look round the world and study history if you want to understand what I mean.

        June 22, 2011 at 2:56 pm |
  12. Paul Lichlyter

    I've never found this writer's articles particularly insightful, but this article is nothing short of laughable. Well done CNN. If you've ever wondered why you've been passed by other news sources, this gives you all you need to know – giving air time to clowns like this.

    First, we do not live in a democracy. It is a representative republic, in part, because the founding fathers knew that the general populace was too easily swayed by the media. The notion that the Senate is undemocratic because it is not one man, one vote is either painfully uninformed or an intentional red herring.

    Second, part of the genius of the Constitution is that it was built to change. If someone – like apparently the author – wants to change it, there is already a thoughtful process for how to do so. Perhaps he wants to invoke a different process because he understands that his ideas could not stand the scrutiny or win the necessary support.

    Weak CNN... very weak.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:33 pm | Reply
  13. Joe - from Missouri

    Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States." -- I would give all I have to have just one representative "Tell it like it is." The obscenity that envelopes congress with all of the undeserved perks makes me sick to my stomach. In the beginning their job was to do service for their country, and when that was done, go back home and get a job and get to work. There is nothing that justifies serving one term and receiving lifetime benefits. Especially for the job they've done lately. Benefits should be commensurate to service at both the federal and state levels. Pay for congress should be voted on by the people. No more bundling bills. A house bill should be one bill and one bill only. No more "back room backscratching" to slide a bill in with another for someones brother-in-law in their particular state. I could go on and on about how upset I am with congress and their lack of morality. Both parties are equally guilty of the mess we're in today. No one in congress wants to face the truth about themselves and their behavior or how it reflects on the average american. Most of them have no idea how to fix this mess except to throw more money at it. Our money. Oh, and abolish the electoral college.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:33 pm | Reply
  14. George

    I am normally a Zakaria fan, but this is silliness. The US is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic and it should stay that way. The Electoral College works perfectly and makes each vote potentially more valuable than a nation wide common election would.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:33 pm | Reply
  15. SC resident

    How nice for a first generation American like this author to make such a suggestion as to scrap our constitution. I have countless forefathers who died to protect what the document stands for. I have lost all respect for this author as it was certainly not is place to make such a suggestion that demonstrates a total lack of understanding of American etiquette.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:33 pm | Reply
  16. KBinMN

    Wow, what an idea. Let's have a government ran the same way American Idol is! I think some forget we are not a democracy but a Republic.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:34 pm | Reply
  17. Thomas Gemignani

    The day we update the constitution is the day I update the government. Do not underestimate the will and power of the American citizen.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:34 pm | Reply
  18. chicago dude

    Scary times!!! Considering that most of the people using facebook and twitter can't graduate from HS in four years and forget about college.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:34 pm | Reply
  19. Matt from Maryland

    Mr. Zarkaria fundamentally misunderstands the idea of the United States Senate. The members of the Constitutional Convention made it clear that their bicameral legislature was set up to accommodate both large and small states. The House of Representatives ensures that large states have more representatives to the government, which allows them to more effectively represent their larger populations. The Senate, however, was specifically designed to make sure that the interests of every state were represented equally. That is an essential part of our governmental system, as it guarantees that smaller states are not bullied and ignored by larger states.

    I also take issue with Mr. Zakaria's position that the United States was "paralyzed" in the wake of the Presidential Election of 2000. Presidents are not sworn in until January, which means that the currently serving president is still president until that time. Elections are held in November. There were nearly 3 months to sort everything out with that election, and it took nowhere near that long to certify who the actual winner of the election was. All the while, Bill Clinton remained president. The nation was in no way "paralyzed."

    I do, however, agree with the assertion that the electoral college is un-democratic. While I understand its original purpose, times are very, very different. A constitutional amendment, however, would more than suffice to change that, so I disagree that we would need a new constitution to fix this issue.

    Overall, I am disturbed by Mr. Zakaria's lack of knowledge regarding certain fundamental aspects of the constitution. He is in a position of influence, and a man in that sort of position can do great harm by means of his own ignorance.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:34 pm | Reply
  20. Murph

    The "mob rule" that you referred to is called power of the majority, one of the principles of democracy.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:34 pm | Reply
    • Rob

      Murph – thank God we are not a democracy, but rather a representative republic!! Otherwise those with the loudest voices, or the biggest clubs, or the most influential media sound bytes, would win.

      A true "democracy" would ensure anarchy and mob rule.

      June 20, 2011 at 7:00 pm | Reply
  21. Shane

    If we were seriously going to consider revising the Constitution, I would like to see some of the Congressional changes suggested here http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/07/964431/-5th-of-November put in.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:35 pm | Reply
  22. Square Grouper

    The Framers set up the two houses of Congress to prevent the very problem that Mr. Zakaria's suggestion would now bring to the table–so that small or less-populated states could not be subjected to the will of larger states. That protection is just as important today as it was 222 years ago. Just because NY or CA have more people than the rest of the tates does not make them better or more capable of dictating policy. A lot of people would be happy if NYC and CA fell into the ocean (as long as no one died of course). So I would take that idea and send it to the trash heap immediately. A better idea would be to curb the power of the fed. govt in may of the areas it has unconstitutionally expanded into. Bigger is not always better.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:35 pm | Reply
    • Edwin

      Square Grouper,

      if you follow the House, you will undoubtedly notice that the Congresspeople from New York do not vote as a block, nor do the ones from California. Nowadays, the only block votes tend to be those of the political parties. Thus, the idea you seek to prevent (block voting) is present more dramatically in the Senate than the House.

      Simply put, the Senate allows politlcal parties to vote en masse more effectively, because senators are less beholden to the needs of their constituents. If you think we should keep two legislative houses, fine - but don't keep one representing states. That idea no longer holds merit, just as your argument is no longer valid. It might have been true at one time that states voted as blocks, but no longer.

      June 20, 2011 at 6:41 pm | Reply
  23. Brian

    @Rick House

    After reading about two paragraphs I was shocked that this was allowed to be published due to the authors obvious lack of knowledge on the topic he was writing about. My next step was to cruise the comments and see if people took this seriously. Low and behold you pointed out exactly what I was thinking. Well done!

    June 20, 2011 at 6:35 pm | Reply
  24. Bill Hennessey

    We don't follow the constitution anyway, so why bother. It's an irrelevant document nowadays. If you're going to change anything how about changing how so often we ignore the guidelines that are already there.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:35 pm | Reply
  25. DL

    The author bases his premise nearly entirely on the fact that technologies have advanced which is pointless—he Constitution was written about rights which are inviolate over time and technology. This is probably motivated largely by a desire to eliminate the 2nd Amendment. Not a chance Buster.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:35 pm | Reply
  26. pat

    The Founding Fathers were men, not saints, and they shouldn't be deified.

    1. Amend the amendment process. This may require a Constitutional Convention because currently less than 5% of the population (the number of people in the 13 smallest states) has the power to prevent an amendment from going into effect. Unless the amendment process is amended, measures that address the disproportionate power of the smallest states, including senatorial representation and the electoral college, are doomed.

    2. Term limits for all federal judges including the Supreme Court and for members of Congress

    3. Define person as a living, breathing human being. In other words, eliminate corporate person-hood.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:36 pm | Reply
  27. Mike

    It is comical how some members of congress keep a copy in there top pocket. It is as you say the greatest document regarding the founding of a republic ever written. But times have changed from the way we dress to the way provide for our family's. Sure we no longer own slaves nor do we cure sickness in the same archaic fashion. So to carry the document as the do still referring to it as gospel in it original form is ridiculous. Just as we have amended it to end slavery. We should amend it to fix modern problems for the modern society we have become. I think it is admirable to carry the constitution as founding document that speaks to the historical significance of the founding of United States of America. That is what it is history. To say that it speaks to our core values is to say slavery is part of our core values. The document should grow like our great nation has grown. We are the greatest county on earth in the history of mankind. It is comical how some members of congress keep a copy in there top pocket. It is as you say the greatest document regarding the founding of a republic ever written. But times have changed from the way we dress to the way provide for our family's. Sure we no longer own slaves nor do we cure sickness in the same archaic fashion. So to carry the document as the do still referring to it as gospel in it original form is ridiculous. Just as we have amended it to end slavery. We should amend it to fix modern problems for the modern society we have become. I think it is admirable to carry the constitution as founding document that speaks to the historical significance of the founding of United States of America. That is what it is history. To say that it speaks to our core values is to say slavery is part of our core values. The document should grow like our great nation has grown. We are the greatest county on earth in the history of mankind.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:36 pm | Reply
    • Rob

      Mike – things like "how we dress" and the like are in no way related to what the Consitution is there for – to enumerate the powers of the Federal Gov, mainly by LIMITING what it can do, as well as reminding each & every one of us that we have certain rights that we were born with, and that no Gov shall infringe on those rights.

      The Constitution LIMITS Gov power, it does NOT grant Gov power, and from the comments of some of these incredibly naive people, they are begging to have the Gov tell them what to do, when to do it, and for how long. As the saying goes "forgive them for they know not what they are doing"

      June 20, 2011 at 7:06 pm | Reply
  28. Charles

    The U.S. was never intended to be a true democracy/popular vote when it was founded. The Constitution as currently written is what makes the U.S. what it is – a constitutional republic with sovereign States united. A major revision of the Constitution would need to happen in order to go to a true democracy, and in doing so it would destroy the Republic as we know it. As a result of this, I'm sure many States would choose not to enter into the Republic due to the few big States having all the power, and those smaller States would choose to form their own Nation-States.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:36 pm | Reply
  29. Andrew

    A fool & his facts are soon parted.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:37 pm | Reply
  30. HF74

    What Constitution?
    The powers that be pay little head to the Constitution these days anyhow.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:38 pm | Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.