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 And, anyway, they felt the document was old and outdated, drafted all the way back in 1944.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. D

    Based on the result of the presidential elections of the last 10 years, this country would destroy itself in minutes if it wrote a new constitution.

    June 20, 2011 at 7:53 pm | Reply
  2. Anne

    Mr. Zakaria, you have created a very welcomed discussion of the Constitution of the United States and I have spent most of my time after work reading the comments.
    I do not agree that the Constitution of the United States of America should be revised [including the legal manner of revision = amendments].
    The Constitution of the United States of America was written by a group of men whose average age was in their mid-thirties. These men created a document which created a balance of power within the federal government. These young men studied the evolved Constitutional Government of 18th Century Great Britain, the Democracy of Ancient Greece and that of a Confederation of Indian tribes. They wrote, argued, screamed, re-wrote, argued again, and eventually compromised in designing a written document which defined a balance of power – not only by creating the balance of three Branches of the Government, but also within each of the branches. While these young men recognized and applaud change, they also recognized the wisdom of not allowing instant change brought on by any current popular fear/charismatic leader/or misinformation.
    Did they recognize that they made mistakes—through compromise? Yes, of course! And, most of those changes have been corrected by, but not limited to, The Bill of Rights, the prohibition of slavery & involuntary servitude, and the right of vote to women.
    They created a balance of power which changes back and forth like a pendulum might. Sometimes one group has more power than another and then the pendulum sways back again.
    I. The Judicial Branch of the United States of America government provides a life-term to each member of the Supreme Court. The older members balance out the power of the younger members. In that manner, some change in the interpretation is slowed.
    II. The Executive Branch of the United States of America is limited to a four year term with the opportunity for just one more four year term [since FDR]. If the citizens feel the president is not doing the job, a new president can be elected after four years. There again is a balance within this branch. We have no “President for Life” nor a dictator.
    III. The Legislative Branch of the United States of America is divided into two legislative bodies and these also are balanced.
    • The Senate of the United States of America provides that 1/3 of the members are elected [or re-elected] every two years. They serve [are suppose to at any rate] their constituents for six years. That gives a balance within the legislative body – older ideas vs the newer ideas. There are also two elected from each State in the Republic…a balance between the State of New York and the State of Montana.
    • The House of Representatives of the United States of America provides election for each member every two years.
    Here is the balance. Our Constitution is designed to provide a framework from which laws and government can be maintained. It is a balance of the old and the new. It provides stability and yet a voice for new and “radical” ideas without falling to an instant change [which could be likened to “instant gratification”]. Change is possible without instant revolutionary change.
    What is needed is the education of our electorate of the Constitution of the United States of America and the responsibility that the citizens continue to have towards their nation by electing adult men/women that know they have a job to accomplish once they arrive in our capital and get it done.
    No, we do not need a new Constitution, but rather a resolve to see that it continues to grow and develop. It is an honor to be a citizen of the United States of America, Mr. Zakaria.

    I do not want to be "global" as I am not impressed.

    June 20, 2011 at 7:53 pm | Reply
  3. Lance

    You want to re-write the constitution? It can be done. It's called making ammendments. Yes, it's a rathr long, rather tedious process, but it guarantees people will approach changes with caution, wisdom, and we won't let the ever changing winds of the world be our main guiding force.

    June 20, 2011 at 7:54 pm | Reply
  4. Jabez

    We should ban political parties, hopefully eliinating partisanship

    June 20, 2011 at 7:54 pm | Reply
  5. Everyman

    The Electoral College and representation in the Senate, and the House for that matter, is as it is because the federal government is a union of states, not a representation of individuals. Knowingly or not, Mr Zakaria highlights the difference between a democracy and a republic.

    June 20, 2011 at 7:54 pm | Reply
  6. bkinder83

    The reason each state has 2 represetnatives in the senate regardless of population is because that was supposed to be the voice of the "State". But now that they are elected popularly rather than appointed by the State legislature the federal govt has a monopoly of power. States have no say in matters. Same with the supreme court. They were never intended to "intepret" the constitution. That is the fox guarding the hen house.

    June 20, 2011 at 7:54 pm | Reply
  7. Alex

    Fareed Z. understands the Constitution. Those of you critical to his understanding are guilty of the very thing about which he writes. You believe that the Constitution is sacrosanct and that, since the Senate was designed to provide equality of states, it can NEVER be changed. This, though, is exactly his point – that institutions like the Senate SHOULD be reconsidered in light of modern realities.

    When the Constitution was promulgated, the difference in population between the most populated and least populated states was a few hundred thousand people. The current difference between the most and least populated states is TENS OF MILLIONS. Fareed Z. is suggesting that the current situation warrants taking another look at the Consitution.

    To attack his argument by suggesting that he doesn't understand the Constitution is simply an ignorant ad hominem argument. As Thomas Jefferson said,

    "I think that once a generation, every 30 years, we should hold a new Constitutional Convention and work out the things that do not function properly in our political arrangements."

    So, did Thomas Jefferson fail to understand the Constitution as well?

    June 20, 2011 at 7:55 pm | Reply
    • BrianTX

      With respect... have we revised the Constitution every 30yrs or so? No. Ask yourself instead this question...why not? Is it not possible that Jefferson was wrong and there has been no need?

      June 20, 2011 at 8:01 pm | Reply
  8. smokeandmirror

    "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government."

    – Patrick Henry.

    All you need to know about the NWO here:
    nwosurvivalguide.com

    June 20, 2011 at 7:55 pm | Reply
    • bkinder83

      Awesome Patrick Henry quote!

      "Government is the great fiction through which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of eveybody else." Frederic Bastiat

      June 21, 2011 at 12:25 am | Reply
  9. Buddy

    "Is it time to update the U.S. Constitution?" This is a dumb and misleading question. We already have a system in place for 'updating' the constitution, they're called amendments. To be more relevant to the what Iceland is doing, the question should have read: "Is it time to scrap the U.S. Constitution?" Of course the answer to that question is 'no' – that's why we allow amendments to the constitution, so we don't have to scrap the document and start all over again every few generations. It must be a slow news day, huh?

    June 20, 2011 at 7:55 pm | Reply
  10. gummyballz

    There is nothing wrong with the constitution, the problem is the people that enforce and interpret the constitution for their benefit

    June 20, 2011 at 7:55 pm | Reply
  11. Matthew Schwab

    1. One-person-one-vote: Replace the electoral college with one-person-one vote.
    2. Proportional Representation: Create “at large” seats in the House and Senate to make these bodies more proportionally representative (like Germany’s parliament) to reduce or even eliminate the “waste your vote” fear that artificially creates our polarized two party system and to more equitably include the votes of Washington DC and US territory residents.
    3. Balance State/Local Budgets: Forbid deficit spending at the State and Local level, except for one-time bond-funded projects like building/enhancing schools, bridges, water systems and other core forms of infrastructure. At the same time eliminate all laws that forbid state and local, elected authorities from levying respective state and local taxes: The cause of such deficits.

    June 20, 2011 at 7:56 pm | Reply
  12. willbhell

    Sorry, can't resist. I think the oldest legislature (continuously functioning) in existence is the Tynwald (Isle of Man). In structure it is very much like that of Iceland and Norway before they (respectively) junked their upper chambers, I believe.

    June 20, 2011 at 7:56 pm | Reply
  13. ChristianC

    Rewrite the Constitution to render it more amenable to the Fareed Zakaria doctrine? I don't think so.

    June 20, 2011 at 7:56 pm | Reply
    • betterthanjosh

      white christian clone

      June 20, 2011 at 9:18 pm | Reply
  14. Victor Nazario

    our constitution needs to be updated to the 21st century.
    firstly, it is my opinion that there is a need for a 2nd bill of rights for the people of our country. this should be modeled on FDR's proposed second or economic bill of rights.

    1. right to a guaranteed employment with a decent wage
    2. freedom from unfair cooperatives or monopolies
    3. right for every family to have a decent home
    4. right to adequate medical care and opportunity to receive enjoy good health
    5. right to a good education for all americans
    6. right to protection from fears of old age, sickness, and unemployment.
    7. right to have clean breathable air, drinkable water and healthy environment in order to live in
    Secondly, there needs to be a equal rights amendment, which makes discrimination based upon sex illegal. The supreme court has used the due process clause as a way to balance equal rights but it is not totally clear.

    Thirdly, there needs to be term limits on congressmen and senators. Too long have they seen politics as a career instead of a service to the american people. for congressmen a limit of 4 terms while senators 2 terms

    fourthly, a balanced budget amendment should be proposed. This country has seen debts and deficits that have skyrocketed over the past years. the amount of deficit that the country should have in a given year should at least be half a trillion dollars.

    fifthly, a so called privacy amendment should be proposed. the government should not dictate what one does either in their home especially on their computers, or with their bodies. people have a certain expectation of privacy that the government should not interfere in certain areas beyond their control.

    June 20, 2011 at 7:57 pm | Reply
    • Norm

      So in other words you want the right to have everything you want and want other people to pay for it.

      June 20, 2011 at 8:03 pm | Reply
    • Marcus

      I seriously laugh at your first clause... the right for a job and a fair wage... America is a FREE MARKET. You can come from poverty and make yourself "rich".... it is called education and being proactive.

      Enough of this crutching society. Get rid of entitlements and stop spending trillions of dollars in forms of international welfare programs. Stop the wars and bring back LIBERTY, FREEDOM, and PRIVACY!!!

      June 20, 2011 at 8:04 pm | Reply
      • betterthanjosh

        power to the poor. screw you and the welfare to your banks and corporations you "capitalism eats their young" lunkhead

        June 20, 2011 at 9:16 pm |
    • WILDBILL

      I second Marcus. No one owes anyone anything. Get off your lazy ass and work for it!

      November 30, 2011 at 7:01 pm | Reply
  15. J Vargas

    zacharia: and who will be in charge of rewriting the constituion... facebook citizens, or you? ain't gonna happen in our lifetimes... Note the constitution is not a populist democratic document – we were not set up to be a populist democracy... we are a republic and the 10th amendment needs more friends not less. If we go back to our constitutional republic/federation roots – then you can change all the state constitutions you want... it allows for that. Why do liberals like you always want to change everything for everybody in teh USA? We are a big diverse country, and we should stay that way... what is good for New York is not good for Mississippi, and reverse. The fed gov't is there to ensure the "Rights of Man" via the Bill of Rights and is there to protect free trade between states and the borders... nothing more.

    June 20, 2011 at 7:57 pm | Reply
    • MadJerry

      we are a republic and the 10th amendment needs more friends not less. – I strongly agree!!!

      June 20, 2011 at 8:05 pm | Reply
  16. Norm

    OH look! Another idiotic European exercise that Liberals want to duplicate.

    June 20, 2011 at 7:58 pm | Reply
  17. enough of obama

    enough of obama trying to take over America, let the revolution begin, stand for freedom not obama, all those liberals who work against us shall fall to the side as We THe People TAKE BACK AMERICA from the blackie anti-christ who shall fall to the revolution of the people, Dont Touch Our Freedom or Ye shall Feel the Wrath of We The People. God Bless America not the blackie wannabe obama.

    June 20, 2011 at 7:58 pm | Reply
    • Marco

      Hey bigot! Yeah, you! Go wash your little Klan robe, it's soiled with the diarrhea coming out of your mouth. Don't like America? Get on a time machine and go back to your Apartheid South Africa, a.k.a. every Republican's wet dream. Every time one of you inbred racists makes a stupid comment like this, a US soldier that died defending this country from Fascism and Nazism in WWII spins in his grave.

      June 20, 2011 at 8:17 pm | Reply
  18. Marcus

    Under no circumstances shall the U.S. Constitution be "updated"... in fact we should start FOLLOWING the Constitution. Our founding fathers created this to be amended but amended by means of thoroughly thinking about it and in the end it should NOT be amended...

    NO. NOT NOW. NEVER.

    In fact, we should start abiding by the U.S. Constitution!!!!

    June 20, 2011 at 7:59 pm | Reply
  19. willbhell

    And as for the content of the post, interesting. I'm not sure I buy into the definition of democracy that Zakaria seems to be building on, but that would be a matter for discussion; as for the comments, well, Halloween seems to have come early this year....

    June 20, 2011 at 7:59 pm | Reply
  20. Buddy R

    The reason for a Senate where all states are represented equally is to prevent large states from being able to run roughshod over small states. It is an idea that helps to hold the union together and was a brilliant idea by the founders. The House of Representatives on the other hand DOES take population into account. So there is a balance.

    Mostly the Constitution needs to be PROPERLY OBSERVED by the legislature, executive branch, and judicial branch. I would like to see an amendment to give the people an option to hold a recall election to remove a president, a congressman, or a judge from office. Too many judges legislate from the bench and too many politicians laugh at the will of the people instead of carry it out.

    June 20, 2011 at 7:59 pm | Reply
  21. 1nd3p3nd3nt

    term limits serve as a balance between senators and representatives fighting for their reelection and a sense of stability so they don't feel as much pressure to vote based on polls and instead go with what they believe is right. Same concept for tenure and the judicial branch, we don't want these people swayed or influenced by pressures on their career, but rather want them to be comfortable is ruling as they see fit –they won't be thrown out by a political party in power simply because the political party doesn't agree with them.

    The problem with all of this, is mainly the human problem. People are flawed and ignorant, in christianity it's referred to as original sin, we are all fallible. Political parties will lie to maintain their power and cause their followers to, for lack of a better phrase, freak out about an issue they have been manipulated into believing is significant when it's only a shell game, a means to advance another agenda.

    The constitution may need to be amended from time to time, and normally social pressure will lead to that result. It's slow, but it's steady. What we do need to see are perhaps term limits for every position in the House and Senate, I don't mean how it is now, I mean that one person can only serve, let's say twelve years, then they must leave. Accomplish what they can, then pass the torch. Give them one or two reelections then kick them out. A career politician is a recipe for corruption.

    We need to limit the influence of outside sources, lobbying is grandma calling her senator or rep, not some paid suit representing 'interests.' The tax code needs to be simplified; the way people form small businesses needs to be simplified and streamlined. If that's what helps our country maintain our quality of life, then that's what the government should be enabling. Government should also be embracing new technologies to make government more efficient, less waste. Same goes for medicaid and medicare. If we're moving to a universal health care in about two years, why not get rid of medicaid and medicare? Simplify these programs and we remove the fraud and waste.

    Too often we see the private sector and public sector as at odds with each other. The truth is they are all connected. Why not have government infrastructure, even online infrastructure, that helps non-profits partner with each other to meet the needs of the mentally ill / homeless / less advantaged –the effect will be like adding ripples into a wave.

    Whenever people make something more complicated than is necessary, it's usually so someone can take advantage of it.

    I want to conclude that it has been a pleasure reading most of the posts here, many were well articulated and contributed to the discussion. It was a wonderful change of pace from what I've come to expect from posts in general. cheers

    June 20, 2011 at 7:59 pm | Reply
  22. Cameron

    Try to remember that the states came together as a type of alliance for mutual protection etc. and to give more power or representation to more populated states would basically nullify that agreement and be grounds for any state to succeed from the union(and rightly so).Giving everyone a direct vote would ensure the collapse of the U.S. into either a socialist dictatorship(fascism) or a breakup of the union(collapse).Obviously CNN advocates the former because it is owned by the powerful global corperate elitists that want more power.WE LIVE IN A FASCIST COUNTRY already,look at what TIME-Warner owns:
    TIME-WARNER TBS – AOL (donated 1.6 million to GW's 2000 campaign)
    America Online (AOL) acquired Time Warner–the largest merger in corporate history.
    Television Holdings:
    * CNN, HBO, Cinemax, TBS Superstation, Turner Network Television, Turner Classic Movies, Warner Brothers Television, Cartoon Network, Sega Channel, TNT, Comedy Central (50%), E! (49%), Court TV (50%).
    * Largest owner of cable systems in the US with an estimated 13 million subscribers.
    Media Holdings:
    * HBO Independent Productions, Warner Home Video, New Line Cinema, Castle Rock, Looney Tunes, Hanna-Barbera.
    * Music: Atlantic, Elektra, Rhino, Sire, Warner Bros. Records, EMI, WEA, Sub Pop (distribution) = the world’s largest music company.
    * 33 magazines including Time, Sports Illustrated, People, In Style, Fortune, Book of the Month Club, Entertainment Weekly, Life, DC Comics (50%), and MAD Magazine.
    Other Holdings:
    * Sports: The Atlanta Braves, The Atlanta Hawks, World Championship Wrestling

    June 20, 2011 at 8:00 pm | Reply
  23. JOHN

    Come on you ove rthinking elitists. OUR constitution is what made the U.S. and it's freedoms, and form of govt the envy of the world. It is what brought us to a superpower in only a couple hundred years. Why would you even think of messing with that. As for the one man one vote rule, that is called MOB rule, it is what our founders wanted to avoid, we livve in a rep. republic, not a democracy. Let see the majority of Americans dont want chinese americans to vote, so, mob rules, a mojority says they cant and presto...well..u get the point..(unless u are a socialist lib)

    June 20, 2011 at 8:00 pm | Reply
    • 1nd3p3nd3nt

      because liberals don't want equal rights for minorities? I love / hate it when people confuse their perceived political enemy with their own party.

      June 20, 2011 at 8:30 pm | Reply
  24. Krehator

    Absolutely time! Modern life has made most of our rights obsolete, and the government has used every loophole under the Sun to devalue them. My only fear, is that any new modification will probably be biased for the government or simply create new loopholes to be exploited.

    Let us face it, the government does whatever it wants anyway, and if you question it, they just say "its classified". Only the rich and powerful can afford justice. If you are one of the lower classes you get a public defender that is not going to do a very good job.

    If I were to add anything my first choice would be a requirement that any law created in the land be required to supply intent, clear method of interpretation, and expiration conditions.date. This would clear up the outdated laws, for the government to review and update, and keep judges from interpreting old laws into new laws.

    June 20, 2011 at 8:01 pm | Reply
  25. JulieMS

    No way in H- change the constitution! If you want to change it go somewhere else and create your own country! Leave it alone as is. Now one would agree on any and it would just turn this country into turmoil and ciaos!

    June 20, 2011 at 8:01 pm | Reply
    • Dex

      That horse has bolted, there are 27 amendments to the constitution, one of which was ratified as recently as 1992. Of six unratified ones, 4 are still pending, so they could be 4 new amendments. LOL, 1 that failed was for equality of the sexes in 1982 and the other about the rights as voters. So #27 got passed so congressmen could get paid and two noble civil ones failed.

      June 25, 2011 at 12:14 pm | Reply
  26. kazz

    update it

    June 20, 2011 at 8:01 pm | Reply
  27. FZM

    Given the self-serving and arrogant way the government has bent the interpretation of the Constitution to its own favor in every single instance, to allow the same people the power to re-write it would be folly of an unparalleled sort.

    June 20, 2011 at 8:03 pm | Reply
  28. DB

    Mr. Zakaria is exactly right when he talks about revising the constitution. There is too much blind reverence for it; never mind amending the current version – scrap it and write a new one from scratch. The document has many flaws that exacerbate the serious problems in the American political system. Every other democratic country in the world renews its constitution every now and again to keep pace with changes in society and America should follow suit.

    Problem number one: it is too short, one of the shortest in the world. The constitutions of other democratic countries are far more detailed about how power is divided between central and local goverment. Also the "Bill of Rights" (in actuality, a series of amendments) is very barebones and does not incorporate modern ideas about human rights. The Establishment Clause, a single sentence, is no longer sufficient to protect the state against the bound and determined hordes of extreme "Christian" conservatives.

    A new constitution should also have something to say about the role of political parties, money in politics, and mandate a proportional-representation voting system. It should also offer guidance on how the states organize their govermnments. California, a lession in what not to do when writing a constitution, must beg voters to approve spending plans each year because the legislators can't agree on anything. This is not a good situation to be in.

    Next, we come to the Senate. Many countries in the world with bicameral parliaments limit the powers of the upper chamber. They may revise, review and delay but cannot block legislation outright. This is particularly important in the US because it is now virtually impossible to get anything through the Senate without divine intervention.

    The Second Amendment is nothing short of dangerous and it has to be consigned to the dustbin of history. America is not a rural frontier society, but rather an urban cosmopolitan one. Moreover, constitutions are in the business of bringing people together and should not – as far as practicable – take stances on contentious social issues.

    June 20, 2011 at 8:04 pm | Reply
    • Allison

      Please get an education, do true public service, and if all else fails, leave and take Mr. Zakaria with you. Look at the history of socialist governments – they only survived by force of arms, and they eventually fell (see the Soviet Union). Of course, once this form of government was instituted here, you would be one of the loudest complainers in trying to get the old system back.

      June 20, 2011 at 8:13 pm | Reply
    • Marcus

      The lack of knowledge what the U.S. Constitution is and what it means is astounding.... "Updating" the Constitution by either party will in the end only ruin what the country means. We already have politicians that bypass the Constitution.

      Two words...

      OBAMA and LIBYA.

      June 20, 2011 at 8:13 pm | Reply
  29. madboots

    STILL getting js virus attacks from this article. LOL

    June 20, 2011 at 8:04 pm | Reply
  30. kyrunner

    REWRITE OUR CONSTITUTION ? Are they crazy ? with the different power groups ,brokers and others such as NBC ,we wouldn't stand a chance for improvement , equality , freedom . The one thing that should be changed is to limit any body elected to no more than three terms total ( all elected positions) and we would start to see our elected officials voting for those bills that would definitely satisfy the majority of voters and not the power brokers and FAT CATS !

    June 20, 2011 at 8:04 pm | Reply
    • Allison

      Amen!

      June 20, 2011 at 8:08 pm | Reply
    • NickB5

      Our politicians are to corrupt and incompetent to be trusted with even minor changes to the constitution. They wont give them selves term limits, they couldn't even give us a public option healthcare system or manage the budget.

      June 20, 2011 at 8:12 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.