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 And, anyway, they felt the document was old and outdated, drafted all the way back in 1944.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

    Our Founding Fathers have an ingenious mechanism built right in to our Constitution... It is called an Amendment. No need to start over. It keeps the founding principals secure while allowing modifications to be made that do not corrupt the main purpose.

    Our Constitution does not leave a lot open to interpretation. It states exactly what is envisioned for this country. It is unfortunate, however, that it has evolved into something completely different. Those that believe it is open to interpretation, just cannot accept certain things and need to change it to fit their views. Much like it is done with the Bible.

    If we followed the Constitution to the letter with a few changes amended properly, we would be in a much better place.

    June 20, 2011 at 8:25 pm | Reply
  2. Notaveggie

    I say shame on America for having such conversation with someone who is not a native blood bought citizen. What America needs to do is to resolve back to the original Constitution and as close to its origination as possible, albeit except slavery. America needs to realize that people like Fareed Zakaria are the EXACT people that we should never converse with when it comes to our consitution. Peopel like him are opportunist and manipulators and only seek to serve that which will better serve him and his people from whatever country he is from. America better realize that foreigners are not here because they like us, but are here because we are ignorant enough to "like" them to the point of a cout! I do believe however that the HONEYMOON IS ENDING!

    June 20, 2011 at 8:26 pm | Reply
  3. David

    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
    >>>>>>>the use of the word blackie just negated your drivel....go back to junior high....

    June 20, 2011 at 8:26 pm | Reply
    • betterthanjosh

      feel this, sissy- cracker

      June 20, 2011 at 10:02 pm | Reply
  4. frogandbanjo

    New Constitutional Amendment:

    "Hey guys, remember when we said that the government was limited? Remember when we said that people and states had rights, just to reinforce the notion that there were certain things the federal government could not do? Remember when the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments strongly implied that state governments should be trusted with unchecked power just as much as the federal government (i.e., not at all?)
    "Well, we were pretty serious about all those things. Enough with the red ink and whiteout."

    "P.S. Corporations are not people, governments have no business 'marrying' people to each other, and what the hell did we tell you about standing armies? We so totally told you. You never listen! Don't you point that gun at me! GO TO YOUR ROOM."

    As distressing as it is that The (Five) People can edit, add to, or remove portions of the Constitution at will, it's even more terrifying to think of what The (Rest of the) People might do to it after being horrifically stunted by a relentless 200+ year campaign of distraction, stratification, and infantilization. Back in the late 1700's you had small-time farmers from Connecticut writing Anti-Federalist tracts and forcing the Federalists to begrudgingly support a Bill of Rights. That type of education and introspection simply isn't present anymore, and while the government certainly isn't to blame for every factor that produced the sorry state of affairs we have today, it sure as hell didn't have a strong motivation to slow the rate of decline. The People were always secretly meant to be "Sovereign but Silent," and that end has been achieved quite perfectly.

    Still, it would be interesting to see how The People would react to the "real" language of the Constitution: as in, what happens on the ground floor due to all the SCOTUS and unreviewed federal appellate decisions that have massively changed it.

    I agree wholeheartedly with a few previous commenters that there is an additional layer of laws – mostly relating to the Administrative "branch" of government, elections, and how Congress functions, but possibly also including a wide swath of the criminal law and intellectual property law – that have almost nothing to do with the Constitution but are still in dire need of transparent review and ratification/amendment/rejection by The People. Who'd have thought that a governing body given unchecked power to manage its own affairs would somehow find a way to do an end-run around the spirit of the Constitution at every turn? Truly shocking.

    June 20, 2011 at 8:28 pm | Reply
  5. Chaotician

    Yes, everything is broken or worse!

    We should just eliminate the Senate.
    The House should be 100 members elected for 3 terms maximum, half from cities and half from
    groupings outside of cities with populations = Total / 100. Require elections to be by a majority of voters in each district and allow for multiple ranked choices.
    Make the President and the Administration just that; administer the laws of the nation for 1 5 year term. Have the State governors pick one of their number as Vice President for a 5 year term; to automatically move to President after term is completed.
    Create a New Executive Council composed of 9 members: The President, the leader of the House, 5 retiring House members, and the former President. This body will function as the executive authority of the nation for one 5 year term.

    Very Important; Corporations are not people; and are absolutely forbidden to donate monies or provide any support of any kind to any politcal candiuate of ant type anywhere in the nation.

    The income tax should abolished as well as the Payroll taxes.
    The government needs to be run entirely by a VAT and fees for business services.
    Government needs to have a balanced budget over a 5 year term; except in time of national mobilization for war or unemployment greater than 10%

    All earnings from any source greater than 100 times the minimum wage will be confiscated entirely each year.
    All wealth greater than 1 Million indexed to 2000 will beconfiscated at the death of citizen.

    A Good Start!!

    Oh yes, all courts need to be staffed by selection of Judges from a lower court and all judges need to retire at 65

    June 20, 2011 at 8:28 pm | Reply
    • Wasabiwahabi

      Oh, you mean communism. GO BACK TO CUBA, COMRADE!!

      June 20, 2011 at 8:42 pm | Reply
      • betterthanjosh

        while you go back to thumb up my ass-ville, cracker

        June 20, 2011 at 10:00 pm |
  6. Randi L.

    1. Limit each bill introduced in Congress to 1 topic only. No unrelated amendments may be attached. Every idea has to stand or fall on its own merit. South Dakota has that in its constitution, and other states may as well. It works. Legislators don't have to vote for 100 porkbarrel amendments to get something they like.
    2. Electoral college can go. National public vote – he/she who gets the most votes is the President.
    3. Right of privacy. Put it in there.

    June 20, 2011 at 8:28 pm | Reply
    • Wasabiwahabi

      Limit your dumb ideas!

      June 20, 2011 at 8:37 pm | Reply
  7. Pablo

    This writer is completely misinformed.

    The intent of senatorial representation is to ensure STATES have equal representation and the House of Representatives represents the population.

    This is one of the reasons our system has endured is that the swings of popular will are muted by regional and state interests.

    The electoral college also mutes the risk of populism avoiding tyranny by a majority.

    Our system removes the risk of a wrong minded majority running amok.

    It kept slavery alive, but allowed the union to endure. Its not perfect but it is better in many ways than other systems.

    PURE democracy is a bad idea. A representative democracy is safer as it averages the results and passions of the nation.

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

    GET RID OF ELECTORAL COLLEGE ARE YOU STUPID OR WHAT THAT WOULD DESTROY OUR NATION YOU MORON IT WOULD DISOLVE OVERNIGHT NO SMALL STATE WOULD STAY IN UNION
    DID YOU FOLKS EVEN GO TO SCHOOL
    its why they put it that way ONE STATE GETS TWO VOTES PERIOD IN SENATE AND IN CONGRESS ITS BASED ON POPULATION
    it was only way to get small states to join if you go one person one vote only east and west coast would choose pres the union would dissolve NOT GOING TO HAPPEN
    you need 2/3 of states to ratify AGAIN not GONNA HAPPEN
    all the smaller staes would leave union OUTRIGHT
    we are a republic FOR A REASON

    June 20, 2011 at 8:30 pm | Reply
  9. Chuck Norris

    Too many people are too eager to prove someone else wrong and flaunt what little knowledge they have.

    June 20, 2011 at 8:30 pm | Reply
  10. khan

    WOW, people like Fareed Zak are giving advise to change the constitution. Should we replace it with Hindu's constitution???

    June 20, 2011 at 8:32 pm | Reply
    • jsfaofhvk

      He is suggesting change because of what happened in Iceland, not advising it.

      June 20, 2011 at 10:03 pm | Reply
  11. KIRK

    i cannot believe the complete Ignorance of people saying one person one vote what utter stupidity

    June 20, 2011 at 8:32 pm | Reply
  12. Wasabiwahabi

    Get rid of Zakaria. Someone should update the smile off his face. Limit Zakaria to two stupid comments a month.

    June 20, 2011 at 8:32 pm | Reply
    • betterthanjosh

      while i knock that shit eating grin off of yours, sissy

      June 20, 2011 at 9:59 pm | Reply
  13. Steven

    Totally bad idea! Original works gives us a sense of identity and continuity and connection with the larger flow of history. Connection the founding principles is always a benefit. At least have an American make this silly suggestion, someone with deeper roots in America.

    June 20, 2011 at 8:32 pm | Reply
  14. Pat Manley

    A new constitution we do not need. Improvements in the form of amendments are welcome when necessary. In fact, an amendment to protect unborn children may be our best bet to undo Roe vs. Wade. In much the same way that slavery is looked on as the horrible scourge it is, that we view the supporters of slavery as being uncivilized, brutal and violators of human rights, history will show that our society is also uncivilized, brutal beyond slavery and violators of the human rights of the weakest in our society until the day that we amend the Constitution to reaffirm that which was intended by its original authors. No, we do not need a new constitution. We need common sense and compassion laid down in the present document. Put another way, in the case of the U.S Constitution and the right to life, the problem is not an outdated law. The problem is a failure to adhere to it.

    June 20, 2011 at 8:33 pm | Reply
    • betterthanjosh

      better than you

      June 20, 2011 at 11:11 pm | Reply
    • betterthanjosh

      abort you

      June 20, 2011 at 11:12 pm | Reply
  15. Donald Alberti

    So move to Iceland or Syria or Saudi Arabia or Yemen or Pakistan if you want to change constitutions.

    June 20, 2011 at 8:34 pm | Reply
    • betterthanjosh

      as the only true (native) american, i say it is you who must leave infidel. The rest of his enemies are invited to live in hi house now

      June 20, 2011 at 9:56 pm | Reply
  16. Larry - Columbia, SC

    It would figure that someone named Zakaria - that isn't too middle eastern, is it? - would suggest that the U.S. needs a new Constitution. Why don't you go "home" Zakaria, and suggest it over there.

    June 20, 2011 at 8:35 pm | Reply
    • Don

      HURRAH! Larry (and all), that was and is exactly my first thought!

      Further, if you have any religious notions included, or supporting, your premise, take those with you too, as it is expressly prohibited in our US Constitution (separation of church and state).

      June 20, 2011 at 8:50 pm | Reply
    • betterthanjosh

      larry... that's not a native american name. get the hell off of my land or i will make you sorry. scalped

      June 20, 2011 at 9:53 pm | Reply
  17. Scott

    Its shocking how little this author actually understands the point behind why the constitution is the way it is. His complaints betray a total ignorance of the purpose of the document. I will attempt to address them point by point.

    "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 electoral college exists to provide a standard 'weighting' of votes so no one populous state could overwhelm the concerns and interests of other states. By design it is possible to win the 'popular vote' and lose the election (the popular vote was never intended to be used for determining who won). He's probably aware of this, but is championing a leftist agenda popular in very populous states like California and New York but basically completely rejected in the rest of the country.

    "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."

    The Senate again has absolutely nothing to do with "one man, one vote". The senate exists to represent the interests of the states (as soverign powers in and of themselves, they have rights under the constitution). In fact, Senators are not even supposed to be elected by popular vote. Originially they were elected from state legistatures by state legistatures to represent the state legistlature in the federal gov't. Its also interesting to note that its because of the change making senators elected by popular vote, essentially robbing the states of representation in the gov't, that led to the federal gov't simply passing all kinds of fanciful laws and passing the costs on to the states in an unconstitutional fashion (no body tends to guarding the rights of states in our gov't, they were robbed of their repsentation).

    There is a reason our constitution shouldn't be played with... it was darn near perfect to begin with and many of the changes are the SOURCE of our problems today. If you want to change it... change it back to what it was before idiots like this author got ahold of it. Congress, should have a rep for every 50,000 citizens and the senate should be elected by the state gov'ts to represent state gov'ts to prevent unfunded mandates and other unconstitutional encrouchments into states rights.

    June 20, 2011 at 8:38 pm | Reply
    • Scott

      BTW, to clear up any confusion that may have been created by the uneducated author of this article... Our prevailing form of gov't in this country is not, never has been and never will be a "Democracy". We are a "Republic". And thats not simply wordplay, the two are very different. Perhaps CNN should buy the author a book so he can learn the difference.

      June 20, 2011 at 8:48 pm | Reply
      • betterthanjosh

        your incorrect posture of arrogance does not make you correct. you are clearly unable to think and can only mimic the tired old lies of the criminals that founded this country

        June 20, 2011 at 9:50 pm |
    • nick2

      Care to recommend a book that succinctly distinguishes a democracy from a republic?

      June 20, 2011 at 9:14 pm | Reply
      • betterthanjosh

        any sixth grade text, but it might be too much

        June 20, 2011 at 9:47 pm |
  18. MCSquared

    Most ridiculous suggest I've ever heard. Shows no respect to the perfection on the Constitution. Then again, I do agree that we should return to the requirement that you must be a landowner in order to vote in any election.

    June 20, 2011 at 8:42 pm | Reply
  19. Etuck24

    So...he doesn't understand the concept of our bicameral government does he? Ya know, the whole great compromise and such. Nothing gets done unless both houses agree on it anyway. Abolishing the senate would essentially be abolishing small states.

    June 20, 2011 at 8:45 pm | Reply
  20. Jay

    I would like to see term limits for Congress; maximum of 12 years (6 terms) in the House, and maximum of 18 years (3 terms) in the Senate. Combined maximum of 18 years. Also, make the Presidency a single 7 year term. Limit Senate approval of members of the executive branch to only those directly reporting to the President (ie, Cabinet Secretaries and heads of independent agencies) and judges. Finally, set a retirement age for Supreme Court Judges at 75.

    June 20, 2011 at 8:45 pm | Reply
  21. ApolloMike

    Electoral College not in the Constitution? Maybe not in those exact words, but check Article 2, Section 1.

    June 20, 2011 at 8:47 pm | Reply
  22. Judith R. Blau

    Students in my undergraduate class often decide to tackle revising the U.S. Constitution, after reading other countries' constitutions. They learn that most other constitutions include the rights of women, language rights, food rights, housing rights, environmental rights, etc. etc. They also include civil and political rights. We discuss in class the obstacles to fully realizing these rights, but except for governance and civil and political rights, constitutional provisions express the aspirations of a people and are drivers for social change. They also express solidarity, and I would say that there is a solidarity-deficit in the U.S. Along these lines, we also discuss why the U.S. has not unconditionally ratified a single human rights treaty.

    June 20, 2011 at 8:48 pm | Reply
    • Scott

      Our constituation gives the greatest gift... the Right to fail or succeed based on individual effort. What you refer to is really the state ensuring citizen success via the gov't treasury. Which is why none of those states are great, why they're all teetering on fiscal collapse too (including the US because we've been acting too much like europe the last few decades).

      June 20, 2011 at 8:57 pm | Reply
      • hustlnflo

        it's great when the tea-baggers can ignore the parts of the Constitution they don't like such as We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." What part of "promote the general welfare" don't the republicans understand??? In fact the Founding Fathers mentioned it twice in the Constitution. "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

        June 20, 2011 at 9:09 pm |
  23. James Knupp

    My idea for a revision comes after we've had a few budget crisis'. First: No amendment may be attached to a federal budget bill that is not related to expenditures. This prevents stuff like "removing the gray wolf from the ESA" from being added to the budget because it would never pass otherwise. The second idea is that should no new budget be passed in time, the old one is extended, but at a 10% decrease in ALL fields. This way, there's never a shutdown, but there's still incentive to pass different budgets.

    June 20, 2011 at 8:51 pm | Reply
  24. hustlnflo

    As long as the law permits the legalized process of bribery known as "lobbying" - it won't make any difference how the number of reps is determined or what the term limits are. They will be bribed and do what their corporate overlords tell them to do, just as they do now.

    June 20, 2011 at 9:01 pm | Reply
  25. Don

    As for rewriting the US Constitution, it already even provides for that: it's called Amendments, and there is no limit to them.

    How do you improve on perfection? You tweak it over time as the real need arises. That's how brilliant and visionary our founding fathers were.

    So, go back to camel jockey land, or propose it to a banana republic. I'm sure you'll find a more ameniable audience there.

    June 20, 2011 at 9:01 pm | Reply
  26. Gordie Hayduk

    WE THE PEOPLE: THE COURT OF LAST RESORT

    Recommended 28th Amendment

    Section 1
    The right of the citizens of the United States to call for the removal from office of elected and or appointed officials of the federal government shall be herein guaranteed. Direct violation by any Federal official or officials of the provisions and limits of power as set forth in this Constitution shall constitute grounds for removal under this article.

    Section 2
    The procedure for the guarantee of this right shall exist in actions taken by the citizens through the legislatures and certain elected officials of the several states. The Federal government shall be barred from participation or influence in any way or manner in the execution of these actions but will be totally bound by law by the results thereof.

    Section 3
    In each individual state a call for impeachment of any federal official may be initiated by either of two distinct ways. The elected governor of each state will have the power to call for a vote of impeachment by the legislature of that state in order to initiate this procedure. The citizens of each state will also have the power through signed petition to require a vote of impeachment by the legislature of that state. The number of verified signatures on said petition must equal or exceed one fifth of the total number of votes cast in the most recent general election. When so ordered by the Governor or citizen petition the legislature of each state so ordered shall be required to convene if necessary and vote on such charges. A simple majority vote by each state's legislature shall stand as that state's authorization for charges to be brought against said official. Such authorization when confirmed by a simple majority of the several states shall require that charges be filed and the offending federal official be impeached.

    Section 4
    When impeachment is authorized in accordance with Section 3 of this article the elected governors of the several states shall be required to stand as jurors for such action. Conviction and removal from office of the federal official charged under this article shall require no less than a two thirds majority vote of the governors voting, excluding any and all abstentions.

    Section 5
    Conviction of any federal official under this article shall not extend further than the immediate removal from office of said official and lifetime disqualification to hold any office of the Federal Government. Such conviction and removal from office shall include immediate forfeiture of all claims to compensation of any kind whatsoever from the date of such conviction including all perquisites and pensions. Such conviction and removal from office shall not provide any immunity from indictment, trial, judgment and punishment according to federal, state or local law for any crimes committed by said official while in office.

    http://www.article-v-convention.com

    June 20, 2011 at 9:01 pm | Reply
  27. Kenneth Powers

    How interesting the many responses we have pontificating on our beloved Constitution. The truth of the matter is our Constitution is a 'living document'. The founders never intended it to be a final solution for our country. Each generation is given the opportunity to place their stamp upon this document. The author accepts that the document has been amended 27 times already, so why start fresh. When a change has needed to be made it has been. I hardly think flushing toilets are a reason to scrap a form of government, but to each their own.
    If the author of this article thinks he can find 39 men, or women now alive more capable than the original of creating a governing document I would like to see this list. In my mind any such search would have to start with our supreme court judges as foremost experts on governing documents as their primary job is the interpretation of the Constitution. As strong as this group is, none in my mind is ready to take the place of the slight of stature James Madison in our history books.

    June 20, 2011 at 9:01 pm | Reply
  28. humantwo

    A most interesting discussion, yet I find little mention of our Founding Fathers envisioning public service to become a career, but that is what government has become, and quite profitably so. It stems from the ability to use our present forms of election mechanisms to propagate hierarchy within government to foster selfish career objectives instead of administering the best for America as a whole, fulfilling a finite term, and returning to citizenship as a productive member of common society. We could keep the Constitution pretty much as it is, but amend it to strictly limit any career ideas, offer benefits which are only in effect during terms of service, and then release those benefits, reduce the term of service to one term only, 2, 4, 6 years, stipulate a ten year period of non-political involvement after service, to include lobbying or consulting political activities, former elected officials receive the same benefits as any American after their term of service, and strictly limit the monies any candidate can acquire to become elected to any governmental position. In effect, take away the incentive to have a paid-for government body, and we will have returned American government back to American constituents, not conglomerate-like groups who have selfish agendas unrepresentative of America as a whole. Our Republic would thrive instead of being stifled, and power brokers would be deprived purchasing their plans or special interests. Our elected officials would not have time to construct life-long & powerful careers at the taxpayer's expense. I doubt it would ever happen, too much honesty & humility would be required, but I still believe it would work, and work extremely well for the benefit of all Americans.

    June 20, 2011 at 9:01 pm | Reply
  29. Oathfollower

    What we need is for our politicians to actually read the constitution and then quit making laws that violate the same. If that is done there is no need to rewrite anything.

    June 20, 2011 at 9:03 pm | Reply
    • humantwo

      Very good, my point exactly, thanks!

      June 20, 2011 at 9:09 pm | Reply
    • Rick

      110% agreed

      June 20, 2011 at 9:13 pm | Reply
    • nick2

      Any books of the old or new testamant that you would also like to be faithfully followed >

      June 20, 2011 at 9:33 pm | Reply
      • betterthanjosh

        i got a book of fairy tales that all of yo can follow, its right here. eat me

        June 20, 2011 at 9:35 pm |
    • nick2

      Any books of the old or new testament that you would also like to be faithfully followed >

      June 20, 2011 at 9:34 pm | Reply
  30. David Dempster

    If the Constitution were to be updated, it should acknowledge advances in technology which make certain aspects anachronistic, such as the Electoral College. There is no reason rooted in democracy why the US should maintain the Electoral College. Direct popular vote of the President is long overdue and should be enacted.

    Additionally, the Constitution should severely limit the notion of corporate personhood to contracts and other similar business transactions. As we have seen, corporations wield undue influence in elections and through lobbying at the Federal and State levels. In the end corporations are nothing more than a collection of individuals who retain their First Amendment rights. Therefore, corporations also retain First Amendment rights through its membership.

    June 20, 2011 at 9:06 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.