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 And, anyway, they felt the document was old and outdated, drafted all the way back in 1944.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

    It is not time for a new Constitution, nor is the social media approach the right one even if it was. The Constitution was written with guiding principles. These principles can stand the test of time and should be used when considering specific laws that are appropriate for a particular time period. They are not prescriptive and/or outdated. I admit that I have not read the Iceland document, so I cannot speak to whether this was the case for theirs.

    And, regarding the use of social media, it would be highly biased and unfair. In a country where we frequently hear arguments such as the unfairness of requiring IDs to vote because certain demographics cannot afford or don't have easy access to a picture ID, this approach would preclude the involvement of many more demographics. For starters, the less fortunate or "lower class" wouldn't have the same access to computers. And, one of the strongest demographics, older Americans wouldn't have the same computer savvy to participate. Even if we worked out all of these details, special interests and lobbyists would find a more powerful platform to push change than the one that Americans despise and complain about now. And, lastly, who would be on the Constitutional Council and how would they be selected. We already have a situation where the Judicial Branch has been politicized and every case that comes before it is directly dependent on who happens to be on the bench at that time.

    So, it sounds nice. But, it would not work.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:14 pm | Reply
  2. Simon

    There are flaws in the current Constitution. I believe they are relatively small and fixable, given the political will. The flaws in our current civil/legal society, are the direct result of flaws in the law (the Constitution). Some tweaks I would make would be: 1) remove citizenship for non-people (corporations, combines and trusts), 2) express health care and education as a fundamental right, 3) prohibit states from having standing armies (armed police forces), 4) allow presidents a single term of 5 or 6 years, and allow congressmen and senators single terms as well, 5) Reassign the war powers to Congress and only permit the president to exercise command of military forces following the declaration of war.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:14 pm | Reply
  3. Frank

    Revising sounds like a good idea, but keep in mind...this is America. I have seen the rise of religious fanatics. Personally, I practice my faith according to the way I choose. Just because I don't celebrate my religion like they do doesn't make me less of a Christian. I would be very worried about that group forcing their views of religion into a new constitution, and what they would do if they don't get their way. We have all seen examples of that in recent years.

    As a Hispanic (born and raised in the US), I have seen discrimination rear it's ugly head – and yes, especially towards Hispanics. I would be very worried about discrimination making its way into a new Constitution – not just towards Hispanics, but African Americans, Muslims, Asians, etc.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:15 pm | Reply
  4. TheEnd

    1. Popular vote for presidential elections
    2. Updated rights, liberties and freedoms for all (i.e., Gay, lesbian – marriage)
    3. Universal Health Care and Education for all.

    Land of opportunity – not if it's all right-wing lunacy. Either way, the US is declining in influence and power. Hopefully Americans will learn about globalization – but maybe not before it's too late.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:15 pm | Reply
  5. TheEnd

    and please – no ridiculous religious dogmas...

    June 20, 2011 at 2:16 pm | Reply
  6. WilliamTeller

    No.
    This column coming from a George Soros Drone.. A hired gun for Global Initiative which Soros paid to run for one world order under one rule of law, one monetary standard, one sole leader..
    Countries would not have the independent Freedoms of self rule; instead countries would follow the One Global World Order. Sounds familiar? Think hard..
    CHINA!!!!!
    This is not fear mongering..
    Zarkaria and others like him want a world without borders, world without Individual freedoms..
    A collective… Folks.. Don’t be fooled by this guy.. He’s an implant to incite and change Americans thinking that the enemy of Freedom is America.
    He’s that piece of doo doo that stuck in the bottom of your shoe.
    Scrape him off with their phony change their name; keep their agenda for a Socialist World Order.
    Beware of the Pigs..
    GOD BLESS AMERICA.
    -+- -+-

    June 20, 2011 at 2:17 pm | Reply
  7. B.Myers, NY

    Mr. Fareed Zakaria has a profound lack of understanding with respect to the colonial history that resulted in the U.S. Constitution. He also has a profound lack of understanding regarding current events, i.e. why revise a document we have so blatantly, in many ways, disregarded? Fortunately, the first amendment protects the expression of ideas such as his. Besides do we really trust our current leaders (gag) to revise the U.S. Constitution with or without input from the people? Rhetorical question.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:18 pm | Reply
  8. USAForever!

    Absolutely not, period.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:18 pm | Reply
  9. George

    This man wants to put the Constitution of the United States up on social networking sites to re-write it. How is it that this man Fareed has come to be seen as an intellectual? I cry foul on this one and question his loyalty to the U.S. Just what does he want to see written into it, Sharia law?

    June 20, 2011 at 2:18 pm | Reply
    • James

      Way to jump straight to racist conclusions for which there is absolutely no supporting evidence other than the author's name. I'm ashamed to share any common traits with you.

      June 20, 2011 at 2:29 pm | Reply
  10. XAQ

    Absolutely...

    1) Term limits in the Senate and the House
    2) Health Care as an inalienable right (you can't persue happiness without health)
    3) Publicly funded campaigns (all candidates get the same amount to make their case to the people)
    4) Abolish the 2 party system (I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking, wait, it's the same guy with both puppets!)
    5) Re-write the second ammendment to reflect the reality that we can no longer reasonably defend ourselves from the gvt, and as such private citizens have no business owning weapons whose only intent is to kill as many people as quickly as possible.

    I could go on, but you get the point...

    June 20, 2011 at 2:19 pm | Reply
    • USAForever!

      You're an idiot. No nicer way to put it. You are an embarrassment to true Americans.

      June 20, 2011 at 2:21 pm | Reply
      • XAQ

        USAforever-
        Which part was the dumbest? The part where I think our politicians have been bought and paid for on both sides of the aisle, the part where I recognize that gun control laws are necessary (unless you think I ought to be able to buy a fully functional nuke if I can afford it), or the part where I don't accept that we can't provide quality healthcare for everyone?

        Luke-
        Thanks, good to know there are thinkers instead of just chest-pounders out there.

        June 20, 2011 at 2:32 pm |
      • USAForever!

        LMAO @ XAQ You are definitely not a thinker.

        June 20, 2011 at 2:38 pm |
      • XAQ

        Sure, laugh, but I still haven't read anything coming from your mind-hole that resembles a well though out position on anything aside from my intelligence, which given the brevity of your responses and either lack of typing skills, or worse, lack of general english education, is likely beyond yours.

        Dude, just come back with a reasoned response! I love debate, I abhor mindless attacks.

        June 20, 2011 at 3:03 pm |
    • Luke Emery

      I absolutely agree.

      By the way, to the person who make a "true american" remark. If a true American is someone who believes that a corporation has a moral duty to preserve a nations wealth, that people shouldn't be forsaken healthcare simply because they cannot afford it, and that military might is righteous to use for any reason, then count me out. Because I am not a part of some cult which forces me to believe some inane things.

      June 20, 2011 at 2:26 pm | Reply
    • WilliamTeller

      Just another Socialist DRONE.. Paid to agree with Zarkaria and other Globalist..

      -+- -+-

      June 20, 2011 at 2:28 pm | Reply
      • XAQ

        Socialist drone? Nice. How about a rebuttal with cogent arguments? Is that beyond your ability, or do you just prefer to keep pushing our discourse down the road of division and derision?

        June 20, 2011 at 2:35 pm |
      • USAForever!

        XAQ you first need to being some intelligence to the conversation. I am afraid you are incapable of doing so.

        June 20, 2011 at 2:39 pm |
      • XAQ

        "you first need to being some intelligence..." for a "true american" you sure have a lot of problems with english.

        BTW, you haven't yet brought an argument, only poorly orchestrated attacks that belie your point (i.e., that you are smarter than me.)

        June 20, 2011 at 2:54 pm |
    • XAQ

      I forgot my favorite proposed ammendment:
      6) A Person will be defined by law as an individual, living human being (i.e., not a corporation)

      June 20, 2011 at 2:57 pm | Reply
    • hippo

      i was with you until your thoughts on guns. The right to protect self and property. Screw everyone else. If you ban guns the idiots you DONT want to have them, will still find a way to get them and law abiding citizens will suffer the wrath. I like the thought that if some ahole in the night breaks into my house i can shoot his dumbbutt without a second thought. If he didnt want to get shot. Shouldnt have tried to steal from me. But everything else. I am on board with ya.

      June 20, 2011 at 3:38 pm | Reply
      • XAQ

        Hippo-
        Thanks for a reply that presents a point of view rather than a mindless attack! I don't think we should take away guns, self protection is a right and should be respected as such, but do you really need an AK-47 to protect yourself? Or a Gloc with a 30 round clip? I would argue that no one needs those weopons for self protection. There's a reason they call them "assault weapons" rather than defensive weapons. The point I was making is that when the 2nd ammendment was written, you hunted with the same weapons you fought a war with. That no longer applies, and to try to apply that thought process now is to say that I, as a private citizen, should be allowed to own a tank (or a nuke, for that matter) so that I can protect myself from the government. I don't buy it. I'm not anti-gun, I'm pro-common sense, and the strength that the NRA has to resist any common sense gun laws doesn't make sense to me.

        June 20, 2011 at 6:08 pm |
  11. David M

    I think it would be a huge mistake to junk the Constitution and start over. A better way is to address the changes that need to be made and do so in a way that is not political, if that's possible. Given the extreme partisanship we have today, I doubt if Congress could produce a document that would be better than what we already have. Each side would slant it to their benefit and "we the people" would be diminished.

    Leave it alone and amend it as necessary. But for goodness sakes, don't junk it and start over. I fear what a new one would look like.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:19 pm | Reply
    • Luke Emery

      If we opened that up, the religious would forsake some of the most valuable segments in the original document, like the freedom of and from religion, the freedom to speak. Another issue would be with the injection of pro-capitalist mantras, which I would despise beyond belief. Capitalism, while is what we use today, is only an evolved state of a prior economic system. We cannot limit ourselves to this economic system indefinitely. Also, the result of the "red scare" would cause any welfare or public service anything to be diminished or hindered.

      June 20, 2011 at 2:29 pm | Reply
    • Don_J

      I agree... what, with the amounts of money being thrown around these days to win elections could you imagine the levels of corruption there would be if we were to go down the road of what this man, Fareed Zakaria suggests...! HELL NO!

      June 20, 2011 at 4:27 pm | Reply
  12. Steven

    The Senate acts as a check on the popular rule that is popular rule provided for in the House, that shouldn't change. The electoral college has been modified to support the popular vote in each state. Technically the can vote for whomever they want, realistically they don't. Term limits will not work, I am from CA and when they instituted term limits, it just gave the power to faceless Mandarins and partisans who care more for the short term than the long term outlook. Lengthening the terms of the various leaders, President, Senators, and Representatives would be a better way to go. Before, two years was a long time, now it is a blink of an eye. (Relatively speaking). Maybe the Representatives term should be three not two.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:19 pm | Reply
  13. Robert in Canada

    I would suggest a standardized voting system. As it stands now, each of over 3000 counties in the US can decide how votes are recorded using voting maches, paper ballots or electronic voting machines. Also, instead of having everyone re-register to vote why not have a master voter directory based upon where people live/driver's licences, etc? At electon time, any voter omissions/changes can be processed when the voter shows up to vote.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:20 pm | Reply
  14. plugugly

    First, i don't see any possibility of wholesale replacement of the Constitution. It would take a civil war to bring it about, and another larger civil war would result from its being put in place. BUT – if it were to happen, here are a couple ideas:

    First, and obviously, abandon the electoral college. It was a necessity when the Constitution was written, but is no longer today. Direct vote for President. End of that story.

    Second, leave the House of Representatives as they are. Same with the Supreme Court. No changes are really necessary, and the disruption wouldn't be worth it.

    As for the Senate, major changes are needed. End the "two per state" rule. The Senate was intended to be the senior body of representatives, so make their office a single, ten year term, with no re-election. Their office to be voted for by the entire nation, as an "at large" candidacy. Five Senators to be elected each two years, total of twenty-five senators. Thus would end the "for life" safe office holders elected for individual states, and the need for electioneering once elected. This is a body of people with the entire nation's best interest to consider and defend.

    There you have it. Comments?

    June 20, 2011 at 2:20 pm | Reply
  15. George

    I ask Mr Fareed Zakaria to resign his position as commentator on CNN, and I personally will boycott CNN until he does resign.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:20 pm | Reply
    • Dawud

      I second this. A world news organization is NOT the place for Fareed's (or CNN's) personal agenda.

      June 20, 2011 at 2:29 pm | Reply
      • Luke Emery

        Are you incapable of reading "Blogs" in the URL? It is about his commentary. It would be like watching Glenn Beck, except in this case I actually agree with Fareed.

        June 20, 2011 at 2:32 pm |
    • Taylor

      In the meantime, where will you be gracing bloggers and commenters with your insight, so I can continue to understand the nuts and bolts of our democracy?

      June 20, 2011 at 2:36 pm | Reply
  16. Fred Manning

    I've been everywhere a million times.Other then US,Canada,Mexico,Europe(not Greece) and Hongkong,it's a third world hell out there.The constitution means nothing.The Bill of Rights is the defining document,.Hey Fareed,who wrote it.By the way,if not for the electoral college,politicians would cater solely to Texas,Cal.NY.,etc,..

    June 20, 2011 at 2:22 pm | Reply
  17. Ike Hall

    It is all very well for one to say Iceland is crowdsourcing its Constitution. The truth is, a political elite will review and accept, modify or reject the changes based on their own self-interest as well as that of the people. The Althing of old was a much different body than it is currently, and the same can be said of our Congress. Neither represents an improvement on the original.

    The only purpose of a Constitution is to define, and more importantly, strictly limit to delegated powers of the government in question. In the case of the United States, that delegation was from the States, which in turn were delegated powers from the people. In no case does a delegated entity properly possess more rights than the delegator.

    As to the goals behind Mr. Zakaria's question, I say this: Rewriting a Constitution, any Constitution, based on the desire of people to live at the expense of others, or to boss other people around, is a recipe for disaster and decline.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:23 pm | Reply
    • Ike Hall

      However, Mr. Zakaraia is correct in noting that there are flaws in the U.S. Constitution. There are several clauses in the U.S. Constitution that are consistently misinterpreted ("Necessary and Proper", "Interstate Commerce", "General Welfare"). The sole legitimate purpose of any government is to secure the rights and liberty of the people. If amendments are identified that will remove any phrases that allow for misinterpretations of original intent, then I am all for it.

      June 20, 2011 at 2:59 pm | Reply
  18. Rich

    We need a paper ballot amendment, a natural persons amendment, and repeal the second and twenty second Amendments:

    "All federal elections shall be conducted by voter verifiable paper ballot."

    "The rights protected by this Constitution apply to natural persons only and no other entity."

    June 20, 2011 at 2:24 pm | Reply
    • USAForever!

      Another idiot who should just keep his ignorant pie hole closed.

      June 20, 2011 at 2:25 pm | Reply
      • Luke Emery

        I betcha you cannot say one thing without adding some sort of insult.

        June 20, 2011 at 2:34 pm |
      • USAForever!

        Sure I could, however, when insults are warranted, I will give them.

        June 20, 2011 at 2:40 pm |
    • TRH

      I'm not sure I understand your position. Ok, the 2nd ammendment I get...it's in the top 3 polarizing issues in the country. I disagree with you, but that's fine so does ~50% of the rest of the country.

      But the 22nd? Why? Why would you want endless re-elections of presidents when, IMHO, this is the biggest problem plaguing congress today.

      I'd suggest instead of removing the 22nd, we need to EXPAND it to include congress members as well.

      In my opinion no single man is so great as to have that power for that long. I think we need LESS career politicians and more farmers, doctors, teachers, engineers, businessmen, law enforcement officers, scientists, etc serving our country in the highest levels of government. THOSE were the people who built this country. The PEOPLE of the country, not people who spend an entire career being a politician and who have one proven skill, raising money for campaigning.

      June 20, 2011 at 4:18 pm | Reply
  19. Loren

    One of the best aspects of the U.S. Constitution is that it incorporates a mechanism for its amendment, the most important being the Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments, and the 14th, abolishing slavery. That being said, I can't think of another country in the world where the balance between the interests of the various citizens and the government has been so ably balanced as that of our Constitution, whether intentionally, by amendment, or through interpretation. Ultimately, the efficacy of any government depends upon the willingness of the citizens to participate and make intelligent decisions for their future. While the U.S. has suffered at times from demagoguery, more so of late, the balance has been remarkably strong, and we can only hope that the American people realize again that the strength of our nation lies in respecting the great foundation of on which our government rests.

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

    I do feel the electoral college takes the actual vote away from the people and would like to see that end. I like Iceland's idea of no corporate funding. These corporations are, no doubt, expecting support for their personal agendas in return for those millions, even if it hurts American citizens and the democracy we so cherish.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:25 pm | Reply
  21. Bob

    Abolishing the electoral college is going from the frying pan into the fire. It will result in a proliferation of third parties each of which will need only a PLURALITY to win the White House. This means that in almost every election (not just 2 per century like Bush v. Gore) the president will be someone who gets 35 or 40 percent of the popular vote. This will happen almost every time, while the Electoral college problem almost never happens. Also, if you don't like the fact that Alaska and California get the same number of Senators, then that's an argument for abolishing the Senate entirely. What's the point of having two houses of Congress if the mebers of each are chosen the exact same way? You should just have one big "House" and keep it simple. Bottom line is, the Founders were smarter than we are and we shouldn't screw around with what they created unless we have thought it through VERY well.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:25 pm | Reply
  22. Luke Karamyalil

    While still allowing freedom of speech for all, there should be a subsection to it disallowing people to claim, "The Founding Fathers thought this or that," unless they specify what ideology of the founding fathers they are referring to. E.g. "The Founding Fathers who were Federalists wanted this," or "The Founding Fathers who were Anti-Federalists wanted this."

    June 20, 2011 at 2:25 pm | Reply
    • Luke Emery

      Yeah.. I could care less. It is like trying to say "Jesus was a capitalist" or "Jesus doesn't like that you voted DemoCRAP" type things. These propaganda/misattribution of ideas are very dangerous. That being said, they ought still be protected. We need to educate people better on logical fallacies and such, and those wouldn't effect anyone. Unfortunately, our education system is failing for various reasons, one being the negative stigma that the religious put on schools. "They are indoctrinatin' our kids! derpa derp."

      June 20, 2011 at 2:36 pm | Reply
      • Luke Karamyalil

        Yeah...of course they should be protected to say that. Though there are a great many changes we can make to the constitution (see removing the 2nd amendment) my original post was a joke.

        June 20, 2011 at 2:56 pm |
  23. Dawud

    This is absolutely ridiculous. We need a government and a society that follows the Constitution before we decide to abolish it and start over. This is madness, truthfully.

    Fareed cites how the electoral college isn't 'democratic' in that a President can be elected even if they don't receive a majority of the popular vote. First, we don't live in a democracy – we live in a democratic republic. There are many difference, but the main one between the two is in a democracy the majority can strip the rights of the minority while in a republic the majority has the responsibility to protect and uphold the rights of the minority. We have to begin with this point that we don't live in a democracy but in a republic.

    Second, Fareed cites that 'the structure of the Senate is even more undemocratic' in that each state has two equal representatives regardless of state population. Fareed is an intelligent man and I'm sure he's not only aware that the House of Representatives acts as the body in government that is more representative of state's population but that certain powers are given only to the House as it is the more representative body.

    We could go on debating these points – which is the whole point of this method of government.

    Yet, my main question here is what is Fareed's motivation in using one of the world's largest news networks to suggest that we need to abolish our Constitution? Certainly there's a place for editorial commentary in the media. Yet, nowhere in the video nor the accompanying transcript is there mention that this bit was an editorial. Which begs the larger question – does CNN share Fareed's opinion that we need to new, modern form of government? And if that is the case, we Americans better speak up now or we may awaken one morning in a very different country then we're used to. Sure, our rights are on the attack from every angle. But if we open the Constitution we open a pandora's box that could leave us without many of our protected, unalienable rights.

    Last thing...I just noticed...on CNN, the title of this story is "Is it time to update the U.S. Constitution?" (link: http://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2011/06/19/exp.witw.zakaria.constitution.cnn). Yet, as I share this on Facebook, notice there's only mention of the few seconds in the video devoted to Iceland's process. But if you listen to this story you'll definitely see that Fareed is making the argument that we should revise our Constitution. Odd, isn't it?

    June 20, 2011 at 2:25 pm | Reply
  24. kdf

    yes, lets give the government another way of controlling our lives. There are too many opions and suggestions that can be had. One of the worst articles to suggest an idea ever.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:26 pm | Reply
  25. Recent college grad

    I agree with the electorial college needed to be looked over, but I think the IDEA of the senate and congress are set up just fine right now. But what I do think should happen is Congress should not be elected positions and that they should rotate every so often. I believe that Congress would work much better if corporations weren't allowed to give "donations", and I also think that the people would have a better voice if Congress was chosen at rondom from the general population, kind of like Jury Duty. You can say that's dumb and some people wouldn't take it seriously, but the majority would, and that would lead to laws being passed that actually help the general populace, instead of just the washington 'fat cats'

    June 20, 2011 at 2:26 pm | Reply
  26. cb

    The US needs to be split up... it's too large and unwieldy. The Constitution could then be reconfigured / rewritten to suit the respective citizenry.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:28 pm | Reply
  27. JFCARLE

    Scrap the SECOND AMENDMENT, since you no longer need a "well regulated militia", given that you already invest enough in 1) army; 2) State troopers; 3) border police; and no longer have to fight tribes of indigenous people.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:28 pm | Reply
    • USAForever!

      Another ignorant moron.

      June 20, 2011 at 2:30 pm | Reply
      • Trainer Mike

        USA–perhaps instead of trolling this thread you could offer some opinions as to why you think the 2nd Amendment should remain as it is?

        June 20, 2011 at 9:00 pm |
  28. OtakuAnthony

    I do believe that the constitution needs to be rewritten. The reason I believe this needs to be done is that I don't feel as a society we can truly advanced forward until otherwise. I am not say that we completely get rid of all of the amendments that currently exists. What I would like to see is that the current amendments get written INTO into as the new document, then start over with brand new amendments.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:30 pm | Reply
  29. Jeff in Illinois

    Do we really want a constitution written by corporate America? I agree it needs a major updating, but there is no one I trust to do it.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:30 pm | Reply
    • USAForever!

      It needs no such thing, never has, never will, period.

      From time to time a minor tweak may be needed and that is what the amendment process is for.

      June 20, 2011 at 2:32 pm | Reply
      • Jeff in Illinois

        What it really needs is a government that actually follows it. Right now, both major parties put their party above the country. Traitors to the last man.

        June 20, 2011 at 2:39 pm |
      • TRH

        I can't say I entirelly disagree with Jeff on this one. It's mind boggling to me how polarized our two party system has become. What are the odds that 400million people fit into two categories, two categories that happen to have the EXACT OPPOSITE opinion on EVERY issue. The math would be astronomical.

        The reality is that the two parties have grown to a size of importance that they just exist to counter each other any more. It's absurd. And until that deathgrip they have on American voters is broken, either through term limits, campaign reform, or some amazing third party candidate that manages to break through I believe the entire system and how it functions is just going to continue to grind to a halt.

        I honestly believe sensable people CAN disagree but come to points of consensus. But the two parties dictating the actions and funding of most politicians are not sensable people. They are just entities which exist with only the goal of protecting and propegating their agendas. We need to remove those rigid and fixed agendas from the system and let PEOPLE operate inside the system that was created again.

        I don't have all the answers as to how. But I do know until that's achieved we're likely to not really advance as a nation in the way we once did.

        June 20, 2011 at 4:27 pm |
    • Luke Emery

      I would say Referendum, but I fear that the religious will vote for the corporation anyways, because they will believe anything they utter from their advertisement agencies. "Jesus wants Coca-cola to be successful, and Michelin tire too."

      June 20, 2011 at 2:38 pm | Reply
  30. Alan Hochbaum

    It is truly sad that our country is now run as much on emotional fervor as it is on pragmatic thought. Whatever your beliefs about our country, it would be really great if they were based on reason rather than fear, anger, and faux patriotism ("I love my country, and now I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears like a 6 year old so I can't hear any more discussion about it").

    Concerning the electoral college, one of the points brought up earlier, I wrote an editorial piece for the Atlanta Journal Constitution back in 1996. After crunching the numbers, I came to the conclusion that a candidate in a 2 person race could win 27.2 % of the popular vote and STILL WIN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION! Granted, the scenario is unlikely, but doesn't that fact alone inform you that our electoral system is not nearly representative enough?

    June 20, 2011 at 2:30 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.