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 And, anyway, they felt the document was old and outdated, drafted all the way back in 1944.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

    The U. S. Constitution allows for revisions, it's called Constitutional Amendments. Over the years, we have had several amendments, most of them have been an incredible furtherance of freedom and liberty for all individuals. While amending the Constitution is a long and arduous process, it ultimately protects the individual against mob rule or tyranny of the majority. Let's not forget the United States is not a democratic nation, one man one vote, but a republic, rule of law. This is all aimed at protecting the individual rights of citizens, not the rights of the majority over the minority.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:31 pm | Reply
    • Conrad Shull

      And, amending the constitution should be difficult. As for one man one vote: three foxes and two chickens vote for what's for dinner...

      June 20, 2011 at 3:04 pm | Reply
  2. James

    The Constitution is absolutely outdated. Anyone who thinks the needs of the people in the 21st century are the same as those in the 18th century is pig-headed and/or just plain ignorant. I'm afraid I don't have enough time to provide 3 good examples at this time. But restructuring of our governmental system has to be the #1 priority. As it stands, it just doesn't work.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:31 pm | Reply
    • tepeters

      There is osme merit to what you say. As I wrote in another post the founders used an idealized ntoion of the Roman Republic with its checks and balances. However, the myriad of checks and balances in the Roman Republic caused government gridlock which did not enable them to act decivelyon the issues of their day. The inability of ancient Rome to solve its problems because of political gridlock allowed the rise of the Caesars. But ti is always a gamble that the creaiton of a new constitution might create something worse.

      June 20, 2011 at 2:37 pm | Reply
  3. tepeters

    The founders wrote the Constitution with an idealized concept of the Roman Republic in mind with its checks and balances. The House is the popular assembly representing the people. The Senate represents the States as political entities. The Presidency was not intended to be an office representing the people but an office representing the collective states fuctioning as the governor of governors as it were. Thus the Electoral College was created to represent the States and in the case of a tie vote in the Electoral College, even the delegations in the House of Representatives are to vote singularily as a state. The Constitution is actually clear, Presidential Electors are chosen by the States by whatever means they choose. Historically that has been by popular vote but a state is free to change that. Congress gets involved when the votes are counted and can vote to count them or not if there is some kind of irregularity. Or it can, as Congress did in 1877, create an Electoral Commission. When the votes are cast the Electoral votes come under the control of the Federal Government. But until then it is strictly a state affair. That is why in my opinion, the Supreme Court committed an unconstitutional act in 2000 in Bush vs Gore. The dispute was for Florida to decide by its different branches. The Florida Legislature was discussing the possibility of it selecting the Electors which they had a right to do (since it was a Republican Legislature they still would have been Bush electors). The Supreme Court intervened on the basis of the voting rights act forcing them to use the popular vote but the US Constitution does not require this. The government bodies of Florida should have decided how to resolve their dispute and then only after the votes were cast does the federal government through the Congress decide whether to accept them or not. Which brings me to my last point. The White House and Congress are a check and balance on each other. Where are the check and balance on the Supreme Cour? Constitutional review is an assumed power of the Court, assumed by John Marshall, the First Chief Justice. Although there is some logic to that, it is assumed and not spelled out in the Constitution. And the Supreme Court can make errors but the only recourse to correct it is a subsequent Supreme Court but with life time appointements this doesn't happen often. Here is where we can think about revisions to the Constitution. should we even have a Supreme Court or let decisions about constitutionality or enforceability be decided by a consensus or majority of lower courts. The Senate could assume more judical powers otherwise reserved for the Suprme Court. Perhaps terms for the Justices rather than lifetime appointments. Lets face it the notion that they are not partisan is a joke. Thats my thoughts on where the Constitution could be revised.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:32 pm | Reply
    • oldbear60

      While the founders were influenced by the Roman Republic, their understanding was flawed. The Government of Rome was essentially an oligarchy with Senate by family right and dominance of the plebs except thru the tribuneship. This led to multiple wars and insurrections before marius, sulla , ceasar et al brought it totally down. Much like todays senate and corprate overlords are doing. Nice argumenthowever.

      June 20, 2011 at 2:39 pm | Reply
      • tepeters

        I concur. That is why I said they had an idealized notion of the Roman Republic. It is true the issue in Rome was the dispute between the Patrician and Plebians but that is why the Roman Senate was intended to be balanced by the Popular Assemblies. That is what gave rise to the idealized notion of checks and balances, and divisions of power, so that the tribune of the people could veto the senatorial consultation. The civil wars resulted from the inability of the republican government to resolve the conflict between patrician and plebian.

        June 20, 2011 at 3:54 pm |
    • epdemer

      Our government is a trilateral organization – three branches intended to hold each other in check. It is not simply checks and balances between the Executive and Legislative branches as you state. The Judicial branch is intended to hold the other branches in check to ensure that the laws of the nation are consistent and that the actions of the administration are within the legal grounds of the overarching national laws (of which the Constitution is the cornerstone). The Judicial branch is similarly held in check by the executive branch, who nominate the members of the bench, and the legislative branch who vote to confirm those nominations. The intent of the judicial branch as a whole (and the Supreme Court, specifically) is that there should be some sort of balance of opinions within its midst, and that they should not be controlled by one particularly party (which is what would result if they actually had to campaign for their positions). The balance of power continues, however, in the right that the legislative branch has to remove a member of the bench through the act of impeachment if that member violates their oath to uphold the Constitution.

      Imagine if we simply tossed aside the Constitution with its balance of power between the three branches of government, let alone its balance of power between the rights of the union and the rights of the individual states. Which do you suppose would occur first, total anarchy of the citizenry, or the rise to power of our own benevolent dictator. Remember, Germany considered some of the same logic for overriding their laws in the 1930s and what did it get them a decade later?

      June 20, 2011 at 2:47 pm | Reply
      • tepeters

        You make a sound traditional argument for what is supposed to be a check and balance on teh Supreme Court. However, the appointment by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate is a good example of how partisan the Supreme Court can be. With life time appointments sweeping chnages can occur based upon the decision of nine people. Now I do not agree with popularly elecgting judges that would make them even more partisan. I only throw out suggestions. The one I would like to explore more is a consensus or majority opinion of the collective lower courts.

        June 20, 2011 at 4:00 pm |
  4. David

    the second Amendment is my favorite!!!!

    June 20, 2011 at 2:32 pm | Reply
    • WilliamTeller

      Here... Here...


      -+- -+-

      June 20, 2011 at 2:40 pm | Reply
  5. IronRider

    What is this? You think your buttering us up to the idea that changing our United States Constitution is an acceptable idea? .... You even conceive the notion and you dishonor the millions of people who died to protect it. The past two administrations have already tried to give parts of the constitution interpretations that dilute it of any real meaning. Now the media chimes in....Lets sway your vote America!

    June 20, 2011 at 2:32 pm | Reply
    • Floyd

      Hate to break it to you IronRider, but the constitution has been changed before... 27 times to be exact (although the first 10 are what you would call The Bill of Rights). it took a change to the constitution to eliminate slavery and give those former slaves the same god-given right to vote that white men had. it took a change to the constitution to give women the right to vote. the constitution is a living document that the founders designed with the idea that we can change it to adapt to the world. they could not forsee everything that was going to happen in the world, so they gave us article 5 which lays out the amendment process.
      sorry to rain on your "never change the document" parade with reality.

      June 20, 2011 at 2:50 pm | Reply
  6. R.Schultz

    The electoral college does not need to be looked at, states can do this on their own right now, states have been doing this with their National Popular Vote movement. Even to updated the constitution to do this, you need the states support, they can call a constitutional convention to get this done if they so desired.

    Many of the powers people are calling for here are within their states rights, we're a system of Federalism, a limited power national government and states with more authority. There is no reason for a national constitution with a right to healthcare, a state can do this on their own. California has talked for a long time about doing a state single-payer solution, and they're within their constitutional right to do so. But, those same rules may not apply the same in Alaska where you have isolated villages hundreds of miles from anywhere else, and limited travel access. There is a reason those are not national powers, because we're a large, and very diverse country, and one-size fits all rules are when the Constitution tries to avoid. That's the beauty of states powers and Federalism.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:32 pm | Reply
  7. Dave

    If we replace the Constitution, kiss goodbye to the Bill of Rights and say hello to the Christian States of America.
    What issues would I address? I would clarify the bright line between church and state. I would restrict warrantless searches further and make the search rules apply to electronic communication of all types. I would narrow the meaning of "public use" in Amendment V (eminent domain). I would ban coercive interrogation under all circumstances (Supremes recently narrowed V sharply).

    June 20, 2011 at 2:33 pm | Reply
    • Dave

      Sorry, I forgot to mention women, and the rights of noncitizens.

      June 20, 2011 at 2:39 pm | Reply
  8. David


    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>>>>>>>>>you must be inhaling that Zakaria smoke.....

    June 20, 2011 at 2:34 pm | Reply
  9. Peick

    Hey, we can remove freedom of the press during the revision and eliminate stupid controversy. What do you think?

    June 20, 2011 at 2:34 pm | Reply
  10. epdemer

    I LOVE the number of people on this site that believe that all corporate donations for political campaigns should be eliminated–but what of those individuals and organizations that are not corporations, but contribute similar-sized, if not larger, donations to corporate campaigns? Should they be limited as well? Personally, I think there are two possible solutions to campaign finance reform:
    1. Limit each contributors donation to no more than $50 per candidate per election cycle. Then, any corporate and other such contributions would have less impact and the people could have a greater voice in the elections.
    2.Have one giant pool of money that all contributors donate to and that any candidate has access to if he/she wants to run for federal office. Any such pool of money could then be divided evenly between the candidates running in a given election.

    Yes, I realize that there are problems with both "solutions." But, someone has to start thinking outside of the box if we truly want to see campaign finance reform in our lifetimes.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:34 pm | Reply
    • R.Schultz

      A better solution to campaign finance would simply be to make it illegal for any candidate to accept money from any private business, non-profit, or organization that receives federal money. The problem with our campaign finance system is that it essentially supports legalized money laundering on both sides of the aisle, which then make candidates beholden to those organizations. We give money to teachers unions, which then go and spend money giving to candidates, or giving subsidies to oil companies which then makes candidates mouth pieces for them.

      Either we stop completely stop subsidizing all private and non-federal organizations, or disallow candidates from accepting their money. That would clean up campaign finance extremely quickly. You wouldn't even have to re-write the constitution to do it.

      June 20, 2011 at 2:39 pm | Reply
  11. Alan

    NO!!! As you said it is an extrordinary document. The beauty of it is that it CAN be amended. If changes,corrections, or additions need to be made that is how you do it. Amendments. You are however incorrect regarding your statment about the Electoral College and the Senate. Rick countered you senate argument well. To counter your Electoral College statement, the purpose of it is to prevent someone from rising to power simply on popularity. Like a Hitler or Mussolini. I know those are extreme examples but that is the point of using them. If that offends,how does the term President J Lo sound to you?? or President Bieber?

    June 20, 2011 at 2:34 pm | Reply
    • Floyd

      The sad thing is the voting populace is who would vote for Beiber. need proof? check out the number of votes for American Idol when it was in it's prime compared to off year elections around that time. President Beiber may be a bit of a stretch,... but Senator Beiber may be a reality.... ugh...

      June 20, 2011 at 2:44 pm | Reply
  12. GaJanie

    Ditch the Constitution? I don't think so. Our founding fathers were pretty smart. They managed to write a constitution that is relevant more than 200 years later. I don't have nearly as much faith in what our current leaders would produce.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:35 pm | Reply
  13. Robb

    I am hardly a Constitutionalist, but I see no reason to make sweeping changes in the Constitution. Perhaps we need to realign our country instead along the principles that have guided us for so many years. I agree the Electoral College should go away. It was only designed because there was no mass communications back in the day. It was not about equality of states and all that nonsense. But to make massive changes to the Constitution? Do it through the system we already have, amendments. If some of these things are so important, petition your states and petition your Congressmen to get an amendment passed. It's really pretty simple.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:36 pm | Reply
  14. Ty

    1st amendment: Make Habeas Corpus un-suspendable, 2nd: Define marriage as an "establishment of religion" and as such that "congress shall make no law respecting" it – replace it in gov't language solely with civil unions that will be made available to everyone. These "civil unions" would in effect encompass all gov't related business that is now encompassed by civil unions and marriages. Civil (or religiously based) marriage would still be at the discretion of religious bodies that could, on their own decide whether or not people can be "married." Thus the gov't doesn't lose revenue, everyone is afforded the same rights and privileges by the gov't, and the concept of "marriage" is defined not by the government but by religion itself. 3rd: Abolish non-publicly funded campaigns (i.e. no corporate donations), and lobbyists.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:36 pm | Reply
    • Recent college grad


      June 20, 2011 at 2:46 pm | Reply
  15. Vcapek

    1. Permanent separation of church and state. Period.
    2. End the electoral college. Positively useless in this day and age. It does not accurately reflect the people's choice (Gore v. Bush).
    3. Allocate the number of congressional delegates to each state proportionally.

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

      I agree with your #1.. i figured that since we really should already have it, and don't, that we'd need to by hyper-specific.

      June 20, 2011 at 2:37 pm | Reply
      • Ty

        Well i agree with all three really..

        June 20, 2011 at 2:38 pm |
  16. klaw

    Unfortunately most people look at the constitution as some people look at the bible, as some sort of divine document never to be questioned. We've been brainwashed for generations into thinking it's this perfect thing, when it has many flaws when considering the huge difference between our society today and the one when it was written.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:36 pm | Reply
  17. Bob

    The founders' intent was to protect LIBERTY not DEMOCRACY. Each part of the federal gov't was appointed by DIFFERENT constituencies.

    The House by direct popular vote

    The Senate by State legislatures.

    The presidency by the Electoral College.

    the Supreme Court by the President

    In other words they were trying to keep the sources of political power divided up, so that a single constituency would not control everything, because that would be a threat to liberty. The founders were wiser than we are, so let's not mess around with what they created without some serious soul searching and thoughful debate.

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

      Agreed, but I think the point of this article is to invoke soul searching and thoughtful debate. The point is that as brilliant as the founders were, they could not have foreseen the state of affairs that exists today. For example, we had to pass an amendment to abolish slavery. I wouldn't suggest some irrational, unfounded attempt to amend or re-write something as genius as the constitution, but I wouldn't be opposed to hearing ideas on how to re-work some of its provisions that have proven outdated over the years. Obviously, that process would have to be subject to the highest scrutiny, but it isn't that outlandish of an idea.

      June 20, 2011 at 2:48 pm | Reply
  18. Jimbo

    I think it would be a waste of time since the ruling class is going to do what they want anyways. But if we were:
    1. No anchor babies.
    2. Legalize the green goodness.
    3. Allow citizens to film law enforcment.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:37 pm | Reply
  19. JT99

    Let's take the greatest living document ever produced and really screw it up by letting a whole bunch of half baked idiots, better known as politicans, re-write it. 'Cause lets face it, does anyone out there think the folks in Congress ( a/k/a the "Puppets of the Deep Pockets") are going to allow any of the unwashed masses have input. Hardly! In case any one forgot, we do have a mechanism to revise it, they're called amendments.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:39 pm | Reply
  20. Steve

    If you need proof that having people suggest ideas over the internet for a new constitution is a bad idea, all you have to do is read the comments on this article.

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

      Truth. This is the most accurate comment here.

      Oh and while I'm posting, I may as well say the Constitution should be re-written to make me and my birthline the supreme rulers of the universe to be hailed and beloved far and wide and paid tribute to with 10% of the GNP annually.

      June 20, 2011 at 4:36 pm | Reply
  21. Lord Vokk

    How about an amendment that sets up a specific process for validating the success or failure of a particular year's Congress. Actionable items that must be completed for that Congress to get a passing grade.

    If that year's Congress fails to mee its goals, then all the congressmen associated with that congress gets a "Black mark" or a foul. Any congressman that has 2 "Black marks" can no longer run for re-election. Any congressman that has 4 "black marks" gets recalled.

    This way the congressmen will fill bound to actually DO the job that we sent them to Washington to do.

    Lord Vokk

    June 20, 2011 at 2:40 pm | Reply
  22. TonyinTx

    Yes, our Constitution's Amendments could use an update. Define the power of The Fed. Get rid of the Electorial College. Make balanced annual budgets the norm unless a majority-approved emergency situation exists. Define the power of the Judicial Branch. Limit or restrict corporate campaign contributions to ensure that the concerns of the citizens are more represented than corporate dollars. Improve the wording in sections to ensure clarity. The balance of Executive and Legislative Branches is great pretty much the way it is. Add line-item veto to the power of the Executive Branch in order to limit excessive and unrelated spending within individual bills. Empower the states more. Address the illegal immigration issue. Clarify the common rights for basic retirement and medical benefits to our legal citizens. We could make real reforms to ensure the properity of our country long into the distant future. The biggest challenge is how to get bi-partisanship, personal greed, and corporate interests out of the effort? Iceland got a majority of citizen feedback as measured by Social Media? That would be just plain scary...have you read the crazy, clearly uneducated comments in this blog thread and others? Conversely, the majority of Icelanders are well educated and well traveled.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:40 pm | Reply
  23. RonPepper

    I'm appalled at how much "ad hominem" debate (attacking the person rather than the idea) is going on here. Just this morning I was instructing my "moot trial" students on how to identify "fallacious" arguments. I used as examples how our politicians (of all parties and all sides) frequently resort to personal attacks to make their points - but I'm seeing the same thing from my fellow citizens who would criticize our politicians for ignoring the issues. Shame.

    Moving on, the big issue seems to be how we elect our presidents. That the electoral college is probably of little relevance today by inaccurately tallying our votes for the presidential candidates is reprehensible. The original reason for the electoral college was to negotiate a settlement with the southern states by awarding them electoral college votes equal to the number of citizens in their states makes it all the more reprehensible. That the African American was counted as a 3/5th citizen but with no vote, gave the southern states influence and power much beyond their true voting populations. This undue power given to the smaller states is testified to by the fact that our first four presidents all came from the slave-holding state of Virginia. But, I also agree with others that this outmoded and unfair system of electing the president can be changed without rewriting the Constitution or offering up an amendment. So, let's do it.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:41 pm | Reply
  24. Silence Dogood

    "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."

    It isn't supposed to be. That's precisely why Congress was structured into 2 houses. The Senate allows for every state to be represented equally regardless of their population, while the House of Representatives gives more weight to the states with more inhabitants. And to become a law, a bill has to pass both houses. This ensures that anything passed into law does not outrightly favor small states over large, or vice versa. The Constitution was setup with all these sort of problems in mind, and that's why it has remained the foundation of the greatest nation on Earth for as long as it has.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:41 pm | Reply
  25. Immigrant Ray in MD

    I'm amazed that an "intellectual" like Fareed is given so much weight when he clearly has no understanding of the methodology, history, or intent of the Constitution.

    First off, we're not a democracy. We're a republic with a system that is supposed to have dual sovreignty. The Constitution and the form of government we have was intended to establish a central government with clearly defined powers, mostly centered around the creation of currency, establishment of interstate commerce, and the dealings with foreign powers. Just about everything else was left to the States.

    The House is the direct voice of the people and the one place where the popular vote is given its voice. The Senate was to be a part of Congress where the Senators would be appointed representatives from the State and NOT elected into their position (a huge mistake to change it from this).

    The electoral college exists in order to keep presidents from simply campaigning in States with large populations. It's intent was to give small States a say in every election and to not permit candidates from completely omitting large swaths of the nation.

    This republic we live in and this form of government was created to limit government and maximize the rights of the individual to rise up and get as far as they could with their own work and effort.

    The Federalist Papers were written to defend the Constitution and convince New York to back it and the new form of government.

    The Constitution has it's own system to enact changes and institute amendments to let it "change with the times." Some of these changes have been to our detriment, such as the taxation of personal income and the popular voting for Senators. Other changes have been necessary in order to abolish abhorrent practices such as slavery. The Constitition is more relevant today than it has ever been.

    We would not be in the trouble we're in as a country if the Federal government actually limited itself to the enumerated powers of Article 1 Section 8 since it was never intended to have a role in every single aspect of our lives.

    More government = less freedom.
    Less government = more freedom.

    If this wasn't the case, then all dictatorships would be thriving and wonderful places to live.

    Government stiflles innovation and kills individual liberties.

    You have a right to equal protection under the law, not to equal outcomes.

    Study up, Fareed, for you clearly don't know anything about why our Constitution is the way it is. Start by reading the Federalist Papers.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:41 pm | Reply
    • dbrown

      Well stated Ray.

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

      Hear Hear!

      June 20, 2011 at 6:50 pm | Reply
  26. oldbear60

    Very interesting .... Yes the Constitution needs reworking, but who and how. I can see a civil war coming from certain factors. is english made official, does christianity get to dominate, who decides how each state is represented. Let's be clear, change needs to be made, but be very careful and very, very afraid. Most "citizens" won't participate and the rabid minority who do will impose a very strict and restrictive government in their image.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:42 pm | Reply
  27. JA French

    1. Term limits for Congress that will remove all current members and elect all new Senators and House members.
    2. Eliminate corporate contributions of any kind to a person or persons holding public office.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:42 pm | Reply
  28. MMA

    Campaign Finance – Corporation should not be allowed to contribute. Only inidividual voters with a set limit.
    Education and Health should be a right not a privelege.
    Government should regulate, safety for common good and business malpractises.
    Government can not dictate morality. They are not good at it.
    Government should stay out of social and cultural issues.
    Free Trade with the world.
    No democracy spread agenda. No military intervention unless directly threatened.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:42 pm | Reply

    Constitution is a sacred document, but it must be updated. 1) Axe Electoral College 2) Revise Senate 3) Require All Citizens to Vote 4) Ditch – Born Here = Automatic citizenship 5) Institute a Murder = Death Penalty, Stealing = Loss of Limb clause to drop crime rate. 6) (MOST IMPORTANTLY) States who contribute the most to Federal Tax Revenue should recieve the same proportion back.

    June 20, 2011 at 2:43 pm | Reply
  30. Sharky

    The problem isn't the Constitution isn't good enough, the problem is that it is ignored by our politicians!

    June 20, 2011 at 2:45 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.