We would have to use the parts of our current system that work, and mesh them together with fixes for the parts that don't work. I'm not certain that we could ever create a government system that would truly endure, however, as all have failed. I'm thinking that the most we could hope for is 500-1000 years. The problem is keeping the system preserved while also addressing the issues that become our concern as society changes. Some aspects, like the bill of rights would have to be static, while others are more dynamic. But every change during its life brings it one step closer to its death.

I agree, Alex. The Constitution has built in ways to change,or amend it. They are not easy, nor should they be and I do not believe p**********l fiat, or legislating by a biased judiciary is to be tolerated. Lifetime appointments to the SCOTUS certainly has some drawbacks and a failure to establish term limits for legislators is folly. But I digress. A free market has brought us enormous prosperity, even diluted, as it has been with Socialism, or social engineering if you prefer. Return education to the various states and charity to local communities, for starters.

What do all past government systems have in common? They have failed. What do all existing governments have in common? They too will fail. The very nature of man is to corrupt for personal gain, and this corruption, radiating from people in positions of power, takes its toll on the systems of government. This is a cumulative effect, and when it reaches a critical point, the system fails. The result is usually revolution, secession, or occupation, but regardless, it is a failed system. From the vacuum comes a replacement; dictatorship, republic, democracy or something else new and shiny. During this t***sition, war and other hardships are commonplace. So when a person comes into power who is progressive, and can motivate the rest of the government to “move forward”, where then are they moving towards? Would it not be better for a politician to leave the government system in the same condition that he entered it, if longevity is our goal? This is hard to do when there are unforeseen issues that must be addressed, but every post it note and splash of whiteout on a system’s law compromises said system.

Do not think that the United States of America is immune to this. Although we are one of the oldest living governments, we are still heading in the natural direction of ruin. People are too divided to stop it from happening, and it takes a wake up moment after it fails when we put aside our differences and pick ourselves up. Don’t get me wrong, the US has had a great run. So if prevention is not possible, the question we need to ask ourselves is what do we want to put in its place?

What should the government be responsible for and what are the government’s limits? How should we structure the government? What has failed in our current system that should be addressed and how can we prevent it from happening in the new system? Security and liberty are mutually exclusive, so which do we value more? Can a system be created that will endure, or are we doomed to continuously repeat this cycle every two to three hundred years, suffering the fallout of yet another failed system?

I want to hear a few responses before I respond to the same questions. Let’s keep partisan politics out of the discussion and approach this objectively, mindful that this is what we will be handing to our children, and to their children after them.

To say that there is nothing wrong with our constitution is to say that there is nothing wrong with the way the government is handling our affairs. The constitution was drafted over 200 years ago. Back then, there were no telephones, internet, cars, or even electricity. The population of the United States was estimated to be 2.5 million people (the first census was done in 1790 and historians believe the 2.5 million to be an accurate number) whereas the population today is almost 317 million. That is almost 127 times the population than during the draft of the constitution. In 200 years, the country has changed a lot. The constitution was great back then, and still strong now, but it has neglected to keep up with our concerns, abilities and interest. The bill of rights still holds true today, but the parliamentary procedure is severely outdated. We now live in a society where we can, with the help of computers, internet, and t***sportation, fine tune the original framework to make it endure much longer. Again, the problem is with career politicians, lobbyist, and a two party system. We can alleviate that deficiency, so why not?

It is the natural laws which govern the physical world (including our government). In the physical world; everything erodes and nothing sustains it structure or form forever. Therefore, the physical desire element falls within the constraints of natural laws. It is the very nature of natural law which prevents any human being from being emotionally fulfilled by their physical desire; simply because anything physical is not naturally sustainable. It is this very law which physically driven people fight against; in their pursuit to fill an emotional desire, they fail substantially. This creates an imbalance within the three categories of human nature and propels unethical behavior.

So what do we do? We live peacefully without government, monetary systems, or structured religion. We can become a cooperative species, aware of our Earth.

The progressive movement took root in this country in the late 1800's and from that day forward they decided that the Constitution should be a living document. That way they could change it to meet their needs of the day, and that is what the politicians, lawyers, and judges have been doing ever since. The Constitution protects "We the People" from the government, or that was what it was suppose to do, today it's the exact opposite. The Constitution is really nothing without the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of Independence is nothing without the "preface". Our Liberty, Freedom, and Rights come from God not government. So lets go back and change the government to fit the Constitution instead of changing the Constitution to fit the government!