claytonln Loc: Kansas

Every Sunday I get together with old friends for a couple hours. This last Sunday we talked about politics. The constitution was brought up and someone made a statement that it was outdated.

I disagreed with him and he brought up a couple of Democrat Senators that had said as much.

I asked him why he thinks it is outdated and he sputtered and went back to saying he had heard it in articles. I never did get the reason he thought it to be outdated.

I thought it might be interesting to get the opinions of others.

To me it is a living document and will never be outdated. It give's us the means to change it with the times, and if done in the spirit of liberty and justice for all, it can never be out dated.

what do you think?

Will I am Loc: Tucson, Arizona

I agree with you. In fact, I would go so far as to tell that person who said it was outdated, if it is outdated, blame it on your House Rep and Senator, because, as you said, it is a living Document. And your Congressmen should be busy "updating" it with amendments if it is so outdated.

vernon

it is only outdated to those who believe that a dictatorship is the way to go

claytonln Loc: Kansas

Actually I think it is outdated to those who choose to not think for themselves, but would rather let someone else think for them. And now that I think about your post, you could be right.

Vacaman

Absolutely not, it has been amended only when neccasary as it should therefore it is current, what is clearly outdated and a problem is a two party system that are both hardly functional.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Are you suggesting a multi-party system? If so look at the difference in our system and that of all the other constitutional governments in existence. For, instance, the UK does not have a written constitution just a conglomeration of things that have been considered one. They get along with more than two parties but I don't think we could run this government that way. I say this because we have a p**********l form of government with a man elected to execute and in the UK they have a parliamentary system where the legislative body selects the head of the government from among its membership and that is done through use of agreements among the various parties.

Look into how all these countries govern themselves compared to what we do according to our Constitution that is certainly not outdated to anyone other than most progressives who want to rewrite it to fit what they believe.

cold iron Loc: White House

:thumbup:
Well, is freedom out dated? Is free speech out dated? Only fools like BoJester would think that. The left h**e it, why? Because it mandates that God give us our right. Not the government. Well the left would like the other way. And they are working at fixing that, how? By taking GOD out of America. And it looks like they are making head way. Why is that? Because you/we are not standing up to them. Do you see and GOD in your kids Christmas pageant at schools? Well, Jesus is the reason for that season.. And BoJester will burn in hell along with his followers..

Comment Loc: California

Folks, I have an entirely different opinion that I wish to share with you. During the past 3000 years multiple forms of government were tried, theorized and written about. Thank God that the founders of the Constitution had knowledge of these. They analyzed all of them and chose the best parts of them to form a new whole. To this day no other form of government has had the success of the UNITED STATES. Yet, there are those that say the Constitution is a living document, meaning that is can be changed. I say it is not alive. It is our Bible to the future as it was intended it be. Are the words of the Bible to be changed? I think not. Since the Constitution was written no other form of government has been suggested. However, that is not to say that there are those who have been hard at work to destroy that document that has given rise to power at a level of the Roman Empire 2000 yrs ago. WARNING! The Roman Empire fell? Why? We are following in Rome's footsteps. What are the footsteps?
My belief is that if it isn't broke don't fix it. Why tweek with the best unless your on Meth.

Comment Loc: California

"The best on Meth." Pretty tweeky, no? Completely unintended.

claytonln Loc: Kansas

It is my understanding that term limits were discussed at the time of the constitution being put together. If the constitution were to be changed, I would not want anything changed but something like term limits, repealing of the 17 and 18th amendments, and there are a few other things. But nothing that would change the basic structure or wording.

And at one time I thought I had read that,"Congress can pass no law that does not apply to themselves and the executive." That would be a good amendment also. After reading the constitution over I can't find that in there. It may have been in the federalist papers or the anti-federalist papers. I haven't read either one for sometime.

claytonln Loc: Kansas

The founders warned about "party's" that it would create factions and would divide the country. The way it started was, if 5 people ran the top v**e getter was the President and the 2nd v**e getter was the VP. It probably should have stayed that way.

vernon

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

:thumbup:

Comment Loc: California

Paraphrasing: Why 3 branches? The idea was birthed by the writings of Baron Charles MONTESQUIEU, an authoritative French author, professor and legal philosopher---who was the most often source quoted among the colonist next to the bible. His book THE SPIRIT OF LAWS greatly impacted the formation of the American gov, as it was read intently in America. In it Montesquieu acknowledges the deceit and wickedness of the human heart, as shown in Jeremiah 17:9, which states, and advocates for a system that tries to check and moderate mankind's worst excesses by dividing power into 3 parts, inspired by Isaiah 33:22, which states, "For the Lord is our judge, our lawgiver, our King.
The real genius in the system of checks and balances established by the founders is that the executive branch---the branch most likely to become too powerful and king-like-- is checked by the other 2 branches ----. And in order for the system to be truly representative of the people, the reps were intended to be intergral members of the communities. The constituents of the House of Reps. and Senate were to be farmers, teachers, nurses, doctors, lawyers, businessmen, you get the picture. They were to represent every segment of society so that everyone's interest would be represented fairly. As long as society is broadly represented, representative gov. works very well. And it works even better when the reps serve only a short period of time and return to their communities, leaving a spot for someone else from the community to become the next rep. The end.

Guess who wrote this? A clue is he is an MD. A president who has the above thoughts could be a big influence in getting term limits established because of his exposure to the public.

Comment Loc: California

Politicians are smart, well maybe!!. They have found was around the checks and balances,
(ie) executive orders, unlimited re-e******ns (career politicians.) single party in control of all 3 branches (Obamacare). We are living the nightmare that the founders tried to prevent. But we, the people, did not comprehend what the politicians were doing to us. In retrospect of the past p**********l e******n, we still don't.