This conversation is closed.

Should the US convene a new Constitutional Convention to hammer out the US Constitution, Version 2? How could we make it better?

The US Constitution is an amazing piece of work, but let's face it there are some ambiguities, outdated concepts, and missing (perhaps) parts. the Supreme Court and Congress daily interpret and abide but seldom actually change or update the original codicil. The current issues of privacy with the NSA spying and out of control gun violence, proselytizing in the military and a host of other news stories of late suggest it may be time for an overhaul of the original Constitution.
Is it time to convene a second Constitutional convention to clarify, edit and update or would the task prove impossible? Perhaps the task is too risky or simply beyond our reach. Maybe the original is as good as it gets.

  • thumb
    Dec 21 2013: There have been amendments to the constitution in the past that proved.... not so smart. Prohibition comes to mind.
    So, My list of suggestions... in no order....
    The 16th gives congress unfettered access to any and all individual income... it's like giving a kid free range in a candy shop.
    The 17th ended our system of two houses of congress; one for the states and one for the people. Now, even though the names are the same, the people have a bicameral legislature and the states have bupkiss.
    The 22nd gave the President two bites of the apple... lets add the congressmen to that one. Senators serve at the pleasure of their states... see above.
  • thumb
    Dec 20 2013: No. If the current Constitution was followed we would not have the issues that we are facing today. The ability to amend is available and has been used.

    The problem is not the Constitution it is the people who devise a means of by passing and avoiding the intent of the document.

    I think that there are four areas in which the federal government has Constitutional responsibility. The powers were given to the states. If that were enforced then we would not be 17 trillion in debit ... facing a depression and a recession .... Congress would meet for maybe three months of the year and then go home ... there would not be a elite body that has legislated itself above the very laws they enact with fat salaries and numerous perks ... the framers considered lawmakers as public servants not a nobility class as they have become .... and on and on ...

    As Scott Bell pointed out .... If you do not respect or follow this one why would I think you would either respect or follow the next one.

    The problem is not the Constitution it is ambitious people with big egos who have a agenda who are loyal only to party handlers and big money.

    I could go on and on but people will either be for or against the idea and no argument will make a difference to closed minds on either side.
  • thumb
    Dec 20 2013: Now that we have tried every Fing thing else, hows about we try what the framers intended?
    • Dec 20 2013: I think the framers knew they had written an imperfect document but they had the foresight to build in a mechanism to make it a living document that can be owned by each successive generation.
      • thumb
        Dec 20 2013: But it is vogue for them to use czars and signing agreements and focus on swing states and threaten congressional members with cutting off campaign funds if they don't vote the way that the party leaders want to by pass the intended mechanisms for change.

        The better method would be to use the power of the Republic and the states rights to vote for change through article 5 or if it gets bad enough secession.

        But at the end of the day people are complacent because of ignorance to the real danger which is the bigger difficulty.
  • thumb
    Dec 26 2013: It would be a horrible idea. The drafters of the constitution were intelligent, public minded, and intent upon building a better form of government. A new version would be formulated by special interests, lobbyists, talking heads, career politicians, and big business.
  • thumb
    Dec 26 2013: A few of the ideas for an update might include: Amendment I, strengthen the separation of church and state to make it absolute. For example, Congress employs a Chaplin. The military is rife with Christian proselytizing despite the efforts of groups like the MRRF ( Also in Amend. I, freedom of speech is constantly under fire in the US now. This should again be made absolute.

    Amendment II, OMG, fix it to be clear! Either gun ownership is a right or it is not! And, remove the reference to a militia.

    Amendment VI, define "speedy" trial. Is it 1 month, 1 year, what?

    Amendment VII, $20 really? In 1789 that was a lot of money. Today a figure like $20,000 might me more appropriate.

    Combine Amend XV and XIX. Simply state the right to vote shall not be infringed, denied, or abridged in any way for citizens of an age of majority.

    These are just a few ideas I had.
    • thumb
      Dec 27 2013: OK, but?
      I am not sure that we need to change wording for the sake of changing wording... Militia still means what it says.... it's about citizen soldiers. States have military organizations today as they did then.
      As for speedy, wouldn't it mean how long for the information to be gathered to present at trial... that knife cuts both ways, I think a judge should be able to review a case an determine if delay is reasonable or one side is posturing for other purposes.
      I agree about voting... but define citizen. Currently a resident, regardless of citizen status can vote in elections. I can see a resident alien voting on local issues effecting his residence, but on most ballots, he can vote for anyone as I understand.
      So, let's define who can vote for who, and what ballots can be accepted or not... also, we have made voting to easy with absentee ballots for any reason and early voting for why? It is getting to the point that more thought goes into toilet paper then into balloting and while we are at it, lets make the national election day a federal holiday. And... have it earlier in the year, so some Americans aren't plowing through blizzard conditions to get to the polls.

      These are my ideas on your ideas.
  • Dec 26 2013: I agree with many postings here that with the current inconciliable difference among the conservative and liberal political parties, it wouldn't be a good idea to form a new constitution. What I would suggest would be a new organization of the federation system which would be a "united superstates". In this new "USS", there will be a central or federal government which manages/controls the national defense, or perhaps the diplomatic functions. its operational expenditure would be furnished by either a direct income tax or by the individual superstates in proportional to per capita from census figures. The important considerations are the superstates should have their individual constitutions on all civil and economic/tax matters. Of course each superstate constitutions may be changed or amended as they wish, but they would be formulated by the residents of the superstate only. And the interpretation of the "constitution" would be by the civil courts within each of the superstates.
    This suggested system is not completely new, similar systems existed in Europe and the former Soviet Union as well. As a matter of fact, we are already being segregated in many civil laws between the red and blue states. So the new arrangement could have caused less controversial legal(litigation) maneuver or effort.
    • thumb
      Dec 26 2013: I have often thought that the US should have only 4 states by timezone. Think of the bureaucracy that could eliminate. Thousands of politicians out of work. I can see many benefits to that. :-)
  • thumb
    Dec 24 2013: The first Constitutional convention was held by educated, well meaning people who had recently fought to secure their independence. Any Constitutional convention held today would be a disaster.
  • thumb
    Dec 21 2013: Its probably a good idea, but from what I have seen these days, American's can't seem to agree on anything. I don't really expect to see any changes happening for the foreseeable future.
  • thumb
    Dec 20 2013: Actually I think Americans get glazed wistful eyes when you mention the founding fathers.If I were to quote what an old guy said 200 years ago in a UK court, I would be laughed out of court in the UK. Definitely think, a country based on what some cowboys said two hundred years ago, definitely needs to take a second look. However, that would be like going to Iran and burning the Qur'an for the average gun toting Christian conservative American.
  • Dec 20 2013: If the first one is not respected and adhered to, why would it be different for a second one? The demons have done run amok! :-)
  • Dec 19 2013: No, The constitution is always available to be modified by adding new Amendments and as always if the required majorities are reached the Constitution can be done away with. This is as close to impossible as I can imagine and it in my opinion would be disruptive and destructive.