The US Constitution - past its sell-by date ?

The Constitution of the USA is a venerable document. For many Americans, it is almost a 'sacred text'. It is one of the many things that made America great, and which set us apart from other countries. Unfortunately there are a couple of problems with it, which cannot easily be addressed, due to the almost religious fervour of the 'Constitutionally Correct' right wing elements in our society.

These reactionary forces of conservatism seem to believe that the Constitution is set in stone, they have elevated it to the point where it has attained mystical significance, rather than being a simple functional document describing what the voting public believed in some 200 years ago.

Suggest that it should be changed and you will bring on the wrath of fundamentalist constitution worshipping lunatics of every shape and form.

To understand why the constitution must be radicaly redesigned, you have to go back a couple of hundred years. Think back to the kind of mindset which prevailed during those times. Slavery was commonplace. Women's rights were almost non-existant, indeed until the 19th Amendment was enacted, they could not even vote. Homosexuals were persecuted, the death penalty for sodomy was only revoked in South Carolina as recently as 1873. Religious tolerance was not high on the agenda with Wiccans singled out for especially poor treatement.

So as we can see, the constitution was borne of a period of history which most of us today would consider barbaric. This is what I see as a major problem with the constitution.

The second problem with the constitution is that many of the amendments have perverted its original spirit.

Consider the following 'amendments' to the constitution, and my explainations as to why they are harmful.

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is one of the MAJOR flaws in our constitution. The idea that all speech is of equal value. How ridiculous. The problem here is that it creates friction between groups, where a more restrictive law would promote harmony.

Here in the USA we are allowed to use racial insults, and hurl abuse at respected religious figures in the name of "freedom", but almost all civilized countries recognize that to protect the rights of minorities, it is necessary to restrict freedom of speech. This is not some Orwellian nightmare or Soviet-style oppression.

It is simply good government. It forces us to respect minorites and diversity. This inevitably leads to a more harmonious society. Unrestricted freedom of speech is a lofty ideal, but 'Joe Sixpack' cannot be trusted not to abuse this right.

Getting some reasonable restrictions on what can and cannot be said is the first step toward creating a racism-free society for our children.

Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Another glaring piece of constitutional stupidity. In the days when the most powerful weapon was an unreliable flintlock pistol, I guess it might have made sense to allow the public to own killing tools such as these. The chances of them actually working was remote. However in these days when the high tech arsenal of Mac-10, Tec-9, Glock, Uzi, H&K MP5, and various other tools of mass murder are in the hands of every crack dealer on every corner, does it really make sense to persist with such an anachronism ? Columbine is just one example of the thousands which demonstrate clearly the moral bankruptcy of allowing 'Joe Sixpack' to get his hands on these lethal toys.

Here we could learn a lot from our cousins across the pond. They recently outlawed handguns completely, and have experienced a spectacular fall in the number of crimes committed with legally held handguns.

If we do not start to remove guns from circulation our children face the prospect of Columbine in their schools, or accidental death in the home. Is this a price worth paying for a constitutional amendment of so little practical value ?

I realise that the gun hobbyists will object to having their toys taken from them, so I propose that we remove them gradually, like when someone is trying to get off drugs. We could start by outlawing all automatics, then semi-automatics a year later, then in further years handguns (45s 38s 9mm), and finally air pistols. The political outcry from the gun lobby would be a small price to pay for the safety of our children.

Seventh Amendment: In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

In these days of high priced lawyers, is trial by jury really the most economic way to proceed ? Should the taxpayer be forced to pay for lawyers for known criminals ? It is ridiculous that all criminals should automatically have the right to trial by jury. In the vast majority of cases, the police know the person they caught was guilty, and it is obvious to everyone concerned. In such cases, the police should be allowed to use their discretion as to whether a jury trial is warranted.

If the cost of the trial would amount to more than the cost of the alleged crime, then it is simple economics. The public interest is not served by a jury trial, the case should be decided by a hand-picked panel of expert judges to save time and money. (This should happen behind closed doors to avoid a media circus like the OJ Simpson trial). Again our European friends are ahead of our game on this one

The constitution is part of our history and one we should be proud of, but in these days of terrorism, feminism, multi-culturalism, globalization, the internet, cheap drugs and guns it is starting to look less and less like a sensible way to run a society, and more like a recipie for the total breakdown of American society.

My proposed solution to this is for the Federal Government to intervene, and develop a massive computer system which could be used to survey every single voter in the country on a wide variety of issues (gun rights, homosexual rights, maternity/paternity leave etc etc etc). This survey could be filled in online, by everyone in the country of voting age.

Once the results were collated in the massive database, they could be given to a team of constitutional lawyers who could then draft a new constitution for us.

This constitution would be less 'buggy' than our 18th century relic, and therefore more easy to use. It would enumerate the rights that are relevent to today's society, and would better reflect the diversity of views and opinions that make up American society today.

And it certainly would not allow teenagers to go on the rampage with automatic weapons, or rhinestone racists like David Duke and Pat Robertson to spew their vile sewage into our living rooms.

	Amendment X is the most dangerous (none / 0) (#2)
	by moriveth on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 02:48:14 PM PST

	An interesting and provocative piece. I entirely agree about the Second and Seventh Amendments, as I think any reasonable person would; although I definitely can see your point about the First Amendment, I would hesitate to overturn it, as that would wreak havoc on a large body of legal theory. I also think that a strong case can be made for the reconsideration of the Eleventh, Nineteenth, and Twenty-First Amendments. That said, I think you overlook the most pernicious, insidious provision in the entire Constitution, the Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. What does this mean? It means that the government can only exercise a few powers explicitly listed in the Constitution--a Constitution written in the 17th Century, before governments in the modern sense existed. But this means that the federal government, in fact, can do very little at all. In the recent past, this has not been a problem, as a blissfully ignorant liberal judiciary let unpleasant provisions like this slide. For this lack of dilligence in legal scholarship, we can count ourselves fortunate. But now, George W. Bush is set to appoint several members of the Supreme Court, and they will surely be hard-nosed legal scholars ("strict contortionists") who will no longer overlook unpleasant phrases like "reserved to the states." herefore, we can expect this provision to be taken seriously and expanded. And that would be a gross disaster. Imagine a government with no ability to pass economic legislation. To run airport security. To run the FBI. To adjust interest rates. To raise an income tax. It would mean the end of America's position as the world's superpower. That's our future, unless we repeal the Tenth Amendment.

	subject (none / 0) (#4)
	by clays on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 03:06:57 PM PST

	are you pro moonshining, or anti liquor. it deals with both

	Don't go to his URL ! (none / 0) (#23)
	by Inden on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 03:12:24 PM PST

	This man's URL is a nightmarish mind f*ck

	what (none / 0) (#25)
	by clays on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 04:04:34 PM PST

	whats wrong with my web page, its a picture

	this (none / 0) (#26)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 04:21:19 PM PST

	republicans look better in disguise

	Please enter a subject for your comment. (none / 0) (#38)
	by clays on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 06:29:03 AM PST

	i vote for the better person, not whoever is on my team at the time. elementary school sandbox politics may work for you; not so for me.

	"clay" is a known troll! (none / 0) (#28)
	by tkatchev on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 09:23:28 PM PST

	This "clay" persona is a known troll. I suggest that drastic action be taken, as adequacy.org has a strict no-trolling policy. -- Peace and much love...

	you're ignoring (none / 0) (#5)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 03:36:20 PM PST

	The General Welfare Clause, Article I, Section 8. What does this mean? It means that the government can only exercise a few powers explicitly listed in the Constitution The words "..provide for the Common Defense and General Welfare of the United States.... " provide Congress with the power to determine those objects which together constitute the general welfare of the United States, and having done so may legislate for such purposes as declared to be within the meaning of the term "general welfare". But this means that the federal government, in fact, can do very little at all. The "general welfare" meant cases in which a general power might be exercised by Congress, without interfering with the powers of the States. Finally, the enumeration of powers in the 10th is meant to be qualititative. It is not credible to think of Madison as someone who abandoned his arch federalism for the Constitution he wrote.

	Uh... (none / 0) (#6)
	by westgeof on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 03:41:34 PM PST

	The 10th amendment has hardly any meaning whatsoever. All it says is that anything not specifically covered is up to the states. However, that doesn't give the states anything substantial, it only gives them what the federal government doesn't want. Usually when something new comes up it can be filed under something already mentioned in the constitution, but even if it isn't there's always the amendment process. As for the article itself, I think the whole Constitution needs a massive overhaul. It's been patched enough times, what we need is a 'revided draft,' updated for our time. A very dangerous undertaking, but as long as it's handled carefully, we should be able to create a new constitution with the spirit of the old. As a child I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance.

	youre a sad person (3.00 / 2) (#3)
	by clays on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 02:58:07 PM PST

	i dont think you even read the article you linked to. the first words say "Handgun crime 'up' despite ban." whats wrong with you? the constitution is a foundation for the government to base its policies on. it is not a personal guide, or a moral police metric. people who base their every action on documents written before they were born are pathetic. one of the things that makes the constitution great is our ability to amend it. freedom of speech gives you the ability to write articles like this. asking for restriction of speech by writing a free speech article is asinine. "in these days of terrorism, feminism, multi-culturalism, globalization, the internet, cheap drugs and guns" terrorism is thousands of years old. women have always been feminine. multiple cultures have always been in the presence of other cultures. trade made cultural sharing, and globalization possible. the printed word, radio, and television are the internets of the past. drugs have always been cheap, and most of the time, legal. if its not a gun, its anything else that maims. if youre going to attempt to re write historical documents, start with your old testament. the difference is that the orators of the constitution dont claim to have divine interpretation. they didnt put a clause in that explained you would be eternally tormented if your personal beliefs varied. more importantly, they didnt claim they were correct.

	You go girl! (3.00 / 2) (#12)
	by elenchos on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 07:30:09 PM PST

	Your local Army recruiter is waiting to see you TODAY! Get down there because your nation needs you NOW! There's fighting to be done and you're just the one... etc., etc. Everybody knows how to fill in the rest. Thanks for playing. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	Pinched a nerve did we? (none / 0) (#30)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 12:35:38 AM PST

	That argument ended a day ago and you're apparently still fuming about it. Dear oh dear.

	please (5.00 / 1) (#7)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 03:47:02 PM PST

	asking for restriction of speech by writing a free speech article is asinine. Freedom of Speech is well defined only in the meaning of the word 'of'. Freedom and Speech are much more difficult to elaborate, and all modern constitutions have provisions against hate speech just as the US has provisions against fighting words, but no protection for speech in commercial contexts where virtually all censorship takes place. The Constitution is a rhetorical document, not a logically coherent political theory.

	Nope. (none / 0) (#15)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 11:28:31 PM PST

	Freedom of Speech is well defined only in the meaning of the word 'of'. Please define it, then. What does "of" mean?

	duh (none / 0) (#16)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 12:01:17 AM PST

	It's a particle demonstrating possession or attribution.

	poor persecuted wiccans (1.00 / 2) (#9)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 04:39:57 PM PST

	"To understand why the constitution must be radicaly redesigned, you have to go back a couple of hundred years.... blah,blah,blah...Religious tolerance was not high on the agenda with Wiccans singled out for especially poor treatement." Wow! I had no idea the Wiccans have been persecuted for so long. That's amazing, considering wicca is a bastardisation of a mixture of pagan theories, and the Wiccan movement only began during the 1950's. But, as stated above, your high quality research permeates this entire document. Well done for sounding like a complete jackass!

	Don't insult the practicioners of Wicca (none / 0) (#17)
	by dmg on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 05:14:35 AM PST

	Follow the link and you might learn something. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	Idealists and language (4.00 / 1) (#10)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 05:20:45 PM PST

	I've often thought that the greatest flaw in the US constitution is not the content. It is my feeling that the constitution would be greatly improved by use of language sufficient to express the exact intention of the document, rather than leaving every single sentence open to misinterpretation and argument. The fact that the United States cannot agree on the meaning of their most important legal document is a national disgrace. Do the British bicker over the intention of phrases in the Magna Carta? Of course they do not. Even the execrable Australians have managed to cobble together a constitution that does not provoke constant debate. Why can't the greatest nation on Earth do the same? Of course, the various people responsible for drafting the constitution may be forgiven for their sloppy language. They were idealists, and the document is an idealistic document. It isn't intended to reflect reality, but serves instead as a advertisement for the US system of government. As such it has been quite effective. It has not been nearly so effective at promoting the rule of law, for the betterment of the people. One disastrous side-effect of the constitution's idealistic language is it's approachability. Any armchair-lawyer can obtain a copy of the constitution, and at five minutes reading, consider himself a well-rounded constitutional lawyer, ready to irritate friends, family and nation with his new found knowledge, most of which is absurdly incorrect. It is both a triumph of english expression and a disaster of modern law that the US constitution has remained readable over two hundred years, while most other legal documents are all but incomprehensible. Perhaps the most regrettable flaw in the language of the constitution is that definitions are largely abandoned. It is quite well known that the words "freedom" and "liberty" did not refer to individuals prior to the civil war, simply because people did not respect the concept of individuality. When people in the eighteenth century said "the people" this was understood to mean "the people as a group" not "every individual in the nation". In many cases, the constitution uses the word "people" when it really means "states". The document would be vastly improved by the addition of a lengthy and precise and complete set of definitions prior to the body of the document. This step alone would have obviated much of the constitutional debate in the United States. The fact that it is absent is pure unforgiveable negligence. In order to improve the rest of the document, a rigid structure must be adhered to, and the language provided in the definitions above strictly applied. Where documents exist to further describe and support the intention of the authors, citations should be given. Where it is necessary to use a word in a sense other than the definition given, a footnote should be made. These are but a few of the alterations required to transform the constitution into a concrete legal document, and take it away from the clumsy hands of the people to place it firmly in the wiser experienced domain of the courts. The fact that the drafters of the constitution did not think to apply such linguistic precision has resulted in a nation that continues to drift further and further from their ideals, and promises to fragment completely if something is not done to correct their haphazard pseudo-legal compositions.

	On the Second Amendment (5.00 / 1) (#11)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 06:19:35 PM PST

	The perfect response for the tragedies on 9/11 is a 1911. Thats correct, the 1911 45 caliber handgun placed against someone's temple. It is the Second Amendment that allows us to own such wondeful tools to help keep us free and to prevent people like the author of this article from enslaving us. Help the ecomony and help yourself: Buy a gun today,

	eh... (none / 0) (#29)
	by Hunsvotti on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 12:24:25 AM PST

	Yeah... after all, there could only be one way to look at the Deuce... I know one (several?) Anonymous Reader who wound up clawing his own eyes out of their sockets after an unsuccessful attempt to prove to me that his black-and-white view of the second amendment was the only possible interpretation. Take a look at the "Anthrax, Please Change Your Name" article. It'll be the the post that threads down to about 15 deep. Interesting reading regardless of which side you are on.

	Fuming? (none / 0) (#31)
	by Hunsvotti on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 02:34:30 AM PST

	This game of using emotionally loaded words and phrases appears to be your watermark. It seems to be your primary method of inflicting hurt against anyone who you cannot best in an argument. I am amused by this. I LEARNED from that argument. I learned how to avoid a kind of trap that one can fall into while debating, which is known to scholars as the "complex question." I am a better man because of that argument and that makes me feel pretty damned good. I also learned how to counter a number of arguments that you posited. The game began on my terms when I attacked dmg and co.'s assertion that a band should change its name, and then ended on my terms when you stormed off in disgust. BAI BAI.

	Who are you trying to convince? (none / 0) (#32)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 03:31:11 AM PST

	Are you sure you've learned? I don't really see that much improvement. Perhaps you need to retake the course. No doubt you will next time someone mentions gun control.

	Listen, uh... (none / 0) (#53)
	by elenchos on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 06:52:00 PM PST

	I'm sure you're posts are very, very "+5 insightful" and all that, but if you can't even figure out how to make a link to whatever it is that you think is going to be so enlightening for me, then I'm going to make the bold leap of logic that sifting through your comment history and searching out "the post that threads down about 15 deep" (do I take a left at the hog farm, Cletus, or just put it in 4-wheel and go straight on through the Civil War cemetary?) is probably not going to be so rich in wisdom that I'll not regret wasting my time. Thank you for not DoSing the Adequacy. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	Heh (none / 0) (#64)
	by bc on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 09:11:02 AM PST

	Thank you for not DoSing the Adequacy. Actually, we got dossed a bit yesterday, but thanks to our wonderful new hostess we sorted it out in no time. We aren't sure who to blame yet, but some Mandrake loving Anthrax fan seems likely. ♥, bc.

	But that just isn't possible! (none / 0) (#65)
	by elenchos on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 09:24:56 AM PST

	I've asked dozens, even hundreds, of people NOT to DoS the Adequacy, and I've proven it works. Well, we are at least sure that it works on whomever I ask, so that rules out Hunsvotti as a suspect in this incident. That only leaves anyone who I haven't asked. I know! Make sure no one who uses the site can get away without being asked not to launch a DoS attack. You don't want to have to tediously type up hundreds of messages for all those users, of course, so you want to automate it. You could just set up an automatic reply to every machine that makes any request to the Adequacy server that says "Thank you for not DoSing the Adequacy." Really, you would want to make it some kind of repeating beacon. So anyone surfs the site, posts a comment, whatever, and bam! hundreds, millions of requests not to DoS the site come right back at them. Who could ignore hundreds of polite requests (NB Thank you for not...)? OT: I heard the US moratorium on Internet Taxation expires Monday. Is someone going to come out strongly in favor of taxing the net? I have some ideas: there should be an excise on packets, and a federal tax on monthly ISP charges. Also something on servers, and individual web pages should pay per-hit. There is a war on, you know. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	You overlook the central issue (5.00 / 1) (#66)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 09:29:31 AM PST

	Where should the internet taxes go? I say they should go towards funding an internet police force, like CERT, only with real power. It's time we cleaned up this den of thieves, pronographers and terrorists.

	Oh Jesus (5.00 / 1) (#67)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 09:30:46 AM PST

	"pronographers". I used the l33t spelling. I hate myself.

	h3h3 (none / 0) (#100)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Dec 6th, 2001 at 01:40:12 AM PST

	y0u s@1d l337...

	commin home (none / 0) (#101)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 9th, 2001 at 02:05:07 PM PST

	I wish I knew where you lived so I could get you....

	yes (none / 0) (#13)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 09:05:03 PM PST

	Robert Frost said "Give me Liberty or Give me Death". John F. Kennedy said "I am not a crook". Caesar Chavez said "It depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is". George W. Bush said "goat?" I rest my case.

	I would like to offer my opinion. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 10:12:04 PM PST

	Sir. You are correct that a new constitution is needed to replace the sexist, racist, sizeist, ageist, carnivorocentric, homophobic, logocentric, phallically-overcompensating, scatophobic, blindist, deafist document that, despite it's offensiveness to decent, rational, caring environmentalists, labor activists, necrophiles, and persons who choose to engage in uncoerced, mutually fulfulling sexual relationships with large mammals, is currently enshrined as the sacred founding document of our nation. I think that assembling a database based on polling every member of society (including, IMHO, children, incarcerated persons, the so-called "insane", the so-called "retarded", the so-called "victims of Alzheimers-related dementia", and the so-called "comatose") would be the perfect way to create a core governing document for our society. However, I think that if we were to hand over the results "to a team of constitutional lawyers who could then draft a new constitution for us", we would be making the same terrible mistake as the "original" "founders". Instead, a sophisticated computer program (I favor a nice tidy Perl script myself) would be used to develop the laws of the nation directly from the information in the database. Periodically (once a year, say), new opinion polls would be sent out, and new laws developed from the updated database. We would thus have a society whose self-updating legal system efficiently mirrors the hearts and minds of its constituent citizenry. Eventually, as other countries see how just and benevolent our government had become, they too could be included in the system, until, like a tree growing outward to offer its life-giving fruit for the nourishment of all, the opinion poll-based legal system will extend to link all humankind in peace and justice (and Perl).

	Don't forget to GPL it! (3.00 / 2) (#24)
	by Richard C Suquer on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 03:55:42 PM PST

	You're absolutely right of course. The minorities of this nation need to work together to write a new constitution. Preferably one that prevents capitalist pigs from taking over the country. One thing I'd like to add, however, is that your computer program should be GPLed. The working men and womyn of the world have learned that Commercial Software is immoral, and so they would not approve of the constitution software unless it is licensed under the GPL. So here are the steps I'd like to take to create the Constitution.pl program: Register the project on Sourceforge Do some preliminary development (version 0.0.1) Post it on Freshmeat.net "A million eyes make all bugs shallow" Allow members of the Community to submit patches and to change the program in whatever way they see fit (the "bazaar" model) Make a GTK widget for Constitution.pl. And maybe a Gnome Panel applet. Integrate it into Gnutella to allow MP3s and bukakke movies to be downloaded with it. Constitution.pl will soon be the Linux of Constitutions! -- Revolution from Below! GPL the Constitution!