A Second Constitutional Convention
 

An interesting piece from academia on that relic of the 18th century, the Constitution. Why it doesn't work, why it should be thrown in the shredder and how a new one will make everything fair..

Excerpt......

http://dailycollegian.com/2012/03/04...al-convention/

Another useful idiot. :munchin

Be careful what you ask for
 

Be careful what you ask for - you just may get it.

IIRC when you open one up it's game on for the Good Idea Fairy. Majority rules - and we see how that's going.

Sounds to me like someone wants it re-written to better serve themselves.

lol The current batch of political leaders have found more ways to skirt the Constitution than they have the Ten Commandments. It's nothing more than an impediment to Progressives and one of the treasures Conservatives won't get off their asses to defend.

As important as the Document is, respect for the stewards elected to maintain adherence to its mandates is crucial; the contemporary politicians on both sides of the aisle have done their best to erode that respect as well as confidence in the necessity of the Constitution itself.

If you gave Progressives a chance to re-write it, they'd throw the old one out with disgust. Wouldn't even wipe their asses with it.

Well, at least it didn't take much reading to decipher which political leaning the author had.

"Other constitutions, especially those highlighted by Ginsburg, explicitly protect basic human rights such as the right to sufficient food, healthcare and education. Lacking such basic provisions of fairness and justice, the U.S. Constitution risks becoming an anachronism in the constitutional landscape of the 21st century."

From my own logic, I don't see how I derive a "human right" that mandates the taking of either property or services from another. If I have a right to food, what does that say to the farmer who grows the food. Likewise, if I have a right to healthcare, does the nurse have to provide my health services for free? At what point does the author's newly-found human rights foist either servitude or slavery upon others?

"The Second Amendment, a true artifact of the 18th century, should also be jettisoned. Contrary to the views of conservative justices on the Supreme Court, the amendment only protects the right to bear arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. While the Framers of the Constitution intended the Second Amendment to curb the arbitrary use of power by the federal government, not even a million gun-slinging Texans could hope to counter the power of the U.S. government today, backed in full force by the world’s largest nuclear arsenal. In light of this week’s tragic shootings at a high school in Ohio, it should be clear to any logical observer that the Second Amendment serves no meaningful purpose in the 21st century."

Too easy.

"A general right to privacy, already recognized by the Supreme Court, should also be included."

This innocuous-sounding snippet might have slipped past some, hidden as it was in the middle of a paragraph. This "right of privacy", which does not exist in the Constitution, is what allowed the US Supreme Court to find a right to abortion in Roe. v. Wade. Scary thought---if the US Supreme Court will create a "right" out of thin air to approve an activity, does a line exist that they may not cross?

"As things stand now, our Constitution is woefully unequipped to deal with the problems of the twenty-first century."

I am amazed at how dependent some of our population has become. It is hard to believe that some people are the offspring of settlers who boarded wooden boats, sailed across an ocean, put their stuff in wagons, the travelled across a country in the hope of being free.

Unlike the original constitutional convention.<<LINK>>

POTD for the win.

Blood would flow, lots of it. And the myopic would wake up & find themselves someone else's colony again.

Waste of bandwidth over a college students article from UMass.

This is the kind of drivel being promoted by the liberal elitists of this country. Our Constitution has survived this long BECAUSE it is the epitome of what a Constitution should be. As Mr. Sweeney puts it, the 2nd Amendment is an anachronism. Liberals want to dismantle the 2nd Amendment because they will then be free to dismantle the rest of the Constitution. It is no coincidence that we are THE most free nation in the world. It is a direct result of this document. Any Constitutional erosions that are present today are a direct result of intentional misinterpretation and political activism.

Sigba, you may be a great guy but I suspect at some point I'd just punch your ass out ;)

What part of the Constitution is inadequate for today's world?

If 3/5ths of the Country feel something needs to be added, taken out, or ammended, there is a process for that. The reason that changes have not been made to incorporate some of the suggestions mentioned is due to their controversial nature and the lack of support from an overwhelming majority of the population.

For what its worth, a new Constitutional Convention could well lead to a disaster of epic magnitude. Anything could be enacted, from making us Communist to instituting a Theocracy. There is nothing to say that the ratification process (determined by the same body that drafts the new document) would not be rigged in some way. Highly, highly dangerous....especially since any and all delegates would likely be partisan hacks of all flavors out to institute a narrow agenda, whatever 'We the People' want or don't want, or what's best for the nation.

I agree 100%

The Second Ammendment should be jettisoned?

Mr. Sweeny there is going to make himself a lot of enemies.