Two good examples of what I am talking about are freedom of speech and right to bare arms. People really stretch the meaning of these two rights to the extreme sometimes...do you believe that the founding fathers really wanted People like Larry Flint degrading women and the boys of Columbine to have semi-automatic weapons?

I see nothing wrong with making it more of a living document and subject to changes as our nation changes.

I believe that the constitution was written with the fullest of good intentions, but over the years people shaped its words into something that obviously fit their intentions be it good or bad. The problem I feel is that it, like the Bible, is very vague sometimes and anyone on either extreme can take it to mean something else.

I would much rather have elected officials directly accountable to the people making changes as opposed to activist judged who contort the original intent of a bunch of rich, old, white guys from 200 years in the past.

There is no going back now...its so hard to make adjustments to the constitution these days. There will always be someone out there that will go up in arms (literally as they have the right to bare arms) over something liket that. Thank God they put in there that we have the right to peaceful assembly, though it still doesn't stop many from making it unpeaceful, at least we have the right to put a stop to it at that point.

I believe the Constitution is a living document and that this life is seen through the Amendments. What was provided for and described in the original Constitution and what it has come to mean over tiem are two different things. I believe that our Constitution evolves as our nation does. And while it does not always evolve as fast as we would like, it does usually get there. The problem today is that our society has become more polarized on almost every issue, as seen on this forum. Being so polarized makes it quite difficult ro agree on what changes should be made and exactly how our nation should evolve.

-Demosthenes

__________________
"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

is that it isn't necessary that it be changed. There is nothing in it today that is "out of date." Your gun example, the court has ruled that it does not include automatic weapons. It didn't have to be changed to include that distinction. There are no great issues such as civil rights or suffrage today that require a new ammendment.

The Constitution itself is outdated as witnessed by the Amendments thereto attatched. The problem with this thread is that it assumes that the First and Second Amendments are part of the main body of the Constitution. They aren't. Insofar as the Constitution specifies that it is amendable, then it's always updatable, hard or not. There's nothing wrong with requiring more than just a simple majority of people to ratify a new Amendment--before we amend the Constitution, there's nothing wrong with being THAT SURE that it still has the consent of the governed.

As to the First and Second Amendments--well--nothing wrong with those getting amended. Those are Amendments--not Commandments.

__________________
I shall continue to be an impossible person as long as those who are now possible remain possible.
HuffPo's Off The Bus campaign coverage project....Off The Bus Blog

I actually agree with Rebellion on something. OH MY GOD! IT'S THE APOCOLYPSE!

__________________
"The only thing we have to fear is four more years of George W. Bush." -Teddy Kennedy