I tried something similar a while back and want to experiment again . . .
I present to you a discussion on this blue pen.
Suppose that I take this blue pen, and with it I rewrote the constitution of the United States, knowing what we know today.
What should I change? Should I have more influence than simply making new amendments?
The US constitution is pretty sound. From what I’ve read of Jefferson, Paine etc… They had a pretty good understanding of politics. The real problem is that the US is not following the constitution.
-Mark.
Exactly. I would repeal the 16th & 17th Amendments (income tax and popular election of Senators), amend it to establish term limits for Senators and Congressmen, and then “protect and defend” the Constitution.
It’s been bad enough that we ignore many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights (especially the 10th where the powers not granted to the federal government are retained to the states and the people), but the government learned its lesson from Prohibition not to bother amending the Constitution, just skirt it. We immediately instituted the War on Drugs and Social Security without amendment, and it’s been downhill from there, accelerating exponentially with the “War on Poverty” and the “Great Society”. Now the Supreme Court has joined in, declaring the Campaign Finance Reform bill, asset forfeiture and even violating eminent domain to be Constitutional–basically because of the momentum in their favor, not their constitutionality.
Franklin and Paine both foresaw the eventual demise of the government, not because of the corruption of the government, but that of the people. When liberty takes a backseat to safety and security, when our government education only mentions our history and form of government in passing and even less about economics, when we know the intimate details of celebrities lives but not even who our congressmen and senators are, we’ve let ourselves be corrupted. To take another of Franklin’s statements one step further, liberty is the only guarantor of security. If we loose the first we will eventually loose the second.
Good topic, but what’s with the “blue” pen?
The constitution was written a long time ago, back in a time where one attack by a non governmental agent couldn’t wipe out hundreds of thousands of lives in the blink of an eye. We’re lucky to have the constitution, but in a lot fo ways there are circumstances which could potentially come up which the constitution wouldn’t be prepared to handle.
Such as…? And amendments are still a viable way to handle any inadequacies.
The only thing I’d want to rewrite is the right to bear arms. Canada doesn’t have such an amendment and we seem to be doing just fine. Other than that, I know too little about the American Constitution, so I don’t have much to say.
But yeah, the “blue” pen just blows my mind 
I don’t agree that canada is fine without a right to bear arms. Though that doesn’t stop every second person from owning a rifle.
Why not?
You need a liscence to own a rifle. It isn’t a constitutional right.
Did anyone else notice it’s a red pen?
Cyrene, you gotta start reading my posts closer.
Cyrene, what makes you think there’s a red pen? This is about using the blue pen to rewrite the Constitution.
You could very well see my red as blue, but we’d still both recognize the color as being ‘termed’ ‘red’
Ah, we’re being relativistic… or subjectivist?
I’m not making any metaphysical discussion. I’m just asking about writing the constitution with the blue pen.
I don’t see how you assume the blue pen being termed “red.” But I don’t want to stray from topic.
I do actually support the right to bear arms, but I don’t think the concept can really be considered in a “pro” or “anti” position. As gib mentioned, you can support guns and still support methods for gun registry.
I’m not totally stupid, and maybe I’m not stupid at all but I don’t get it–if there’s anything to get. At least the solution for correcting the Constitution has been presented (see my first post), so if there’s any other point you’re trying to make, you’d better do it now 'cause people are wandering off fast.
In answer to you OP, Yep, change the constitution with your blue pen. Since you see it as blue and most see it as red I would say having you use that blue pen would be far better than leaving things the same. How you change it is up to you, if you are wrong then we can argue. I am far more interested in seeing what a blue pen like yours can do than I am worried about any unjust changes. A different thought is needed, a fresh perspective is needed. So I will kick back with my popcorn, beer and shotgun and observe. Sometimes you just have to let the horse take its bit. As far as i am concerned you may as well mark off all the ammendments including the bill of rights and the original constitution, start fresh… Do try not to make it so ambiguous this time, It leaves far too many loopholes for lawyers to play with.
I do like a lot of the suggestions on the constitution. I certainly don’t think you’re stupid. But I don’t know what’s to get either. I don’t know why anyone said the pen was red.
Maybe he’s color blind 
No, I believe there’s some expreriment going on which I am unable to unravel.
Why would I be colour blind?
And what’s the experiment?
And why did the discussion on the constitution get derailed?