AP Government Post #2

To receive full credit, use the rubric provided.  This discussion post will close on Monday, August 26 at 5:00 PM.

The Constitution was ratified in 1789.  Since 1791 it has been changed only 17 times.  Is the Constitution outdated?  Should it be changed?  Should it stay the same?  Is there anything that needs to be added?  What are the most important principles outlined in the Constitution?

If you are not sure of what exactly is in the Constitution, you may read it here.  United States Constitution

146 thoughts on “AP Government Post #2

    • The Constitution in itself as a message and/or concept is not ‘out-dated’ per say compared to most other countrys and their foundations. A core philosophy enscribed is how the people and citizens are prioritized more as the primary focus than the construct of a country’s government. That people are what shapes the country as a whole, and since people as a society shape, so will the constitution seventeen times. Other vast populated countries such as the UK and China seem to still struggle with the concept that people come in before parliament or royalty. That does not exactly mean America is perfect — thus amendments adjust to current needs. The Constitution was the needs of then and adjustments are needs of now.

      • I think we must always be careful when we begin to compare the state of the US to other large bodies of government. Too often this type of analogy is used as a justification of American exceptionalism, excusing the problems here because one believes they are better than another nation. However, you do make some valid points. But as the people shape the nation, we must properly attribute the nation’s history and current events to the “people of this country”. Of course, the Constitution can only be as outdated as the ideas the “people” hold.

        • Well said Christian, comparisons are used often times to justify harsh conditions in some cases. However as a country we are young, and as you mentioned, must attribute our history and current time to the people who hold the power.

    • I believe it should be slightly changed to fit Monserrat times. We now as an Society move so fast and we are being introduced too new ideas and technology all the time and in the 1700s life was completely different.

      • But I still feel the constitution holds relevance and we haven’t hit an issue that has needed major change to the document

      • I agree that the constitution will not keep up as we continue to evolve. There is no way the founding fathers could ever imagine the changes that have come in the last hundred years.

  1. While the constitution was written over 230 years ago, I believe that it doesn’t need to be changed. Some argue that it was written without modern advancements in mind, but most, if not all, of the constitution’s ideals hold true to this day.

    • The constitution was written with modern advancements in mind. That is why it is a living document. It is able to bend and be interpreted based on what the people need. That is why the constitutions ideal still hold true to this day.

      • I agree, the constitution is able to bend and adjust to the needs of the people, that is the main reason that the ideals of the constitution still hold true to this day, but also because it is made for the people and has helped shape the government and gave us the regulations that we still need to follow to this day.

      • i disagree i believe that the constitution is out dated and will apply less and less to modern lifestyles.

      • Although I feel that a few changes could be specified; I agree that The Constitution is flexible in many of the differently ruled cases when taken to the Supreme Court to recognize the Constitutional relevancy of the crime or action being addressed.

        • I agree I think the constitution could use some changes but it is flexible and had the future in mind while it was written. When taken to court the constitution is followed and if it goes to Supreme Court they do a really good job interpreting every little part of it.

      • I agree. As you said, the ideals still hold true. The constitution is a document that we base our lives on and our laws on. As we grow technologically and as people, the constitution still applies to us today

      • I believe that the constitution has ideologies and value that are still modern today. While I do believe that we can benefit by making some changes, the constitution should stay relatively the same. I don’t believe anyone here believes we should completely change the constitution because it has values that everyone benefits from. Of course that wasn’t always the case, but the constitution is a document that should stay (for the most part) the same.

      • While I agree with your statement, I Can’t support your idea that they wrote the constitution with the advancements of technology in mind; they couldn’t have guessed the progression of our artillery and failed to acknowledge the acceptance of other sexualities.

    • It was made with the ideals in mind concerning white men and really ONLY white men, who owned property. Which is nowhere near the advancement and liberty that our country contains today.

    • I agree, although the constitution was made at the start of the United States the ideals in the constitution still apply to the United States today.

    • Yes, the Constitution is still effective, however not all of its ideals represent the America of today, due to the era in which it was written. Adjustments need to be made in order to reflect the America of today.

      • I agree the constitution was written in a different era and some policies do need to be changed but it was written well enough that today’s era can still use it practically

    • I see where you’re coming from and i agree with your statement. I think the entire concept of the constitution being a “living document” takes away the need for it to be greatly changed.

  2. The constitution could be considered to be outdated. It was built and created for a society of white males with property. The 3/5ths compromise, a vital and debated part of the constitution has not been changed or modified. It should be removed, since it has no use anymore.

    • True, but don’t forget also that it took a while for poor white males to get the right to vote and even way longer for other groups, also it takes time to remove such pieces from a just over 200 year old document but your on the money

      • When we discuss the inclusion of nonwhite individuals in American government, it makes no logical sense for the minor struggle of rights for poor white men to the mass struggles of women, women of color, Black and Brown people. In terms of how the Constitution handles certain issues today, pertaining specifically to race, it can be credibly argued as outdated. And remember, this places even greater responsibility on the people the document reflects. Not only can the document be seen as outdated because of how it divides power and rights to other non white groups, but the ideas of the White majority who enforce these ideas can be seen as outdated, and much more.

    • Yes the Constitution was created with and for the white middle class men. The 3/5 compromise cannot explicitly be removed since it is directly in the Constitution (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3) but it can be amended. It is worth noting, that in 1865 the compromise was declared obsolete; however it is still technically in effect.

      • I agree with you Katherine because in the constitution we have allowed ourselves to treat and label a specific group of people as 3/5 compromise of one person which is degrading and dehumanizing.

      • I agree! The decisions made in the Constitution were made a long time ago and may lack relevancy to American society today. Especially since there is more acceptance and representation of minorities and women in politics. All types of people should be considered in the process of deciding the rules for those who must follow them.

    • I agree with you, Lexi, in that the Constitution should be gone through with a fine tooth comb to remove the parts that no longer apply to the country, such as the 3/5 compromise.

    • I agree that the 3/5ths compromise should be officially amended or removed, and that the post-Revolutionary world was created for white men with money. There are certainly situations that could call for the Constitution to be modified and we should be open to that discussion.

  3. The constitution in my opinion does not need to be replaced. It may have some things in it that are outdated but that’s what America was built on , it’s a foundation of where it all started. Maybe something’s need to be adjusted but to replace the whole document would be unnecessary.

    • The Constitution was made as an outline, it was written to give necessary rules and regulations but besides that it didn’t go into very extreme detail. It was built for adjustment. So I agree, it doesn’t need to be replaced, but how we view it might need an overhaul.

      • I do believe that the constitution is out dated but I do also see the benefits it brings to the people of the United States.Does it need improvement of course but nothing major mini or impovents here and there won’t hurt. As long as the powers are separated then we’re fine.

    • I agree with you. The constitution should be revised, but not replaced entirely. There are many good points in the constitution that shouldn’t be neglected. To replace the constitution is to replace a significant portion of American history. Changing the document piece by piece allows us to adapt, but a whole new constitution would be the equivalent of a revolution, as all laws would need to be revised and revisited.

    • I agree, the constitution did help build America and that there are some things that are unnecessary. But most of those ones should be removed since it is outdated and no longer “in law”.

      • There are plenty of laws in place that are simply just not enforced, and the constitution is no exception. Too much has been overlooked or swept to the side. Since we’re all aware the Constitution is a living, amendable document it seems foolish to let it sit stalemate.

    • I agree with you, partially. Replacing the entire document would be overzealous and a lot of work and dedication by many people. Although, certain parts should be looked at once again, and possibly replaced or changed to fit modern-day standards and citizens

    • I think replacing it completely would be ridiculous but i don’t think that tweaking it would hurt much. Like you said, somethings should be adjusted. I wish there was a way for the people to be able to add on to it what may be morally right but sometimes the morals and the logic don’t coincide and that’s when things become tough. I do think it should be adjusted.

  4. To some pieces yes can be reviewed but no it does not need to go Or change majority we as the American people have been thriving under this one and it done wonderfull

    • Yes, the constitution has helped build America. And it was made “vague” so us Americans can translate it in our own words and live by it in our own words.

  5. No, the constitution is not outdated. The constitution is a living document and is flexible so that it does not need to change over a long period of time. I believe it should stay the same. America is the greatest country and there is not a reason to change what has been working. The constitution protects and guarantees the rights and freedom to its citizens. The most important principles of the constitution are the Bill of Rights. Without it, citizens would not be provided with their natural rights.

    • I think there could be arguments made that it isn’t working as well as it should, especially in the case of marginalized citizens who do not feel as if they have the same rights as privileged ones. Perhaps they would argue that it needs to be broadened to modern day times and address specific rights they feel they don’t have.

      • The Constitution was made with the intention of keeping the privileged in power and the most rights, so it is understandable that it would still be reflected to this day.

      • I agree, but I don’t think the Constitution is to blame for that. Honestly, it’s the people who refuse to let changes be made. We can fix the Constitutions problems, it itself outlines how, we’re just not being allowed to.

    • I wouldn’t say that there are no reasons to change, I feel that every society has room for improvement and this document in particular could be improved. The constitution needs to be interpreted in ways that reflect society’s values- and that changes over periods of time.

      • Though there are a handful of outdated parts in the Constitution such as the 3/5ths Compromise, since the Constitution is a “living document” and is written in a vague manner it should not be changed.

      • The constitution, although outdated with old english, does not currently need to be replaced. Due to the fact that we can ratify the constitution is currently enough—although further down the line people may want to get rid of the document all together. When asked what the most important part of the constitution is, I disagree that one section has more validity over the other, because all sections concerning human rights are important.

        • I agree, the constitution currently agrees with the ideals that the United States have today. The constitution is given the idea of being able to interpret it due to your beliefs and that is what america is about, having the freedoms to express and be given a voice.

  6. Although the constitution was written in the late 1700s I don’t think it’s outdated. The Constitution was written in a way that it can be changed over time. Yes I do think somethings that we think are wrong/ is no longer what is allowed or used should be removed but other then that I don’t think anything else should be changed. Again it written to be interpreted as time goes on

    • I personally believe the Constitution should be updated to clarify that it protects and gives rights to everyone instead of “men”. Historically, men were used in many led and classical documents, but it can be updated with the times so everyone can feel included.

  7. The Constitution was written in such a way that it left many things open to interpretation; it can modified to fit modern times. This is why it is called a living document. However, there are certain aspects of the Constitution that no longer apply as much as they once did, such as the piracy law. It should be changed if needed; nothing should be set in stone if it is not working or not applicable to current times.

    • The Constitution was made to be a living document for the very reason that it would need adjusting as time went on. The document itself outlines how to make changes. We don’t need to stop using something that will let you fix perceived problems.

    • This point of it being a living document is brought up a lot but holds quite a bit of truth. We are able to add amendments that can end up canceling out old ones such as the prohibition of alcohol. While it is hard to amend the constitution it is possible and it continues to evolve as our society does.

    • I agree that the constitution was written to be a living document and that is was meant to fit modern times. Therefore, if a law is not affecting the country, why go through the trouble to get it removed? It would be a difficult process and if the law is not harming anyone it does not seem necessary to remove it.

  8. The Constitution is not so much outdated as it is old. The Constitution is open to change, and the latest change was 1992. In this sense, the Constitution is 20 years old. The Constitution should only change in ways that are necessary. The American people have the ability to change the Constitution in necessary ways, but uprooting the Constitution is counter-productive and ignores the consequences of the future. Freedoms in various forms are the most important terms outlined in the Constitution. Freedom of speech is the most important one of these.

    • I agree with you, and some amendments should be made, but if we can work with it for now, there should be no immediate rush. It is still an important issue that should be remedied as soon as possible.

    • I agree with the change aspect of the constitution. However I do think some things are outdated and you cannot say the constitution is 20 years old. it is a living document but changing it does not make it any less outdated. It can make it more applicable to modern times which is great.

  9. The Constitution itself is technically outdated, due to time, but it is still relevant in today’s matters referring to government and politics. The document authored by James Madison cannot be changed or altered; however, it can be amended (added to) as it has been 27 (or 17) times. The question is the Constitution outdated, and should it change is typically questioning the amendments and whether or not those should be altered. But a question comes up several times, usually indirectly, is should the Constitution be interpreted and governed with loosely or to the letter?

    • I agree that parts of this document shouldn’t be altered only for the reason that most of it still applies to today’s society. Just because the document is old doesn’t necessarily mean it is outdated, however, there are certain parts of the constitution that need a new amendment to counter any possible misinterpretation that could set this country up for failure.

  10. In my eyes, the Constitution is in a good place at the moment. Yes there are a couple things that seem to be outdated, but overall the constitution still has statements about the government that seem to matter to our society today.

    • Yes, I think that some parts of the constitution may seem a little outdated, but so far it has been keeping our government structured and has allowed the people to know the rights that they are entitled to. I believe that some parts of the constitution has lots of statements that are relevant and still matter today because the creators of the constitution had some of the interests of the people in the future in mind.

    • I agree with you in the fact that some aspects of our interpretation of the constitution still should be written in. The constitution as a whole is not outdated due to its capability of being openly interpreted.

  11. The Constitution itself doesn’t need to be changed, at least not by an extreme amount. As time goes on we continue to change interpretations and thus change ideas and verdicts. The roadblock between modern interpretations and outdated ideas is the weight people put on the exact reading. Modern day human error isn’t because the Constitution, it’s because of how they chose to read it.

    • I disagree on your last point. I think if errors result from how people choose to read a document then we need a new document that is less ambiguous and open to problematic interpretations, especially since official interpretations can change depending merely on who holds power in the Supreme Court.

  12. While the Constitution was written over 200 years ago It is not a outdated document. the founding fathers intentionally left some parts vague as to allow them to be more easily interpreted in the future or in changed times.

  13. The constitution is outdated only by language, however it still applies to modern day. It is still relevant to our government and lists the proper rights each citizen of the US has. I feel as we continue to move forward in society we continue to find new holes in the constitution that calls for changes or new amendments. The most important principles are the amendments, specifically the Bill of Rights, outlined; the first being freedom of speech. I also find the amendments that abolished slavery, allowed for African Americans and women to vote be to extremely important as well.

  14. The constitution is what is known as a living document, which means that even though it’s old it isn’t necessarily outdated. The constitution can be edited or changed if need be, it’s also open to interpretation in order to fit the views of the current generation. I feel the constitution needs to be refined in order to reflect our current values.This document is still important because it outlines our rights as citizens: such as a free press and freedom of religion.

    • i agree with you, as to the constitution being edited to voice & suit our current / future generation values in order to moderate as time goes on.

    • It is true that some of our most important values are upheld in the Constitution, and it is vital that we as a society fight for those basic rights. I admire that the Constitution was left to interpretation, but i also feel that this is the catalyst for a lot of political contention in America.

  15. The constitution a living document that can be changed at any time if it goes through the right process. This means it’s not outdated but it is old. It also need to be changed you can interpret certain clauses differently. I don’t think the constitution needs to be changed that much as that would lead to the government never coming to a conclusion on what needs to be changed. The document is still the foundation of our nation and it outlines what the people and government can and can’t do.

    • I like how you put it was old not outdated because it is being updated every time a necessary update is needed it is amended.

  16. personally believe the Constitution should be updated to clarify that it protects and gives rights to everyone instead of “men”. Historically, men were used in many led and classical documents, but it can be updated with the times so everyone can feel included.

  17. The Constitution is a living document, therefore it can be seen that many clauses are vague and can be left open to interpretation. This is beneficial in the aspect that the laws can encompass many situations, and it can remain relevant, despite the fact that it was written a long time ago. The Constitution is a document that should be difficult to make changes to, as it is the basis for legislature in the United States. Too many changes would make the document unreliable. However, if a clause is outdated it should be adjusted.

    • I agree that if too many changes were made that the constitution would be unreliable, I didn’t think of that. I just wonder if there’s a way to satiate both sides of the argument.

    • I like your idea of how if we changed it then it would be unreliable- I didn’t think of that. However I do think that we should consider thinking about changing certain aspects of the constitution. While it’s open to interpretation, it should match societal views

    • EDIT: Adjustments that should be made are the complete removal of the 3/5th Compromise, and the inclusion of the ERA into the Constitution, and an amendment that states the internment of races is unlawful and unconstitutional, regardless of wartime or peace (in reference to the decision made by the Supreme Court in Korematsu v US).

    • The constitution was written in a time completely different from now. In the constitution they never changed the line where they only counted black people as only three fifths of a person. Which has yet to be changed in the constitution! It is extremely outdated and even with all of the amendments, we have no way to actually change the constitution to fit the 21st Century. The important elements however which are outlined in the constitution, which should remain in the event the constitution is rewritten include: The right to the freedom of speech and assembly and the fact that we as a country are free to run ourselves according to what fits our country best

  18. The constitution is outdated in that it excludes a lot in terms of equal rights, and it has many points that are no longer relevant or applicable. The constitution should be subject to change since it is indeed a “living document”, and these issues that it excludes are more important than making sure we’re remaining consistent. The times and issues change as society progresses, this has been proven true time and time again. So why wouldn’t the document we base our systems off change also?

    • I agree with you, points made in constitution should be changed as societal values evolve. I think that since it’s a “living document”, all the points stated in it are subject to new interpretations.

    • I agree with Elena because the major aspects we base our livelihood on come from this document it should reflect the time and country we are running.

    • I agree with you there. Mostly the system itself is changing, not so much the document itself except for a few ratifications. Though changes to the document could reflect modern times. Albiet a lot of proof-reading and checks.

  19. The constitution has been changed based on the fluctuating interpretation of the constitution over time. As of now the constitution is out dated and should be changed. There are some mentions of equal rights that are not as relevant or that have changed since the last edit was made. I believe that although it should be changed it is good we aren’t changing it year by year. This is because the constitution is open to interpretation and changing it constantly would make it more literal. This might work out but it would cost more money and opportunity for something that isn’t necessary. So in conclusion, the constitution should be changed when it is outdated but should not be changed often enough to diminish its ability for open interpretation.

    • I agree with you. The constitution needs to be updated, as many aspects are irrelevant or don’t reflect modern times. The constitution should represent the living citizens of America, but should also represent everyone who will be born under it. It is only right that the constitution prepares for the future generations as well as the current one.

      • I think you brought up a very good point that the constitution needs to also represent future generations of Americans, and there are many possibilities of the future that are unlikely
        to have been sufficiently accounted for in a document written over 200 years ago. I also agree that the constitution needs to be update because currently it just does not represent or account for the needs of the population of Americans today.

      • I like how you brought up changing for stuff that is irrelevant for todays times. That I do believe should be changed also because there is no point filling it with clutter.

  20. While the Constitution does have noticeable flexibility with its ability of the meaning to be fluid throughout multiple generations, I still believe there are striking elements of the document that are outdated. It is important to remember that when discussing the Constitution itself, we must also discuss the society it builds, as the document is only a reflection of the nation. I believe there are multiple flaws with the society the Constitution established, and its ability to adapt is becoming less and less accessible as the society today grows much different than it was 250 years ago.

    The possessive investment in whiteness and apparent male hegemony the document reflects pose alarming issues of the document. These are principles not explicitly said in the Constitution but are implied — revealed through the hypocritical colonists’ chase for freedom but shunning of freedom to others. However, this would be something extremely difficult to alter because of the many ideals these principles are built off of, such as individualism, capitalism, and monetary greed. They have been attempted through certain Amendments to the Constitution, but even these still allow for the mass imprisonment and let us not forget the failure of the ERA to pass.

    Of course, I could finish this with an idealistic answer as to what principles the Constitution embody. However, I think it is best to follow the manner of my previous week’s post. Now yes, some of the most noticeable principles within this document are “freedom”, “capitalism” and possession of “power”. But to determine the importance of these, we must also consider whose expense do these come at? America claims the cliche notion of American exceptionalism in its freedom offered, but to whom? America greatly appreciates the capitalistic system, but also ignores how this was built of the backs of slaves and other non-white bodies (and refuses to compensate these groups too). American is obsessed with the possession of power, but in whose hands does this power lay? Ultimately this document is built around self-interested principles, with money, sex, and race being the primary determiners of who this document aids or not.

    • I think the constitution is outdated because it is a different generation and time in society so I do you believe it should be changed and improve. I think America has new issues . So I do agree with the Constitution should be More fitting to our society today

  21. The Constitution was written as a living document. Nothing in the document was dated. Because of this, the document doesn’t get changed often. However, when it does, it’s always by necessity. As out country continue to evolve, the constitution does as well. New amendments that are added reflect the views of the time period. Most amendments stay once in place. The only one to ever be repealed is the 18th amendment. I agree that the constitution needs to be updated, however, I believe that it needs to be a necessary thing. The country must be ready to move on from the mistake the amendment is amending, otherwise, it will not be enforced.

    • I think this is absolutely right. The constitution does need to change with the times and without that constant change the country would be governed much differently, in all cases being much worse than it is now.

  22. I do think the constitution is outdated in some parts but not in others. It was written to be a living document so it can be changed it just takes a lot of effort to do so. Our constitution has been changed many times each having to do with what is going on in the country. So if the constitution is going to be rewritten it should have to do with what is going on now. As long as our country should run it should also undergo some changes to help it run.

    • I agree that it should be changed for what is happening now. But I dont think we should ever change the parts in were it tells us how to run the government via Congress and the presidency,

    • I agree with your point. However to an extent that is not merely too specific because that could create issues in interpretation.

    • I also agree that some parts of the constitution are not outdated whole others are. I believe that the outdated ones have already been changed. The ones that will currently (as I see) not be changed is ones with basic human rights.

  23. The constitution should not be changed. I believe the constitution was designed to be an outline for our society, though specifics were placed in it for the times of the founding fathers , I think it is fine for us to ignore their specifics. This does not mean we can ignore everything,we should not change the rules designed for how our government should function. We should ignore rules such as “a slave that runs to another state cannot declare their freedom” as slavery, as an institution, is no longer a problem as a system, though its history does affect society’s realtions today. The constitution was effective then, and I believe it still is.

    • While the Constitution is still effective, I don’t think that we simply can “ignore” the specifics in the Constitution, but instead it is necessary to make amendments. The interpretation of the document affects the entire nation. If something is outdated it is necessary for an amendment to be made, it can not be “ignored” because it could still affect someone or a group of people negatively in the future. While slavery itself was abolished (13th Amendment) the repercussions of slavery affects the way the government is run, how the Constitution was written, and clearly still affects African Americans today. Racial discrimination heavily affects the treatment African Americans and other minorities in America experience today in all aspects (education, employment, legislation, etc) .

  24. I don’t believe the constitution should be changed. I also do not believe that it is outdated. All in all, we do not need a new constitution either. It’s more so that it is old, and today we have a different context in terms of interpretation. The constitution helps institute the basic rights and aspects of government that are still relevant.

  25. The constitution is embedded in how we have been functioning as a country. Changing it would be a huge adaption. After reading the responses of what other’s had to say I do agree now that some aspects of the constitution should be further expanded upon as our interpretation now is very different in times or the issues we face that also differ.

  26. In my mind the most important principles outlined in the constitution are in Article 1. For example in Section 2, the Constitution states that “The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen ever second year by the people of several states”. This is extremely important because new people every second year means new ideas and new conversations on relevant topics.

  27. The Constitution should not be completely changed but some aspects should be reviewed, because overall our population have been vastly evolving over the past 200 years. The Constitution was created so people would have a foundation to ensure equal ability, and citizens today still feel as if they are not getting the equality they prefer. So the Constitution still has statements that matter to us today, but also there are some things that need to change.

    • I completely agree. While all the ideals the constitution was built on are still significant, it does feel as if it needs some more additions. Without amendments, our country wouldn’t be able to grow and evolve and change.

  28. The overriding principles of the constitution should definitely be maintained, such as federalism, popular sovereignty, and separation of powers, but the document as a whole really should be considered outdated. It was written solely by elite white men and so obviously cannot pretend to represent “we the people.” They in no way could have accounted for or anticipated the needs of the incredibly diverse population of Americans with incredibly diverse issues today. As a nation we need to seriously consider creating a document that merits respect for representing all Americans and the best heart of the country, instead of for being over 200 years old, which is a big part of the problem in the first place.

  29. I believe that the constitution should not be completely changed but some aspects should be updated to fit modern day necessities in today’s society. Even though it was written in the beginning of the country’s history, it is still a major outline and guide for how the country operates today. However, if major changes do need to be made they should be well planned out and well written to fit the needs of today’s people

  30. Although the constitution was written about 230 years ago, I believe it to not be outdated. Sure, it was modified 17 times over that period of time, but if what the constitution said did not work for the people, I think that it would have been modified so many more times. The Constitution in my eyes do not need to be modified or changed in any way, it is worded extremely carefully so that it fits the needs of the people. Therefore, I think that it should stay exactly how it is, but with changes made whenever the needs of the people depends on it. If anything needed to be added, I would not have a clue on what it would be.
    Some of the most important principles however, I found to be was popular sovereignty, separation of powers, and limited government. Popular sovereignty is important because it bases its needs on the subject and the will of the people, because we live in a democracy based government this principle is very crucial to the constitution. Separation of powers is just as equally important because it allows the government to be broken down into different groups, with different roles, making the overall job of the government easier to manage. And lastly, the principle of having a limited government is extremely important because the amount of power they have is decided by the people.

  31. The constitution is inherently outdated due to the fact that it was made several hundred years ago. However, it does not need to be changed itself due to the inclusion of a system in which to add to it called amendments. With amendments the overall constitution can be tweaked in ways that affect the country either drastically or only in specific instances. Due to this fact the constitution is fine the way it is because if it ever needs updating we can do that separately as a country.

    • Well put! Without the amendments, the Constitution would kind of be worthless for an ever-changing nation. 2nd Civil War probably would have happened and 50 percent of people still would not have been able to vote. Its a crucial addition as well as a measure of brilliant foresight. The founders perhaps understood that, as written, the Constitution would not last forever. They put faith into something that allowed it to grow as a separate poetically living entity. Its beautiful in a gross political way.

    • I disagree with it being outdated. However, I do agree with analysis of the amendments. Amendments are the way that the constitution stays relevant.

    • Really well said, the amendments can bring forth a new meaning or change without altering the constitution itself. Whether or not it is an old document, we can always modify it when ever its needed.

    • I do believe that the constitution is outdated due to the fact it was written so
      Long ago and we now have issues that weren’t issues back when it was made. I don’t believe however that it needs to be completely changed, but updated to help with the times now, yes.

      • I agree. A lot of the problems we face today were not problems that were around back then. Adding more details and refining (and adding more) key ideas would be great. I also think that since a lot of the issues that are arising has to do with social issues the controversy and uproar that would happen honestly scares me.

  32. If the Constitution stood as it did 200 years ago, it would clearly be in need of a large amount of change. Yet, the document has changed along with the nation that formed it. Laws of necessity have arisen and been amended to adjust to the oncoming obstacles each generation faces. It should only be changed in the same way that it always has, through a vote. To betray the system as set entirely could lead to room for more and more exceptions that would lead to a nation in which the system presented to maintain order does not matter at all. There is nothing I can think of at the current moment that needs added immediately but an amendment to remove estate taxes would certainly be nice. The elements most emphasized are those trying to promote a government for the people in an attempt to grant them rights that had not ever previously been tried. They did hold back to an extent but its certainly admirable to see some of the idealism the founders had pay off.

    • I do agree with your statement and how the constitution should be mandated by the people through democracy and I also agree with how if the constitution we’re to be betrayed that it would ultimately lead to a place of uncommon chaos but I do think there are some other issues beyond estate taxes that could be fixed in the constitution as well.

    • I completely agree that the only way that the constitution should change is through a vote since that is truly what the document is all about. Without that right to the people the country would be much more restrictive and would seem much more like a dictatorship. That is exactly why the vote is needed for the constitution

    • I also agree that currently, I do not think their should be an immediate change to the constitution. I do think that the right to bear arms is a grey topic right now and I can currently see that being changed in the future.

  33. The basic ideologies of the constitution itself are not exact up to date with today’s society, so I can see how one could say that it is “outdated” but the ideas that remain behind them I do not believe are outdated because of the ability to make amendments and ratify new laws in order to correct the flaws that were created in the constitution. I do think there should be some new things added to it specifically on the ones that may cause political back lash, but overall the principles behind the constitution should always be in the best interest of the people of the United States.

    • Its true that it was written an awfully long time ago. The wording nowadays can certainly be called into especially surrounding particular clauses and rather undesirable compromises. As many, including you, have mentioned the amendments and amending process help to alleviate this issue. These help to aim the previously mentioned “interest” of the Constitution towards actually providing for the citizens. Generally, new laws are amended by necessity, once we realize a mistake, instead of preemptively. This has its pros and cons but ultimately it sides on the edge liberty instead of the safety, doing things ahead of time. The idea is only to limit freedom and pass new laws when absolutely necessary. This makes me very curious to see what new things you are suggesting be added.

  34. In my opinion the Constitution is outdated. I feel as though it should be under review and specifically classified for today’s world with technology and other influences and changes in society that are not yet written into the “law of the land”. There should be an Equal Pay Amendment and requirement for both men and women. This was not addressed when the Constitution was written because during that time period women played “their role” in the household and were hardly employed. Now that America is a melting pot there should be rules to cater to that especially. The most important purpose of the Constitution is to secure natural rights for all citizens, draw the line between federal and state government, and hold the country to one standard “law of the land”.

    • There are no major changes that need to be made to the constitution. It is outdated, it was written over 200 years ago, but the constitution is just general guidelines. We build around the constitution, making new laws that people have to follow. The constitution doesn’t do much to stifle the laws that we make because the laws evolve with the times we’re in. I personally believe that it should stay the same, or maybe be looked over and slightly altered.

    • I agree, so many factors have become involved in our country’s government as time has passed from the advancement of technology like You said.

  35. The constitution is fine the way it is for a variety of trains. For one it’s called a livin document for a reason, the way it was written made it a simple guideline to our country that can be freely interpreted by anyone. The problems in our government are from the People, not the constitution. Therefore the constitution doesn’t need to be changed.

  36. The Constitution is and always shall be a point of controversy, whenever a new label comes out for a different way of life there is bound to be a want for change. However despite this, the Constitution shouldn’t need to change so long as people are considered people and how it should continue to be the main outline that everyone follows. It should remain the base that we stay on.

  37. I believe the Constitution is not outdated because it has been updated so many times. As it is right now I believe it is fine, but as the world changes and grows updates to the Constitution are inevitable. Some of the most important ideas in the Constitution have to do with how the Constitution is amended, those “rules” make it so a change to the whole government has to be approved by the majority of people.

    • I also agree with your statement on how updating the constitution as time progress is inevitable, and I think as the constitution changes bit by bit as needed, it can’t really be outdated.

  38. There can be an argument on why the Constitution should be altered. Times have changed since it was first written; we have evolved as people, technology has evolved, and we have grown as a society. Some people may think that what is said in the Constitution can be dated, and won’t necessarily apply to what people deal with today. What those people fail to realize is the Constitution still works today. Some things may seem outdated, but we make laws around the Constitution that formulate with today’s ideas. The Constitution is a basic, General guideline. Some people may believe you have to follow it to its every point but all in all, the Constitution is there to make sure we have order. I personally do not believe anything needs to be added to the Constitution today, maybe in the future there will be things that need to be added. But so far I personally do not believe that the constitution needs to be fully altered. The Constitution allows people to have say in government and issues as well as giving order. States make laws, people have natural rights, and there are federal laws. All of these things keep us in order, they don’t need to be altered. The Constitution is a living document, a document that still goes on and pertains to any type of generation.

  39. After further analysis I actually changed my mind. I do think that constitution is to an extent outdated. Especially in this lifetime where we have by far more advancements. As well as what was once accepted back then is traditionally different from now. In context the constitution should be changed to be made relevant to today’s times

  40. I believe the constitution is well written for the United States today as well as in the past. The constitution is outdated in the language, but it is compatible for all beliefs and interpretations. It gives a broad range of views and allows the citizens and the states to freely interpret what is written. Of course people would like the constitution to clearly state their personal views, but it is an excellent document to interpret to your own beliefs.

  41. I believe that overall the conversation is outdated. Although there are some core values, such as a citizen’s rights which is laid out in the bill of rights, that still work for today, i believe that many parts do not. The constitution was made by rich white men who had the best interest of other rich white men in mind. America can never evolve if it holds a document made hundreds of years ago as it’s outlined.

    • that’s true, i never thought of it like that. seeing now how it’s interpertated that rich white men are the ones who had originally written the constitution really does questions upon if everybody really does holds accountable to having citizen rights & being written so long ago.

  42. The constitution could be changed in someways but for the most part i feel it would be pointless todo so at this point in time and probably won’t happen again for awhile because i feel it can work for many ways for multiple groups limiting the problems that could be happening but times are changing and change is always good.

  43. The constitution was designed to be the “law above all laws” as a timeless objective to go too as that was the ruler of the land. To ratify the constitution would just prove that it is not timeless and society changes over time. Some of the more important principles that do not change is basic human rights. This would be timeless as humans have existed for awhile. Everything else that has been changed would go through a lengthy process just to update standards. I believe that changing the constitution should be easier as society constantly changes.

  44. I don’t believe the constitution in itself needs to be greatly changed. The entire concept of it being a living document and being open to interpretation leaves room for changes that accompany the passing of time. And as time progresses and situations change I believe the country responds to and interprets the constitution accordingly.

  45. I don’t believe the constitution in itself needs to be greatly changed. The constitution being open to interpretation leaves room for changes that accompany the passing of time. And as time progresses and situations change I believe the country responds to and interprets the constitution accordingly.

    • The constitution is not outdated due to its open-ended nature, and qualities that are up for interpretation. While there are parts of it that spark controversy, the principles still apply. The most important and relevant part of the constitution is the emphasis on the necessity of unalienable human rights.

    • Piggybacking off of what you said, Femi, I also agree that as time progresses we interpret the constitution in a way that corresponds to the changes. Due to the wording of the document, it is seen that we can interpret it in several ways.

  46. I believe that the Constitution is outdated as it had been written back in the 1700. Which at the time was when rich white men had wanted to take care of their own land. So when thinking about this and putting into how our society is today. Well then the Constitution should be alter or changed since the U.S. has as well very much changed too.

    • I agree, the constitution is an old document that hasn’t been changed for a vast amount of years. We must slightly alter the constitution’s content but not completely change it. The constitution if altered, could become a modern adaptation to suite the people in this era

    • I agree that the us has changed dramatically over the centuries and that certain aspects of the constitution don’t apply to today, but the core values of the constitution itself should not be changed because it is tailored to what makes the US a functioning nation. Without the constitution at its base, there would be no separation of powers, free market, or individual rights afforded to everybody. Over time, the rights of the individual have expanded to cover a wider range, however in that aspect the constitution must keep changing and evolving to include all people, such as the ERA.

  47. I believe that the constitution does need to be reviewed. Not dramatically changed but I do think it should be reviewed again, and (maybe) have slight details changed. I do believe a lot of the constitution still applies to today’s world. I do not think it should be rewritten completely but I do think a little should be added on. However, if that were to happen any time soon the controversy and explosion of people who would want to push their ideas onto it first would cause the U.S to implode. I think leaving the constitution as is for now is the safest route to go on. The constitution should continue to be the bases of what everything is upheld. Other courts should take care over what the constitution might not cover (for today’s world). The most important principles outlined in the constitution would be the separation of powers and its checks and balances, individual rights as well as the people running the government

  48. i believe that there’s no need for change in the constitution since it’s ratification in 1789. yes, it is outdated by not including controversy with modern day advancements but replacing it completely will come to means that what america was originally built on was for nothing.

  49. No, the constitution should not be changed. Although it has some outdated sentiments and uses old language the language that it uses can still be properly interpreted, also the rights expressed in the constitution are still relevant to us today. Our laws can be changed to represent us in the modern day through the supreme court, The House and Senate, and the President well enough.

  50. Should the constitution change? The intriguing question to ask. I firmly believe the constitution should not change; although, it should be altered slightly. Why should we change an entire document instead of just revising it? Not only this will take a lot of effort it will also deprive the constitution of its historical context and value. The constitution was written in 1787 it’s a unique piece of history that also served as a solution to the articles of confederation. Sure some concepts and content are archaic but that’s what gives it the sentimental value. By all means if we must change the constitution we should only do it slightly.

    • I totally agree, revising the entire constitution would take longer than ever; with both sides constantly going against each other we would never get anything done; revising is the easiest solvent as of right now

  51. The constitution itself is outdated in a couple ways, however it’s core ideology and philosophy still applies to today’s society. The most important factors of the constitution are timeless and they include how we separate the powers of government today, the individual natural born rights that are still applied today, and the methods that our government uses to change laws and implement laws tailored to the problems of today. The equality rights act is something that should be added to the constitution today, along with other problems that our own constitution allows us to amend for today’s problems.

  52. The Constitution was ratified in 1789. Since 1791 it has been changed only 17 times. The constitution is the unnamed denotation of “outdated“. Written over 200 years ago, it’s only touched the surface of what needs to change. While it addresses the basics the constitution shouldn’t be completely rewritten but merely adjusted to fit the new day in age. I personally believe their needs to be some form of true equality clearly stated within the constitution. While this addition would be more so symbolic, it would promote positivity amongst varying ethnicity groups, sexualities and races. The most important prices of the constitution address how the government should be conducted or. The foundation that our checks and balances are founded upon.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.