The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! Should US Constitution be revised to support updated reality of our times?in United States

agsr

After hundreds of years of US constitution, does it need to be updated?

agsr

I think that US constitution is still relevant and holds the right values for our country.

islander507

It is still good.

CYDdharta

There is already a method for changing the constitution.  It has been done a number of times already.  Are you asking whether or not we need an Amendments Convention?

agsr

@CYDdharta, to clarify I am asking if a broad overhaul is required.

melanielust

The only updates that might be needed are Amendments as the modern electronic world develops and changes. However, these Amendments should not modify or revoke previous Amendments. The Constitution as it stands was written in general terms to describe the rights of the people in any circumstance. A common argument against the 2nd Amendment, for example, is that guns are now more advanced and should be treated legally differently; however, the actual wording of the Amendment only specifies the organization of arms and the right of the people to defend themselves, which are fine ideas that can be untouched my modern developments.

Pino

Yes. New laws are constantly being introduced and archaic ones deleted to reflect the the changed and ever changing world in which we live.
In this context it is reasonable to assume that there are articles within the constitution which need amending/updated or even withdrawn.

hucj_rock

No, the constitution serves as a document from the beginning of the US, it must not be changed.

Vaulk

The problem I have with the idea of revising or changing the U.S. constitution is primarily that no one can seem to bring any relevant information to the table about what it is specifically that they want to change.  Words like "Archaic" and "Outdated" have been used alongside words like "Ancient".  What is it specifically that needs to be thrown out?  What specifically needs to be added?  Most references that I've seen that contain any type of specifics as to the suggestion of change are concerning the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms".  Additionally these suggestions for change also mostly include the demand that the 2nd Amendment was somehow referring to the right to have hunting weapons or the right to have a self-defense weapon and this ideology is so far off in left field that it's shameful to listen to or read. 

Regarding the right to keep and bear arms, this "Right" was established as a preventative measure to keep the U.S. Government from becoming tyrannical or oppressive...that's it.  Our Forefathers saw exactly what happens when there is no way to keep the Government in check and therefor created a system that would prevent their new Country from ever having the same issue.  Simply put, if the Government has Assault Rifles...then we need them to.  If the Government has fully-automatic weapons...then we need them too.  Our Forefathers left the burden of keeping the Government in check on the shoulders of the people...should we then expect the people to fight back against the Government with pistols, shotguns and hunting rifles when they have Military grade weapons? 

valexiajj1927

Vaulk said:

The problem I have with the idea of revising or changing the U.S. constitution is primarily that no one can seem to bring any relevant information to the table about what it is specifically that they want to change.  Words like "Archaic" and "Outdated" have been used alongside words like "Ancient".  What is it specifically that needs to be thrown out?  What specifically needs to be added?  Most references that I've seen that contain any type of specifics as to the suggestion of change are concerning the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms".  Additionally these suggestions for change also mostly include the demand that the 2nd Amendment was somehow referring to the right to have hunting weapons or the right to have a self-defense weapon and this ideology is so far off in left field that it's shameful to listen to or read. 

Regarding the right to keep and bear arms, this "Right" was established as a preventative measure to keep the U.S. Government from becoming tyrannical or oppressive...that's it.  Our Forefathers saw exactly what happens when there is no way to keep the Government in check and therefor created a system that would prevent their new Country from ever having the same issue.  Simply put, if the Government has Assault Rifles...then we need them to.  If the Government has fully-automatic weapons...then we need them too.  Our Forefathers left the burden of keeping the Government in check on the shoulders of the people...should we then expect the people to fight back against the Government with pistols, shotguns and hunting rifles when they have Military grade weapons? 

I agree.

CYDdharta

I wouldn't mind seeing an amendment requiring Congress to have a balanced budget, or at the very least, a budget.

nimailms

I highly disagree with changing or revising our constitution.
there are many issues with doing so including the following...

1) who will be changing it, an argument could spark regarding that.
2) Republicans and Dems can't agree on anything, how will they agree on this, they won't.
3) Possible legislative changes, including minor and major.
4)An outbreak could occur as well as a major debate.
5) American will be changed, and the document is a major part of our own country.

melanielust

CYDdharta That sort of issue is usually determined by the party in control; would you mind elaborating on your point?

melanielust

CYDdharta said:

I wouldn't mind seeing an amendment requiring Congress to have a balanced budget, or at the very least, a budget.

@CYDdharta ; That sort of issue is usually determined by the party in control; would you mind elaborating on your point?

adebateronDI_1

No, It's a part of US history as well.

agsr

I agree with @CYDdharta .  I will not advocate a balanced budget, but I would suggest strong limits by how much it can be exceeded and special measures to exceed it. Our national debt is growing out of control and we ate mortgaging the future of our country. I am highly concerned about other superpowers buying our debt, and therefore exerting tremendous leverage over us. 

nato_baro

No, it's a piece of US and world history.