It seems that many Americans see the Constitution as the perfect guideline for a just society. It especially seems like the Republican platform consists in "worship" of the Constitution. What does it say about our nation and our society when dissent can be quieted by mention of the Constitution? Why is "it's in the Constitution" a valid argument?

I think the Constitution was the most advanced outline for government when it was created over 200 years ago. I think it was nearly perfect for its purpose then, but I do not think it is perfect now. I understand that the stability of government is extremely important for the administration of justice, but the strict belief held by most Americans that the Constitution is the supreme measure of good and justice seems pretty unhelpful to me.

I think at some point, if the US is to maintain its (precarious) position as a bastion of justice and freedom, amendments to the Constitution will not suffice and it will be necessary to completely rewrite or remove parts that no longer apply. Basically I don't think the Constitution can eternally serve as the backbone of our nation without more significant changes than we have seen.

I'll see if anyone is interested in discussing this before I delve into specifics.

i don't see what parts are opposed to justice and/or freedom

I didn't say parts are opposed to justice and/or freedom.

I don't know who I would trust to write USA v 2.0

well if some parts need to be amended to insure that freedom and justice are preserved then some parts have to be making it difficult for freedom and justice to be preserved.

I'm interested. But I think you're going to need elaborate heavily on why you believe what you believe. This just simply isn't enough to discuss. If you don't think a strict constructionist view is applicable, then why? And in doing so I'd like you to explain why the founders strict constructionist view point should be thrown out? What are the constitutions short comings? Are you looking at this from a purely philosophical perspective?

A relatively common sentiment among political philosophers is that new governments must often be created not in accordance with the principles of a just society but by coercion, usurpation, or tyranny. In other words, democratic principles must be ignored by a reformer or some such group in order to design a form of government singular in purpose and intent. Maybe another way of saying it is that a democracy cannot be formed by a democracy but requires the arbitrary action of an aristocratic or autocratic body.

(this to AS's post)

Yeah, but who

I give a to this thread though. Interesting idea, I have to say that I've had similar thoughts before. How can a document that old retain relevance?

Mostly I take issue with the balance of power and the organization of government. I don't so much have a problem with the Bill of Rights, except maybe a few minor things here and there. I think structurally our government is pretty obsolete and that a number of powers need to be greatly specified and narrowed so as to counter the generality present in the original Constitution, a generality that has seen various powers doled out in a not necessarily equal manner among different parts of government. I think that as more powers are granted the government becomes less responsive to the will of the people and the social contract and/or popular sovereignty is weakened.

I tend to agree with this, but believe that a return to strict constructionist viewpoint would remedy the situation instead of discarding it as a whole. I think you should read up on constitutional viewpoints of politicians in the early 20th century up through Truman. Particularly on apart of the progressives during this time period. Read how they view the constitution, and read what they actually did to begin aggressive expansion of the government. Perhaps your viewpoint will change.

Something that most people can probably get on board with is the idea that, because laws are almost always made to supplement old ones, that eventually (if this hasn't already happened already) the burden presented by the sheer number of laws will make reach the point where government can no longer function positively. Everyone knows that it is easier to enact laws than it is to remove laws already in existence. Will beauracracy and our system of laws reach a critical mass where the only way forward is to purge and consolidate our legal system into a more concise, consistent, and efficient one? What happens when our Constitution doesn't provide means for this (it doesn't)?

Even if we return to this constructionist view, how do we handle the burden of existing laws?

Just start with the Ten Commandments, the rest will flow.

I think the founders were a lot less "strict constructionists" than you belive.

L-O-L. You shoot first.

Name pretty much anybody and they weren't. Not even the guys who specifically wrote it were.

If they had meant the Constitution to be more strictly construed, they would have made it harder to amend and they wouldn't have allowed for judicial review. They also would have been more specific in many instances where it's obvious that they could have been, but chose to be more vague.

I'm pretty sure the founders were nearly the exact opposite of strict constructionists.

I would argue that ammendments and judicial review were put in place specifically to uphold the unalieble rights and individual freedoms and liberties outlined in the constitution itself. I would also argue that the reason it is not more specific is because of the fear that specific rights, would be used to limit other rights not specifically outlined. This view is extremely prolific in many of the federalist papers and viewpoints from the founders in reference to the Bill of Rights. We almost didn't have a bill of rights specifically because of this viewpoint.

Alexander Hamilton and who else?