If you could go back in time and tell our founding fathers something to put or not to put in our constitution?

Question

What would you say?

Answer 1

don't let anyone with the last name "Bush" into office!

Answer 2

I would let them now how quickly the United States will change, and ask them to use more clarification on their intent of laws and rights, checks and balances, etc, because in present day, it is open to scrutiny and interpretation.  Perhaps that would clarify a few things?

Oh, and to specify that one freedom not protected is the right to wear spandex.  It is a privilege, not a right, people.  If you have to leave the "Big and Tall" store and go across the street to "Deep and Wide", please do not purchase the miracle spandex outfits.  Sorry, some woman just walked by that looked like she was smuggling bags of rice inside uniflated balloons.

Answer 3

I would ask them to make it clear that the Constitution was intended to mature with the nation, and not be bound by 18th Century concepts. There is nothing in the Constitution that says it is to remain static, but many people seem to think it should be. I'd also ask them to clarify the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, along with the Second Amendment.

Answer 4

I would have them clarify the commerce clause, as it has enabled the federal government to twist the wording to violate a state's autonomy. The commerce clause (found in Article I. Section 8. clause 3) states "The Congress shall have Power... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States." The biggest problem is that this gives the federal government control over highways (as they connect several states) within a state and over businesses which mainly serve products and customers from other states. This doesn't seem like that big of a deal, except that it allows Congressmen to have authority over any state matter if they can connect it back to interstate commerce. For example, in the case "US vs. Lopez" a boy brought a handgun to school but then was prosecuted federally because if he shot the gun it would cause fear in the city, thus reducing travel to the city and interstate commerce. If the case was won by the federal government it would have essentially given the federal government power in any instance where it could nonsensically link a crime/ event back to state commerce. However, the Supreme Court ended up using its decision to limit the power granted to the federal government under the Commerce Clause.

Also, I would have them limit the ability of the President to issue executive orders, as he can do so without Congressional consent, which seems contrary to the representational attitude of the Constitution. Bush used an executive order to allow the NSA to spy on people without a warrant- a basic violation the process of justice. This order has been challenged a few times in court, but I'm not sure that the court ever ruled that the order was illegal.

Nonetheless, thank goodness for the Supreme Court, which, in both instances, had the ability to intervene and prevent obstructions to justice.

Answer 5

I would tell them to put a foot note on the bottom

MAKE NO  CHANGES

and of course that would make no difference at all

Answer 6

I would tell them, "Either keep the original wording of the Ninth Amendment -- the way it was proposed by the Virginia ratifying convetion -- or else don't put the Ninth in the Bill of Rights at all."

Answer 7

Say NO to neo-cons.

Answer 8

How?

Decode this lyrics " Masterpiece"

When they too.

Luke 6.39-40,41-45,46-49

Did not even see our creator's universal gifts of life that was long gone and was lost with time.

Luke 19.9-10

Our creator's universal instruction manual.

Luke 10.24

What do you think?