Las Vegas Sun

October 23, 2014

Currently: 70° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Letter to the editor:

A new Constitution? Not from this group

Another view?

View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:

Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.

Columnists - local and syndicated writers.

Letters to the editor - readers' views.

Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.

Cesar Lumba’s Tuesday letter, “Constitution shows lack of wisdom,” criticizes the lack of wisdom on the part of our Founding Fathers for their “mistakes” in writing the Constitution and suggests we should either correct it or write a new one altogether. Can anyone in their wildest dreams imagine this Congress and president getting together to write a new Constitution? With a 2,700-page Obamacare bill that “we have to pass it to see what’s in it,” a 2,300-page Dodd/Frank bill that no one can understand, a 73,000-page tax code and the circus we just went through with the “fiscal cliff,” do you really think these people in charge of running the country could write a new Constitution? It makes my head spin just to think about it.

There’s nothing wrong with our current Constitution if our lawmakers and president would just abide by it.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 11 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. I disagree with those that hold the mistaken belief that the Constitution is the reason things in this country have gone so horribly wrong or that doing away with it or amending it will fix what has gone wrong.

    People running for office and our two major parties need millions (soon to be billions) of dollars to be elected and/or re-elected. This makes them vulnerable to be lobbied by powerful, monied interest groups who want legislation that benefits them. We need public financing of campaigns and lobbying reform.

    Being a Senator or House member has become one of the best, most powerful 'careers' an American can have. It has also proven to be very lucrative. Once in, people don't want to leave and they are re-elected over and over again, due to a fundraising advantage, name recognition and the advantages of the office itself. This is NOT what was intended by the Founders who envisioned 'citizen legislators' who would 'serve their country' temporarily and then return to private life. We need term limits, just like we have for the President.

    At least half of us heaved a sign of relief when Presidents Reagan, Clinton and GW Bush, respectively were not able to run for a 3rd term. Why don't we feel the same about Senators and House members.

    If we changed those two things, we'd go a long way toward making things in America better.

    Michael

  2. Just to add to my previous comment, most of the people who currently want to amend the Constitution do not want to deal with 'term limits' or 'campaign financing', both of which would probably require an amendment. They don't like the fact that the House can so successfully resist the will of the President and the Senate or that the Supreme Court has so much power. These and other things that people who support the party in power at the time want, are exactly the things we should NOT change.

    Michael

  3. I opine that the Founders did a yeomans' job as the writers of the Constitution. The best evidence is that it has survived the test of time despite all those, wise and dumb, who have come after it and still does.

    CarmineD

  4. The founding fathers had immense wisdom and foresight and vision. Their work was both an intellectual and spiritual journey of incredible proportions. The outcome was an in depth product guided by wisdom and keen judgement. While the constitution has and may well again require updating by amendment, the foundation is a masterpiece of sweat,intellect and wisdom which should be retained and followed with confidence. It is cavalier to suggest a redo of the constitution.

  5. "Can anyone in their wildest dreams imagine this Congress and president getting together to write a new Constitution? . . . do you really think these people in charge of running the country could write a new Constitution? . . . There's nothing wrong with our current Constitution if our lawmakers and president would just abide by it."

    Schrader -- that's the point, the regime currently in power has shed any policy whatsoever of being self-reforming or following the rule of law. As I posted at that Discussion--

    "For the Executive, an excellent example is throughout the recent gun control Discussions here virtually nothing was posted about the "Fast and Furious" scandal. Despite all the hand-wringing and cries ad nauseum for more gun control laws, the biggest criminal by far on buying and distributing assault weapons is the very same regime We the herd just voted back into office.

    "So long as those who swear oaths to support, protect and defend our Constitutions continue to perjure their oaths with impunity, nothing will change."

    Elections are being won on who puts on the best show, and that is entirely the voters' fault. So long as We the People act like livestock, that's exactly how deserve to be treated.

    "...a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law." -- Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803)

  6. Scrap the new or amended constitution idea; why not just make a new country.

    We can once again limit who we allow into our newly created country.

  7. GunslingerA10,

    The Democrats tried that about 150 years ago without much success.

  8. El_Lobo,

    No, I wouldn't go that far. :)

  9. "Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Taking KillerB's little quote book away from him would be like tieing [sic] his hands behind his back & putting a strip of tape across his mouth...."

    El_Lobo -- such ignorance. That isn't from any "little quote book," it's from a very old and still much-quoted case you'll find in the very first U.S. Supreme Court reporter, page 177. That court quoted from it 3x in 2012. Our Supreme Court last quoted from it 2006.

    As you posted "the Constitution is exactly what the Supreme Court says it is at any given point in time...."

    Still want to play?

    "The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right." -- Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 163 (1803)

  10. "What's your point?"

    El_Lobo -- you just made it. Moo on, I'm finished with you here.

    "...how little does the common herd know of the nature of right and truth." - Socrates in Plato's "Euthyphro" (399 B.C.E.?)

  11. There are no federal elected officials in this forum, nor are there any Constitutional lawyers, that I am aware of. The only thing expressed here are unqualified opinions.

    With that in mind, I enjoy reading what is in people's heads.