After more than 200 years, have laws in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights become too archaic?

  • Perhaps an update, not getting rid of the original entirely

    Well I think in modern times people are starting to use SOME of the constitutional rights as an excuse for things that aren't necessarily good such as having fifty caliber machine guns for house defense purposes, or hunting (human) purposes. Also some people don't know what their rights are other than a few, right to bear arms, right to vote, etc. So for people to be able to understand what they can/ can't do it needs to be written in an updated language that average society can read and understand. Don't blame it on uneducation, lack of education is bound to happen, people are taking advantage of the stupidity. The constitution has been altered (18th amendment) and could be changed again.

  • Yes They Have

    After 200 years I believe it is easy to say that the laws in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have become too archaic. Even the language in these laws need to be updated, if anything. We need something that is a living document, that updates with changes, and reflects the whole population.

  • No, they protect our freedoms from government oppression

    The constitution outlines the powers of the government and what they have the right to do, at local, state, and federal levels. The Bill of Rights outlines the rights that cannot be infringed upon by the government. The founding fathers wrote these in order to protect us from the very tyranny they experienced from the governments they fled from.

  • The Constitution & Bill of Rights are a proven model!

    These documents are not out-dated, or unsuited for modern times. Give me a break! Nations still look at our Constitution & Bill of Rights, when creating their own. Why? It is an established & proven model of government! They know it & respect it!

    It has been my personal observation that many who stress these documents have become "archaic" are quick to embrace "archaic" notions elsewhere, i.e. on Race, Religion, Homosexuality, Gay rights, Guns, Marriage, etc. So, obviously, they are not really concerned about how archaic these documents are. They are motivated by selfish, personal interests. They want the Constitution, Bill of Rights & Government to serve only them instead of the people as a whole. Thankfully, our Founding Fathers weren't as narrow-minded as these anarchists!

  • No, it's a living document.

    The Constitution of the United States is a living document. It's one that can be added on to, and was set up in a way so that amendments could be added on to it. Because of that, we have seen such changes as blacks and women getting the right to vote, and lowering the voting age from 21 to 18. Our most basic of rights are in the Bill of Rights, which are the first amendments. But, overall, the Constitution is not outdated because it can be added on to.

  • No because we can adopt

    Here in the United States of America the Constitution may be old however, it is not something that is simply outdated for us to use in today's time. In today's modern times in the United States of America we can sill use the laws that were created so long ago.

  • No, the laws in the Constitution and Bill of Rights have not become too archaic.

    I do not believe, that even after 200 years, that the laws in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have become too archaic. I think they still have a place in today's society. I do think though that some of the way that the law is interpreted needs to be changed.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.