Matthew

Article 5

Because it allows for the constitution to be CHANGED! So this whole crap about going back to the constitution and the 'original constitution' and 'the constitution as written' done by the republicans can be refuted by the fact that it can be changed at any time.

Roy Eaton

Article 1 Section2

During the recent hipocritical reading of the Constitution by the House of Representatives,they did not read this section of Article 1 (which stated that each Negro slave should be calculated for the purpose of apportioning Represetatives as 3/5 of a person). It clearly indicates that Slavery was a vital factor influencing the founders. Section 9 , putting a $10 interstate tax on movement of slaves, and Article 4, promising that all escaped slaves must be returned to their "rightful" owners are other parts of the constitution that were ignored. This selective editing of the underlying princiles at work at the founding of our country highlight the universal denial that our country suffers regarding our continuing responsibility for the difficulties still faced by people of color in the U.S. Regardless of our color, ethnicity, or political persuasion, if we are American, we are by definition also racist because of our heritage as Americans.

Al Marcoccia

We The People

We the People,signifies something that,to me, has been lost.The Constitution doesn't say "You the people" or "we the leaders and you the citizens".It says "We" because our founding fathers saw themselves as ordinary citizens,nothing more.Not like today.Politicians seem to think that they actually deserve all the perks and outrageous paychecks.When in fact,they should be part timers.If they all disappeared tomorrow,I think this country would just keep going.Probably with more efficiancy too.

Cathy Clare

1st Amendment

I support separation of church and state: The more secular our nation the better, I say!

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

ebun okubanjo

the part that's still relevant

I know this is an exercise on my favorite part but if I may, I will go slightly go off topic. First I ll start with a quote.

"some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Thomas Jefferson

So while I have the utmost respect for the founding fathers, I am afraid that my conservative friends are missing the point. Read it on the floor all you want, but don't stifle progress and knowledge in the name of nostalgia for a time that is forever gone.

John Raby

the supreme law of the land clause, Art. VI, second paragraph

On any number of occasions, quite often in Latin America and most notably in Vietnam and in Iraq, our government has brazenly violated treaty obligations that qualify as supreme law of the land. As a result, we harvest a crop of troubles. I could go on and on, but this much is enough for now. Thanks.

Carol

The first three words of the Preamble, "We the People" and the last two words of the tenth and last Amendment in the Bill of Rights, "the people".

It seems to me that "the people" are the most ignored concern of our government, especially when they are minority and/or poor in favor of those who are able and willing to make large political contributions for their own benefit. You know who they are. I also don't see how agreeing to vote "no" as a bloc on everything can show concern for the people.

Jacob Nieman

The Preamble

I feel the preamble while considered by some to not be part is the working constitution, is vital because it is the thesis statement of the document. It lays out what the goals are for the document. What the founders hoped to achieve with the tool known as democracy.

charles holmes

The Fourteenth Amendment

Of the three "Civil War Amendments" to the United States Constitution, the 14th is the most comprehensive and powerful as it:
-grants CITIZENSHIP to former slaves, and others,
-provides persons in the USA the right to the Equal
Protection of the law,
-provides, and reaffirms, to persons in the USA the
Constitutional right to Due Process of the law,
-empowers the Congress of the USA to enact laws
that achieve and further the objectives of this
Amendment,
-provides, to an extent, a foundation for the
Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments,
-the amendment addressed several other issues
which were pertinent at that time.

David

Article Six

As an atheist the "no religious test" clause is my favorite. I like to point out that this is the only mention of religion and that god is not present at all. Of course, this was due primarily to Europe's history of religious persecution. But this clause would not have been included if the congress had been made up of religious zealots. And many of the founders were decidedly non-religious.

Neil

First Amendment

Because, despite what I devoutly believe and cherish about my religion, I truly feel that others have the national right to believe as they wish, or not. BUT, I also feel, that the amendment protects my right to share my beliefs in the public arena, when I feel they need to be shared, for the common good.

Amber Pinter

Article 1, section 8, sub section 15

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."

I am from Little Rick, Arkansas and this power of the federal government was very clearly seen in the desegregation of Central High School using the military to enforce the law.

Unfortunately The Congress and Pres. Andrew Jackson infamously did not use this power to support the Supreme Court's decision involving the Cherokee Nation's treaty rights and property rights directly leading to the Trail of Tears(which passed through our state in the 1830s).

Jack Jackson

Language of the Second Amendment

@KM-

Regarding the Second Amendment, the exact meaning of "...well-regulated militia..." is in dispute but in my mind there is no doubt that the amendment allows for every citizen the right to keep AND bear arms.

Do you really want every person on the street to be allowed to carry a gun if they want to? Are you in favor of background checks, carry permits and other restrictions to our rights?

I'm glad that states and municipalities have acted to curtail certain gun rights but for me there is a little doubt that most of what has been done is unconstitutional.

Y. Willrich-Teague

9th Ammendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

While the constitution expressly gives the Congress the power to tax and to raise revenue (and indeed compels it to do so by requiring that remuneration to its officers, any two-year term of militia, establishment of post offices and roads, maintenance of a Navy and any other appropriation it may make be paid from a Federal Budget) and it requires Congress to regulate right of commerce and itself, and give it powers to establish laws of naturalization it does not give Congress the right to regulate rights of people. This amendment gives power to the people just as surely as the preceding document gives power to the congress, the executive and the courts.

Jack Jackson

The contradictions and ironies, of course.

The '3/5 of all other persons' clause which gives states political apportionment for their slaves and American Indians but gives those 'other persons' no rights that the white majority had to respect. Especially, since the 5th Amendment gives ALL citizens the right to their "life, liberty and property." What is slavery other than denial of a slaves right to property - the fruit of their labor?
Reading the document 'as amended' glosses over too much history. Strips out too much legalized theft. It perpetuates a fantasy view of our history. Folks ought to know their countries history but if they are taking it from this bowdlerized reading, their factual basis is going to be skewed.
As a descendent of those 'other persons' I take this act of Congress as a slap in the face.

Paul Bellan-Boyer

The 13th amendment

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude...shall exist within the United States."

Is there anything more anti-democratic than keeping another human in bondage, denying them equal rights under the law, denying them the opportunity to make their own decisions about the basic issues of their life, in effect denying their humanity?

Slavery, exploitation, and race-hatred (practiced not just against Africans, but against Native Americans, and various immigrant groups) is the great stain upon our republic and our noble ideas about the blessings of liberty.

Paul Bellan-Boyer

Article I - The Legislature

While Congress is currently at a low ebb in its functioning and its general esteem, there are a number of wonderful things about its Constitutional basis.

First and foremost is the way in which it begins the Constitution, carrying on the preamble's notion that this is a Constitution established by and a government responsible to the people of these united states. Knowing the power of the executive (and the monarch), this helps set the expectation that this nation and Constitution have as their ideal that this is a government from the bottom up - in Lincoln's formulation "of the people, by the people, for the people."

While this dynamic will *always* be a source of tension between people and those exercising power, the framing is important both as a resource for people in what we expect of our government, and in the rhetoric and hopefully actions that our government officials need to practice.

Denis

Article IV, Section 1 - Full Faith and Credit Clause

I find this clause intriguing and possibly contradictory. The import is that the laws of one state must be recognized as legitimate by every other state. So if gay marriage is legal in Massachussets, the state of Utah would have to recognize those unions....is this correct? Has this been the way it works out? Also, the idea that states are allowed to write their own laws but that those laws can be trumped by the US Constitution, i.e, a federal document, is a strange tension.

GoVeg

Bill of Rights

The only part of the Constitution that people actually wanted was the Bill of Rights. Patrick Henry (the “Give me liberty or give me death” patriot from the American Revolution) launched DAYS of arguments against the Constitution, saying that it was impossible for regular citizens to defend themselves against a government so powerful, and he questioned the motives behind it.

Here's a quote that might help:
"...
. . . When power is granted to the new government to suppress “sedition and licentiousness,” Henry insisted, the proposal uses language that is “clear, express, and unequivocal.” When the subject turns to rights and privileges, he warned, “there is an ambiguity, sir, a fatal ambiguity — an ambiguity which is very astonishing.”

. . . Henry saw only “specious imaginary balances” and “ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances” in the new system. The president, eligible for reelection as long as he lived, could easily become a despot, especially since he was given command of the army; the Senate, indirectly elected for long terms, could be dominated by a handful of members and become a sinkhole of corruption and the president’s accomplice in diplomatic treachery; the national courts would not be bound, in all cases, to extend the protection of trial by jury.

Ordinary citizens needed protection against a consolidated government of such size, complexity, and power, and they had a right, nay a duty, to be suspicious of it. How could we punish abuses of power in such a government, without a bill of rights and sufficient powers retained by the states? “Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?” Henry asked. Is it not likely that there will be a national riot act that will prohibit “a few neighbors” from assembling without “the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery”?
..."

- Henry Mayer, “A Son of Thunder; Patrick Henry and the American Republic,” New York: Grove Press, 1991, pp. 405-08.

Jack Jackson

The preface to the article is wrong!

The House is not reading the 'entire' Constitution! The House is reading the Constitution as amended thereby giving the false impression (to some) of the infallibility of the original framers.

That impression couldn't be further from the truth. By reciting the document as amended the reference to '3/5 of all other persons' is lost. As this Constitution was adopted, slaves and American Indians had no rights that a white man had to honor. It took the 13th and 14th Amendment to recognize this inequity and it took a civil war to get the 13th and 14th Amendments!

I reject the revisionism inherent in reading our founding document as amended. It is fundamentally dishonest. It also spreads a false impression about the development of the Constitution and what the purpose of the document is.