Las Vegas Sun

April 26, 2015

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

Letter to the editor:

The Constitution is just fine as it is

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.

I was aghast at Kipp Altemara’s suggestion in his letter to the editor, “Let’s draft a new Constitution,” to rewrite the Constitution and his opinion that the document was “laden with amendments.” For 226 years, the Constitution, aided by the Supreme Court, has been able to gradually mold itself to the will and needs of the people, forming a more perfect union. And, not counting the Bill of Rights, which was added three years after the writing of the Constitution, the document has only been formally amended 17 times. That’s hardly “laden with amendments.”

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix 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. We don't need a new Constitution but we do need to change the way members of the Legislative branch are elected and serve. We need to impose term limits on serving in Congress, just as the Presidency has. We also need to institute public financing of Congressional campaigns to try to reduce the influence of powerful interests with lobbyists on our legislators. If we did those two things, we'd get better government.


  2. It isn't the Constitution that has problems, it's the special interests with huge amounts of money pulling our politicians strings. People fail to realize our Founders conducted an experiment that is still in process, and still growing.

    When we place the blame on those who fail to follow the majority, maybe then our system will be better. A small group of people shouldn't be able to derail the democratic process by doing nothing. States like Vermont and Wyoming who have populations around 600,000 shouldn't have the same weight in senate votes as states like California with a population of 38 million.

  3. The letter writer is correct. We don't need to revise the U.S. Constitution, it's served us well for over 224 years. We need elected leaders with the guts to defend and support it, come what may.

    Carmine D

  4. I'll say it again. The problem is not with the Constitution, not with the Democrat party, not with the Republican party, not about small states having too little influence or big states having to much.

    It is really simple. Being a member of Congress has become a lucrative 'career'. To keep that career, members need money for re-elections. The ONLY way to get that money is by crafting and supporting legislation and tax policy that advantages powerful interests with lobbyists.

    Many Americans complain about about what they perceive as an 'unfair' transfer of wealth to a smaller and smaller group of people. That transfer is enabled and furthered in the legislative (Congress) branch of government. If you want that to stop, we need to change the legislative branch... and I don't mean by electing more Republicans or Democrats, which won't change anything that matters. We need to make it so 'serving' in Congress cannot be a 'career' and allow people to be re-elected in Congress using money supplied by the public and not by self serving special interests that want to gain advantage.


  5. Ahhh we're gonna HAVE TO get an amendment to do something about illegal invasion since Congress and POTUS refuse to SECURE THE BORDER. Endless rhetoric about how they can't but who said it has to be a fence? How about ENFORCING against employers of illegals and preventing welfare/non-profit handouts to illegals. When they can't find work, free food, free UMC/health care....they can go home.

  6. People who advocate for a change in our Constitution often also point out the wealth transfer they see from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.

    Unless the Constitutional changes they advocate included Congressional term limits and public financing of campaigns, any re-write of the Constitution would simply leave us with many of the same problems and what would probably be an inferior Constitution.

    The people that see the wealth transfer and don't like it do see 50 % of what is there to be seen. The wealth transfer is happening but not due to any flaw in the Constitution as written that requires a re-write. The wealth transfer is enabled and fostered by members in Congress of both parties....because under the present campaign and election rules ... that mostly are not covered in the Constitution, the members must do the bidding of the powerful interests with lobbyists if they wish to remain in office.


  7. One very practical reason for NOT dumping our traditional Constitution. Does ANYONE here truly believe that we could get majority approval for ANY replacement? Particularly a replacement that could be printed in less than 15 volumes and wouldn't contradict itself 249 times per volume.

  8. Future really should keep current on his conspiracies. If he would, he would know what's old news:

    1. There have been three progressive organizations scrutinized by the IRS along with a group of conservative ones.

    2. ONE organization has actually been refused the 501[c][4] exemption it sought: a LIBERAL organization.

    3. The scrutiny started shortly after Citizens United. At the same time there was a surge in filings by CONservative organizations. And while progressive organizations hadn't started submitting their applications. CONservative filings have well out-numbered Progressive filings - it's no wonder that more CONservative filings have been scrutinized than Progressive filings.

    4. One major criterion for scrutiny was an organization with "Party" in its name or as a sponsor. You know - as in "political party," or "tea-party," or "Republican Party." But then eligible organizations are flatly prohibited from campaigning for, or against, a particular candidate or political party.

    But then Future's conspiracy theory has no room for such "details."

  9. I hope that at least some people note that often, when several people that write to the Sun comment on what I or other people write, they seek to discredit the writer by labeling the writer, instead of debating the points made.

    It takes time and effort to 'debate' points made by another but doing so is much more valuable to us all than just labeling someone.


  10. Right on, Michael! My #1 pet peeve is the people who can't contribute more to the the debate than the occasional random ad hominem attack. (No names mentioned - I'm sure your list is similar to mine...)

    Bradley: I can appreciate why some people try diversionary tactics - can't say I AGREE with them, but I can appreciate the tactic. It's so hard to gracefully stay in a discussion when you find it impossible to rebut a telling point.

  11. Amen MKC 5:26. Attack me but have nothing relevant to say about WHAT I SAID.