First and foremost, the United States Constitution, the greatest political accomplishment of the modern world, does not need to be replaced and is not outdated. The previous link comes from a right of center institution; the left often draws the same conclusion: less freedom, less representation, more centralization and concentration of power in smaller hands. We should feel lucky this document has lasted as long as it has and we should do as much as we can to preserve it. However, slight alterations at times that preserve freedom and limited government, rather than radical changes that diminish freedom and diminish legislative bodies, is what best reflects the outcome of the movements we have experienced over the last decade or so. The founders gave us the amendment process to expand liberty and to protect the rights of the individual over the mob or the state, not do the opposite.
Over the past decade there have been a series of movements by the people of various ideological backgrounds and factions to take back government and return it to the people. Notable movements such as the Tea Party Movement, the Contract for America (the outcome of the Republican take over of Congress in 1994), and Donald Trump’s Make America Great Again movement all aim to put government back in its rightful, subservient place. Despite these movements, and others, there never seems to be the sweeping reform America needs to truly reflect the change the people desire. The only true way to secure the change the people currently demand is to etch in stone a series of amendments that secure the blessings of liberty and respect for the rule of law within the framework of limited government. Therefore, this author argues that the following amendments should be proposed to our national constitution:
The Clarity Amendments and Liberty Amendments:
These will be a series of amendments that either through new language altogether or through slight modification of existing amendments will bring about more freedom (not less) for individuals and the family unit. For example, some argue that the original meaning of the word “militia” in the second amendment does not mean the individual and only pertains to law enforcement or military members. Further, some would suggest there are weapons the public should not have altogether. To settle this, we should amend the second amendment to leave no doubt what we, citizens today, understand the militia to be, the individual; and arms shall be defined as any weapon available to the general public used for defensive purposes.
Beyond clarity, it is time to write new language into the constitution expanding our freedoms and right to defend ourselves. The people shall have the right to defend their property and livelihood against assailants aiming to threaten the peace and security of one’s domicile. Many states have passed what is known as Castle Doctrine. Yet some protest this idea thinking it is a dangerous abdication of power from central authorities to individuals. It is unacceptable to live in a world where people have to doubt whether or not they can defend themselves, their family or their property should violent criminals present themselves on one’s property. A Castle Law amendment would go a long way in showing the world America is a place that defends life and respects the concept of private property. Government has a responsibility to defend its citizens and that responsibility starts with unshackling the people to defend their homes and livelihood.