If our Founding Fathers created The Constitution today what would it say?

Answer 1

While I am sure that others will suggest that the Constitution would be very different if the Founding Fathers wrote it today, rather than in 1787, my belief is that it would look much the same as the original document. Justice Scalia, in a 2014 speech titled "Interpreting the Constitution: A View From the High Court," as part of a constitutional symposium hosted by the State Bar of Georgia, stated that Originalism, and trying to determine precisely what the ratified document meant, is the only legitimate option. Otherwise, as Scalia argued, you're just telling judges to govern. "The Constitution is not a living organism," Scalia said. "It's a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say."

I believe that if the Founding Fathers were alive today, and assembled together in a constitutional convention, they would agree with what Justice Scalia said, and would not seek to make drastic changes to their original document. I also believe that the Founding Fathers would be shocked and dismayed to see the extent at which the limits and prohibitions imposed upon government and the courts by their original document have been disregarded, allowing these institutions to usurp powers which the Founders never intended or granted. The purpose of the Constitution was to constrain government to a very limited scope of specifically enumerated powers, and thus any powers government has assumed which are not specifically enumerated by the Constitution are unconstitutional, as well as being repugnant to the Constitution, which is the supreme law of our land. Because of this, I believe that the Founders, if assembled in a constitutional convention today, would first review all Amendments made to the Constitution beyond the first ten (the so-called Bill of Rights, which would better have been called the Bill of Prohibitions), and that they would strike out any of the several Amendments which they determine to have been unconstitutional and/or improperly ratified. Next, I believe that to prevent future usurpations of government powers, and/or Supreme Court reinterpretations of what the Constitution means, the Founders would provide new text that clarifies exactly what they mean in any section which it has been argued that the meaning is ambiguous, and that they would also provide a proper means for the people to hold government and court officials accountable for transgressions against the Constitution. This latter step would include reinstating Article III common law courts at both state and federal levels, empaneling citizen operated Grand Juries with full power to independently investigate citizen reported abuses of power by government and court officials, and to write indictments charging such abusers with treason and warring with the Constitution.

Inarguably, without providing clarifications to remove all alleged ambiguity regarding original intent, and without providing the people with the means to hold government and court officials accountable to their oaths to uphold the Constitution, no additions or revisions to the Constitution can be claimed to be in the best interests of the people. The only proper function of government in our republic is to uphold and protect the peoples' liberties and inalienable rights.