The Adjustable Constitution.

The Adjustable Constitution

There has been, of late, a lot of controversy and mucking about in court over "Constitutional rights," what they are, and when they apply. And no wonder. A more out-dated, obsolete, medieval document, it is impossible to imagine. Fortunately, I have some modest proposals for rectifying the situation, and I use the term "rectifying" advisedly.

Let's consider three broad areas in which the Constitution is in crying need of reform: definition of terms, allocation of rights, and adaptability.

I. Definition of Terms.

Now, I am sure that the Founding Fathers knew what they meant, but they had no visibility into the complexities of modern-day life. What the heck does "we, the people" mean? That would never pass muster in a contemporary document. Where is the extensive glossary of terms and acronyms? Where are the acronyms to put into the extensive glossary of terms and acronyms?

Let's start with the definition of a "person," keeping in mind that this is someone who may be entitled to Constitutional rights and protections. A person is a God-fearing, non-Muslim, heterosexual human. Or a corporation. This is just a very basic starting point. The Founding Fathers intended at least that much. How about a "citizen?" A citizen is a person who was born in the United States and whose parents were also born in the United States. That eliminates all that "anchor baby" stuff. On to eligible voters. An eligible voter is a citizen who is at least 18 years of age, owns a specified amount of property, has taken the loyalty oath (something modeled along the lines of modern software contracts is recommended), and can prove their identity by DNA sample and inserted microchip. (If these are required for citizenship, they don't have to be specified here.)

II. Allocation of Rights

One big problem with the current Constitution is its undiscriminating granting of rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and so forth. This requires that "exceptions" be fought out in court. Take, for example, the recent furore over full body scans and "pat downs" at airports. Of course, any reasonable person is sufficiently petrified of terrorists smuggling explosives onto airplanes in their anuses to submit to anything. But there's always some unnervous Nellie who makes a fuss. So this had to be sorted out in court at great expense and waste of time. But there is a solution for this.

Consider that we have all become very comfortable with "free speech zones." We now understand that we can't just go spouting political opinions anywhere we want to. If we do, we expect to be tasered and have our heads stepped on. All we need to do is extend the "zone" concept to other "rights" and write that into the Constitution. We will have "free religion zones" and "freedom from unreasonable search and seizure zones" (definitely not airports!) and so on. Get it? The so-called "right" becomes the exception. It simplifies everything. It's just a recognition of reality, really. Why not have it in the Constitution, front and center?

III. Adaptability

Our obsolete Constitution merely allows for "amendments" with onerous requirements for passage. Why not make our Constitution the dynamic document these turbulent times require? We already have "threat levels" determined by the Department of Homeland Security. Why not make rights dependent on the threat level? It would go from full rights (well, sort of full) at the lowest threat level to full police state at the highest. No muss, no fuss, no bother. A document for our times.