There is an erupting civil war in the US over the property of the Constitution. One of its founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, proposed the failed suggestion that the document be revisited for generational relevancy every 20 years or so.
After listening to the emergent adolescent bickering about it, I'd propose adult dialogue about it, starting with a few inquiries.
What exactly does the late 1700’s world have in common, and in difference, with the 2011 world? What new constitutional implications might these differences evoke? What areas of cross-political future vision statement alignments might inform and inspire constitutional principles that can address these areas of principle commonality?
And we can go from there. And the dialogue with these kinds of rich questions should go on for at least 2 years of overlapping presidential and congressional terms to be valid.
And, should the final document be written by the US profession with the highest clinically documented incidents of depression, alcoholism, and emotional unintelligence, the legal profession (seriously).
