Lmao, well thats not ever going to happen. You do know changes have been made to the constitution 27 times already. If it were to happen again, following the constitutional process that the prior 27 have, what about it would be criminal to you, treasonous and deserving prosecution? 
Well, being a rational thinking man, I believe any legal citizen of voting age who is not circling Mars mentally, should be allowed to vote. Iām waiting for the 15th to be upgraded, so anyone who manages to slink into the country illegally will be also allowed to vote. Sort of a possession is 9/10s of the law liberal theory. But isnāt that already actually happening? Or am I wrong? I also sense a bit of a conundrum, since liberals & those who support them, do circle Mars, but still are allowed to vote.
Well youāll be waiting a very long time because the constitution doesnāt get āupdatedā.
Anything that exists ( ANYTHING ) can be changed. Where ya been? You been circling Mars or just livin in a cave on Mars?
We do have the oldest Constitution. It has served us well, if basic common sense is applied. Still, many constitutions have been scrapped & rewritten; although, more often than not, the results lead to human misery. All it takes is too many kookaboos in power.
Churchill said ( more or less ): America has the worst system in recorded history, except for all the rest.
But you present it flippantly as an āupdateā, as though itās just some sort of clerical correction.
The constitution can indeed be amended, and has been on 27 occasions in the past. If it happens again, it will require the same constitutional process that all the previous ones passed. So, what is the problem?
Clearly those that participated in this poll are not aware of what it takes to change (add an Amendment to) the Constitution. Itās not an easy process and the millennials in favor of it would be old or in their graves if it ever came to pass. 
1 Like
Thatās always been the point and the reason why the faux outrage over some alleged disgraceful action that can only happen via a constitutional process. Which if it ever happened definitively would NOT be disgraceful or illegal.
So much for the calls here for people to be arrested for treason.
It all boils down to whatās left when the smoke clears, whether it takes a day or years. All it takes is too many kookaboos in power, and the backbone of any great civilization can be broken. Point is, if our system was as bad as many whiners say it is, we probably would be in civil war. Ya canāt please everyone; some people just have to adapt. Being a Republic does cover many human rights, and there is no such thing as perfection.
You have no idea from your lofty perch what the poll participants know.
And as long as the constitutional process is followed, just as it has been the previous 27 times, it wonāt matter.
But I can tell you that any further amendments to our constitution are extremely unlikely. America is far too polarized to ever pass that test again. At least in the foreseeable future.
And the possibility of another war is unlikely. That was said after the 1st WW ended.
Well, if you want to compare war and amending the constitutionā¦
Iām pretty sure those who participated in the poll think is a āsnap your fingersā type of process, maybe they even think there is a āappā for it. 
I want to establish the fact that anything is possible when it comes down to the human condition. History backs me up.
Really, why donāt you present some shred of evidence to support that claim.
War is ALWAYS likely, donāt hold your breath for the next constitutional amendmentā¦
Agreed.
Founders wrote into the Constitution the mechanism for amending it.
Problems arise when ārewritingā the constitution is done through basic legislation or judicial fiat and not via the official amendment process.
I wonder what respondents had in mind when they agreed with ārewriteā.
Doesnāt matter to me.
The constitutional amendment process gives everyone a voice in the amendment. What you and I might consider disgraceful might be appropriate to a super-majority of our country.
Keep in mind that there is a significant segment of our society that considers freedom of religion disgraceful. So just tossing out the description that something is ādisgracefulā is somewhat meaningless.
Let the amendment be proposed. Let the amendment process play out. Let the nation decide that it is disgraceful or meritorious.
All this applies to any amendment, not just a rewrite of the First Amendment.
Note that Jimsouthās statement included something very important that added context:
" Iām waiting for the 15th to be upgraded, so anyone who manages to slink into the country illegally will be also allowed to vote."
We already have municipalities that have passed laws allowing non-citizens to vote locally. It IS a movement out there, and one that is occurring legislatively, not constitutionally.