SO, you are against HOW the constitution is being used?
THen you should direct your desire for change at that. The Constitution is what it is, and so is the BoR. They are documents penned with the words required to state the premises, without excess. Those charged with running our country under the auspices of those documents are at fault, NOT the documents. Clarifying the documents meanings by "scrapping and starting over" may be one method to gain your desired end. But, IMHO, that is not the ONLY method to gain your desired end.
In other words, instead of speaking of your desired method, speak of your desired end result.
Once again, the Constitution, and BoR are what they are - I agree - the Founding Fathers reaching out from the grave two hundred years past, attempting to be gods of eternal Principle.
You miss that although the Founding Fathers did intend (?) for there to not be excess of Federal, and State...hell, of Man against Man!...they were cornered into a choosing between the lesser of two evils - and so they chose. The premise of the Constitution was flawed from the moment of its birth (a living document (better stated: an alterable, and in fact, changing document)).
I agree that the Constitution is nothing more than a means by which things are to be done. Without Man, you have nothing more than a piece of paper with words inscribed to it. Man is a devious beast...it seems an alternative to this form Governing is in order.
What is the end result? The desired end result, IMO, should be for a dismantling of a very old notion of Principles, and those Principles in application. What we have here is a Nation that seems to agree on one thing whole-heartedly, that the Government is f*cked. But it requires us to move back much further into the document to its premise, and then back into Man, and his false-premise that there are Natural Principles. All Principles are artificial.
You are asking me to answer a question that is difficult to answer in a way that I can sum it up to just a short statement. I will state: In order for Man to have a beneficial society (the benefit be worth the cost - how Capitalist of me!), there must be a Government in place that functions as not a Authority to Power in the mandating sense, rather, functions as a Authority to Power in the mediation sense, between two competing parties. *Just a rough idea
Now, with regard to the latter of my statement, would you agree that there are two (generally) competing parties in nearly all social issues? Who is the person, or entity, or System, that individuals go to to work out their differences...the Government? It would seem to be the case. I believe that part of the reason for this is that the alternative is war, and it seems Man has grown tired of war...or has He! The Government is not serving its purpose, and to go further back, the Constitution is not serving its purpose to Man, and to go further back, Man is not having the Constitution serve his purpose, and to go further back, Man is not having his purpose served by his design. So what do we do? We reevaluate, and revalue Principles based not on absolutes, rather, on contingents. Really, that is all we have now is Contingent Principles - it is just that most individuals want to believe that it is not the case.
For instance, Religion. And I hate appealing to Authority - more like pleading for a justification for your reasoning - PAINE...that man has his Natural Right to his mind, but it does not extend out into the 'real world'. Now, some might argue that he did not state that, ah, but he did in fact, but not in such short words.n Paine had pointed out that Man has a right to his mind, and the act, but so-long as it does not cause injury to another Man. My goodness, how not-individualistic of him! How 'collective' his statement - was it inadvertent that he should make such a statement? Surely he should have known what he was actually stating.
My point is that Man as an individual does have Natural Rights, but Man as a part of a whole, has ZERO Natural Rights - they are sacrificed, and made a contingent on the whole of Man, not on the part of Man.
I look forward to some responses that will declare Paine a Republican, while others will claim he is a Democrat - and all of the colorful titles that fall under the two!