If the Founding Fathers of the USA's constitution were still alive, what changes might they propose? And why?

Bravo!!!, Bravo!!!, Bravo!!!

I acknowledge the question came from your hypothetical speculation in one of our discussions on another thread. -- It's really your question, Don Barzini.

Considering the former - the theists.
The Constitution - 1787; that's well into The Age of Reason or The Enlightenment (1685-1815). Its influence has permeated the whole of the Western world, and especially the educated classes. We've has the foundation of modern physics with Newton's Principia Mathematica in 1687. The undercurrents of the French Revolution are almost ready to explode. Scientific academies are proliferating. The power of Freemasonry has spread through the echelons of leadership, and science has triggered a different and less literal interpretation to the Old and New Testaments. So the Founding Fathers were smack bang in the centre of the theologies and philosophies which saw Biblical stories as metaphors. God is no longer the punitive Old Man who demands faith and obedience as the price of heaven; He has become the all-permeating conscious entity, part of everything, wise, loving, present in the hearts of humanity for those who would listen. This would be the view of the founding fathers - and they would awake to discover the revival of fundamentalism and versions of Creationism more literal than at any time in the past. They would also discover science and technology having far outstripped anything they could have imagined; it would seem almost magical or even miraculous. And they would witness these two opposing forces fighting each other, the former with evangelical rage, the latter with stoic efforts at education and occasional flares of publicity.
It's possible that on seeing the despotism of the current administration, and Trump's link to solicitors with dubious records and a 2nd-degree link to a boss in organised crime, they would see this as just cause for the people to rise up and overthrow the government.
How interesting then, that mainstream USA is not nearly near that hair-trigger-point. The few would-be rebels are considered crackpots and survivalists.

Hm. I like your second scenario much better. :)

I don’t presume any credit for your question, but am happy to have inspired it. 

You marvelously articulated my point about 18th century denizens suddenly faced with 21st century realities. 

Since Jefferson is one of my personal heroes (I graduated from the University of Virginia that he founded), I too, would prefer the second scenario. Arguably the most important man of his age.  

 

Bye Bye Biden.

Applies to him, too.  We need a president who is intelligent, articulate, has common sense, is willing to listen to reasonable advice, is not a science denier speaks respectfully to and about others, is willing to compromise - none of which traits does Trump have.  This week, The Idiot-in-Chief crowed about the "peace" plan he signed with the Taliban.  Before the ink was even dry, the Talis were out there bombing and conducting business as usual.  Trump is a dictator-wannabe.  He is a menace to democracy.

I disagree with signing a "peace treaty" with a terrorist group.  But if that is what it takes to bring our troops out that area...I will take it.

I think we should have just started pulling out and be ready to come back if needed.

And in A Man for All Seasons, Paul Scofield as Thomas More [Sir Thomas More (7 February 1478 – 6 July 1535), venerated in the Catholic Church as Saint Thomas More, was an English lawyer, social philosopher, author, statesman, and noted Renaissance humanist. He was also a Chancellor to Henry VIII, and Lord High Chancellor of England from October 1529 to 16 May 1532] said, "I would give the Devil the benefit of the law---for my sake." 

Point---he'd probably negotiate with a terrorist too.

He was a "big picture" kind of guy.

I guarantee this movie would not induce you to "yawn." This post was edited by tom jackson at March 6, 2020 5:01 PM MST

Sir Thomas More,
yes, I think he would have negotiated with the Taliban -
but I think he would first have won them over to his view of God.
He couldn't achieve it with the monarchy of Britain,
but I think his theology was sophisticated enough to assist the Taliban to a different interpretation of Wahabi fundamentalism.
Had he failed, he would have willingly died trying.
He was never a man to sacrifice his ethics.

Always gratifying to know that someone gets my references---and that you know about the character of the man.

There is an old maxim that if you want a man to climb a mountain with you, it's best to just get him to start walking with you toward the foothills.

If you are a missionary sitting in an about-to-be-boiling kettle, you probably don't have an adequate amount of time to persuade the cannibals to rethink their idea for dinner.

We didn't need to have a pow wow with the Taliban to bring our troops out.  We just had to do it.  We didn't need the Taliban's permission.  By seeming to make "peace" with the Talis and them going right back to doing what they always do, Trump was made to look the fool - not a difficult feat considering that he is a fool.  

I think I just said that.   Without the digs at Trump of course. 

Of course.

Based on that criteria, I wouldn't think that you would object to "Bye Bye Trump." 

Oh, how I wish that were a criterion for all local, state and national elected leaders! :)
- along with a high sense of ethics and integrity. And yes, being articulate and good at communication is also a must.

Yes, I did leave out ethics, morality and integrity because in my opinion that is a given and the fundamental basis for a person to seek that office.  Without those character traits, none of the other thing I mentioned matter.

I honestly believe they were ahead of their time.  They crafted the framework in which society has thrived for two centuries.  I'm sure they were smart enough to realize that society changes over the course of time and would have worked to make amendments when necessary.  They could never have imagined how much life would change between then and now, but they did a darned good job of anticipating many things that have since come to pass.  

If they didn't want amendments, they wouldn't have put the framework in place.

More likely, they would be annoyed that so many things "amended" the Constitution - without following the framework to do so.

Really?
I thought they deliberately built in the mechanisms that made amendments possible.
The origin of their libertarian philosophy with John Stuart Mills was founded on the concept of the inevitability of human fallibility, and the capacity to learn from social mistakes and evolve. Their design of the constitution aimed at exactly that.

Interesting idea.
The States are already somewhat like countries with distinct differences in character.
More independence might, I think, increase those differences. People would move to the environments that feel most comfortable for their values - probably do now.
It might make for less divisiveness, more live and let live.
I guess there would still be a need for cooperation in self-defence and sharing resources - much like the European Union.