While you’re at it ban referendums. They’ve proven a dreadful idea.
You asked to very different questions
-
Would You Support A New Constitution? The way you describe it, yes, probably.
-
Has the time come for a new Constitution? No. Not nearly.
Only once we have a sane conservative wing again.
Nope! Bwahahaha!
I considered adding such protections, but on reflection I don’t see why the religions need special protection - once we’ve prevented the state from favoring another religion instead, that is. Absent state pressure to crush them because the state is a theocracy and sees the non-state religion as competition, why would the religious institution need any more protection than, say, a Gold’s Gym? Vandalizing a Gold’s Gym is illegal. Harassing the members of a Gold’s Gym is illegal. Private organizations in general already get all the protections a religion needs.
Adding special delineated protections just seems like a way to open up loopholes for corrupt religions (or “religions”) to abuse to try to hide finances, evade the law, etc.
That sounds worse actually, but in any case the school did not hire him to be a religious leader and he shouldn’t be leading anybody in prayer.
Under separation of church and state, where schools are considered agents of the state, leading the students in prayer is possibly already illegal - and would be clearly illegal under my proposed rewrite. Even if the students consent. That’s how the law works - if something is illegal, it’s illegal even if everyone present is willing to be a co-conspirator. (And I don’t know what question you think I was begging.)
And yes, if the students’ religion dictates that they should be able to enslave their coaches and force their coaches to lead them in prayer, a law that prevents their coaches from leading them in prayer would be interfering with the free practice of the student’s religion. Similarly, making the students refrain from bursting into hymns and speaking in tongues in class. So much interference with the free practice of religion!
I’m not concerned with it. If their religion has a problem with them being on a sports team, then the students have avenues other than bending the whole damn world to their will.
I can see some advantages to a parliamentary system. It forces political parties to take responsibility for their actions.
That’s why it’s called responsible government. Of course, in Britain, Cameron mucked it up and then quit, which helped leaded to the pig’s mess that they’re currently dealing with.
Maybe yes. I am beginning to suspect we have ridden this horse too long.
Well, that’s not really the point. Basically, you could have any political system if you could get enough people behind it to make the proper changes and Amendments to the Constitution, and vote in the politicians at a national level to do it. What the OP wants is to toss it out and make a new one, but the only real reason to do that is by fiat, since, well, you don’t need to write a new one when we have the mechanisms to change the old one. Unless, of course, you can’t get enough people behind your idea. That’s why it’s a bad idea, since it would only be necessary if you wanted to do something that the majority of Americans don’t want to do.
I’m not a huge fan of most of the European parliamentary systems. They seem generally even more dithering and broken than our own, especially if you step back and look at what real Americans vote for and how they would vote in such a situation. I seriously doubt the outcome would be what you or the OP would want. But regardless, if you can get enough Americans behind the idea to make the proper Constitutional changes then my approval doesn’t really matter. It’s like the endless 2nd Amendment debates. The real issue that the OP has, and many 'dopers too, isn’t with the system…it’s really with the voters. The voters don’t vote for or aren’t enthusiastic about the stuff the OP wants to change on the national level. You probably could get majorities for some of the things the OP wants in local states or parts of states, but not nationally. So…the obvious answer is to propose a brand new Constitution that is done by fiat! Then you don’t have to worry about those pesky voters…you can fix things for the voters own good! I’m not a big fan of that sort of thinking. YMMV of course…the OPs obviously does.
I would…if I could trust the people alive in this country to get it right.
Not sure that I can.
I would like more than 2 viable parties, but that does not require a complete rewrite of the Constitution. As to whether I would like a complete rewrite of the Constitution? Hell no, and I’ll leave it at that.
This is pretty much my view. I admire the Constitution but it’s certainly not perfect.
I always get a kick out of the Preamble to the US Constitution: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union…” Um … if it’s perfect already, how can you make it more perfect?
Note, however, that no snark is intended by my remark, and as one who has studied the US Constitution, I admire it as well. The Founders included an amending formula, and the document has been amended many times since its ratification, by Congress and the necessary number of states. I don’t believe that the current US Constitution should be scrapped and begun again; given that amendments that can shape it towards today’s issues and challenges are possible.
I don’t think that the United States becoming a parliamentary democracy would be feasible. I doubt that Americans, being as used as they are to a two-party system, with a definite winner and loser; would or could accept a five or six or seven party system where minority governments are possible, where the governing party may have to join with another party in order to command the confidence of Parliament, and where as little as 40% of the popular vote is enough to form a government.
Well…
This is confusingly written. I see it as every state is allowed a well-regulated militia with the right to bear arms, not an individual right to bear arms.
Then as I mentioned, the question becomes, not how we should reword the Constitution to avoid conflicts or ambiguity, but “should we remove the clause protecting the free exercise of religion”? And no, I don’t support that. I believe that both clauses of the First are important.
Regards,
Shodan
Sure, so long as they also include an express right to be free FROM religion! 
Fair enough. Always difficult when trying to paraphrase something dimly remembered. But even if you limit the discussion to groups which were NOT traditionally disrespected, I think there previously was a commonly held idea that laws could be written somewhat more generally, and then applied “reasonably.” As opposed to the more recent trend of anticipating and specifically delineating each specific application.
Yes, to a degree, modern society is becoming more “complicated.” But I think at least some portion of today’s longer, more complicated laws reflects a changed philosophical perspective.
That is, in fact, how it was long interpreted. A conservative majority on the Roberts Court saw things differently eleven years ago, however.
I’d rather amend than replace. I’d take most legislative power from the Senate, create a number for how many Supreme Court Justices we have, and give them a 12 year term with a two term limit. I’d also add a version of the ERA, and make it inclusive of just about everyone.
ETA: And get rid of the Electoral College.
I’m not necessarily saying I would like to see a parliamentary system enacted in this country. Certainly not enough to support the constitutional convention such a change would require.
But our government was set up with a system based on checks and balances, which I think is causing problems. Politicians have gotten into the habit of running for office on far-reaching promises in the knowledge that they won’t be held to account for them. Once they’re in office, they just claim the other party is blocking them in the House or the Senate or the Supreme Court or the Oval Office or the states.
A parliamentary system essentially gives a party the power to enact its agenda. If it fails to do so or if it does so and the agenda turns out to be a bad idea, the voters have the power to replace the government. So politicians avoid making dumb promises.
The downside of a parliamentary system is that it’s based a lot more around parties than our system is. We tend to prefer to vote for individuals rather than parties.
In the context of this thread, we have the ability to do this already. We don’t need a new Constitution to do it. We might need a shake up of our system. There are certainly some broken parts of it. But we can do that if enough of us want too. We don’t need to toss the baby out with the bath water. We can just chuck out the baby. 
That is not true. What is true is that SCOTUS more or less made almost no 2nd Ad rulings until Heller, where it clarified it was a individual right. So, until Heller, it wasnt clear whether it was individual or state.