Changes to the Constitution

In changing or modifying the Constitution, I would first amend the Second Amendment. The second Amendment deals with the right to bear arms. The need to modify this provision arises out of the lawlessness witnessed in America over the recent past where guns have been used inappropriately by some people.  In its judicial interpretation, this right to carry arms cannot be limited by Congress except in the manner ascribed by the Constitution and through judicial interpretation.
My biggest quarrel is with the right of private citizens bearing arms. Now, this right should not be abridged by fiat. Instead, the Constitution would be amended to restrict the carrying of weapons in public.
The inclusion of a proviso relating to and banning the open carrying of weapons will be in the best interests of citizens.  Citizens will be afforded better protection when private citizens are prevented from bearing arms in public spaces. The right to bear weapons should be restricted to private residences and dwelling places. A case in point is the Charleston shooting in which a civilian opened fire on worshippers killing eight people.  If people are prevented from bearing arms in public, such incidences can be avoided easily. It will not be easy to do so, given the prevailing thoughts on gun control in the U.S. However, school shootings, gang-related deaths caused by an easy accessibility if weaponry and domestic terrorism cases might reduce significantly if the amendment forbidding the bearing of arms in public is approved.
The second amendment I will make to the Constitution relates to Amendment 7 of the American grund norm. The Seventh Amendment relates to trial by jury in civil cases where the value of the dispute is more than twenty dollars. Respectfully, I submit that the jury system is flawed because of the lay nature of jurors. Civil disputes should be determined by learned minds with particular experience in legal matters. Given the complex nature of most civil disputes, I cannot fathom a jury rendering itself competently on a complicated argument a la Re Lehman Brothers (Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings).  Studies in developmental psychology have also questioned the ability of groups to make productive decisions. Aesthetic values easily influence juries and give little consideration to substantive issues while arriving at decisions (consider the movie Twelve Angry Men). They are also susceptible to tampering. I recommend that the jury system be done away with in complex civil law litigations to create certainty and predictability in the legal process. Judges are better equipped for doing this type of legal analysis.
Founders’ Quiz
According to the Founders’ Quiz, I am James Madison.  I like working behind the scenes and being the brain power behind most operations.  I tend to agree with the general assessment of my abilities and skills. For instance, I tend to fizzle out of situations that require pizzazz and pomp. In other words, I am not the “life of the party.” The Founders’ Quiz teaches me that in an organization, different people bring different skills to the table. The fact that we are not alike does not necessarily imply that we have nothing to offer. Different skills are required in different circumstances. A James Madison may be critical while setting up the structure of an organization while a Thomas Jefferson may be required to explain to the people what the process is all about. All in all, it is a complimentary exercise.