The flourishing of Iran's economy is the last thing we want. It would be different if we were an ally. The Nuclear Deal is a means to an end for Iran. We get temporary relief in exchange for future problems.

An alternative to the agreement is to continue to tighten sanctions. The agreement strengthened Iran and made war far more likely. Countries like Iran don't build hospitals when they get richer. The agreement comes with $150 million. Where do you think that money will go?

But, by limiting their power to build a nuclear warhead, we are funding anything that they want to do in the future.

I completely agree. Iran is a complete police state. The public of Iran seeks to completely dominate Western Europe and want to wipe Israel off the map. Why should the United States, who is allied with many of those nations, go into this Nuclear Deal with Iran and help them get more money. Helping them get more money is only helping Iran dominate even more.

The Iran Nuclear Deal should not be entered again. Iran is a theocracy with a false sense of democracy. Why should we trust a country to be genuine with us when it is not even honest with its own people?

Freedom in America does not directly correlate with freedom in any other country. Freedom by definition is "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint." Under the Articles of Confederation people did exactly this. James Madison explicitly acknowledges that freedom is present among the people and essentially comes down to two solutions to solve the problem of there being too much freedom. But, once you start to take away the freedom of people problems arise. The same abuse of power that the Constitution says it is limiting, is the same abuse of power that they are using to keep the people under the authority under the Constitution.

The national government will be way too far away to properly represent the people. How could you possibly know a person if you are not with them or at least in contact with the people. This is not a problem is small republics because representatives know their people and they know how to accurately represent them. Simply put, good things happen in small republics. People can conveniently assemble, be informed, and then vote. And it would be guaranteed that representatives have the "consent of the government". On the other hand, a large republic would ultimately represent those that have access and would have the means to remain informed. This would be the people that could pay their bills and those who could pay for the technology that would allow them to remain informed. Look at history, all republics have been small. Why change something that has helped us progress?

Will the Constitution be effective in fixing our problems long term? NO! Just strengthen the Articles of Confederation. This was made with purpose of proposing a form of government that would as far away from tyrannical as possible and now your telling us we should digress back towards what we were all running away from in terror. That makes no sense. Yes, there are problems with the Articles but these problems can be fixed. Just like you claim this Constitution can be amended, so can the Articles. Why throw out an idea just because it has a few hiccups. Work smarter, not harder. You attempt to fix something before you try to completely rebuild it.

Life is one very big test. There are the fun parts, there are the challenges, and there are the plain boring parts. There is no way that a person can take a test and be successful at taking that test if you do not learn the material. How can you successfully get through life if you are not informed. Everything affects everybody, directly or indirectly.

I completely agree. 10/10. I believe the president or any other figure in the position of power should not be able to pick and choose what parts of history students should learn. A problem cannot be thoroughly addressed if a person is not fully aware of what the problem really is.