• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The United States constitution is broken and should not be reclaimed

Muse

Muse

Lifer
The constant litmus testing in the court systems of the USA of proposed legislation or lawsuits, etc. against the 200+ year old constitution created by (and arguably for) rich white men at a time when slavery was legal (and the founders "owned" slaves) and women could not vote, is a huge problem for US.

This is a really good essay published in the New York Times a few days ago explaining this in detail, written by law professors at Harvard and Yale. This link should work for 14 days, i.e. through Saturday, Septemter 3:

www.nytimes.com

Opinion | The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed (Published 2022)

Liberals need to radically change the rules of our politics.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
We definitely need to work towards having an actual democracy and move away from a republic ruled by a minority who have hijacked the Supreme Court and most state governments. Will the Republicans in key states decide that the popular vote is not correct and that Republicans won instead? That, in itself, could be the catalyst that starts the Civil War that the right seems to want. But throwing away the Constitution is a bad idea. The first step to righting the ship is to do away with the Electoral College.
 
Good article. To me, it shows that the constitution is working as planed. Given that most people are both greedy and stupid, the need for an immutable set of rules is an absolute necessity.
 
Muse said:
...the 200+ year old constitution created by (and arguably for) rich white men at a time when slavery was legal (and the founders "owned" slaves) and women could not vote, is a huge problem for US.
Click to expand...

Would be useful if the message was anything more than shooting the messenger. Or in this case, the writers and founders.
If it has problems, can you not express what those problems are?

Spoilers, of course it has problems. But who wrote it isn't one of them. It is the disconnect between elections and consequences. Of a Senate holding us up under their pretend power over the majority. Of said majority pretending such power even exists. Which is all beside the Constitution. Senate could end the filibuster at any time. Leadership, on both sides, choose to keep it. Because the Republicans are clever, spiteful, and want nothing to get done. While the D leadership is... old and senile? Hard to gauge why they'd choose Republican obstruction over governing and improving lives. When the Republicans actually want something, like the Court, they simply take it. We are past time where Democrats need to take back.

But that's not even a Constitutional issue. That's just stupid people being elected Senators. That is among my biggest gripes with our Government.

Suppose if I wish to discover the purpose you sought in this topic, I will need to go and read the article. Just odd that you could not convey or express anything of substance from it. Give the dog a bone.
 
Dude has some ideas

"On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation ... " - Thomas Jefferson

You may notice the intellectual sharpness. That is why it was called the Enlightenment. Keep that in mind the next time you hear a Republican or RW Media "News" source speak on practically anything.

Not sure that the specifics of the proposals would work, but the principles behind them are sound and worthy of support.
 
Jaskalas said:
Would be useful if the message was anything more than shooting the messenger. Or in this case, the writers and founders.
If it has problems, can you not express what those problems are?

Spoilers, of course it has problems. But who wrote it isn't one of them. It is the disconnect between elections and consequences. Of a Senate holding us up under their pretend power over the majority. Of said majority pretending such power even exists. Which is all beside the Constitution. Senate could end the filibuster at any time. Leadership, on both sides, choose to keep it. Because the Republicans are clever, spiteful, and want nothing to get done. While the D leadership is... old and senile? Hard to gauge why they'd choose Republican obstruction over governing and improving lives. When the Republicans actually want something, like the Court, they simply take it. We are past time where Democrats need to take back.

But that's not even a Constitutional issue. That's just stupid people being elected Senators. That is among my biggest gripes with our Government.

Suppose if I wish to discover the purpose you sought in this topic, I will need to go and read the article. Just odd that you could not convey or express anything of substance from it. Give the dog a bone.
Click to expand...
If you cannot bother to read the article before ranting I think you need to take a good look at yourself. I made a very pithy one sentence remark because the article speaks for itself (plus I get in trouble if I don't say something!), I didn't want you or anybody to dissect my remark, which was basically a summary of some points made in the article anyway. 🙄
 
Let’s pretend midterms doesn’t switch the house and senate they get the 2 extra seats to abolish the filibuster. They can re-codify Roe and expand voting rights protections and go further on gun safety. Hopefully enough to push Biden to call it a day and won’t run for 2024. He pushes for his replacement and they win in 2024. Momentum to squash the MAGA movement and return to a saner GOP. Country swings more left. Wonder if they could call for vote to amend the constitution. Abolish state electorates and move strictly to popular vote.
 
Greenman said:
Good article. To me, it shows that the constitution is working as planed. Given that most people are both greedy and stupid, the need for an immutable set of rules is an absolute necessity.
Click to expand...
The challenge of creating an immutable set of rules that continue to serve the interests of a country moving forward is formidable. What we have is definitely not so constituted presently. That's the point of the piece. Several suggestions are made there concerning what can be done to fix this.
 
Last edited:
eelw said:
Let’s pretend midterms doesn’t switch the house and senate they get the 2 extra seats to abolish the filibuster. They can re-codify Roe and expand voting rights protections and go further on gun safety. Hopefully enough to push Biden to call it a day and won’t run for 2024. He pushes for his replacement and they win in 2024. Momentum to squash the MAGA movement and return to a saner GOP. Country swings more left. Wonder if they could call for vote to amend the constitution. Abolish state electorates and move strictly to popular vote.
Click to expand...
One of the reader comments at the NY Times suggested instituting ranked choice voting.
 
The Framers of the Constitution have become mythical figures in this country similar to Moses, with the US Constitution becoming some mythical document like the Ten Commandments. You're going to have people screaming that even contemplating having another Constitutional Convention is akin to treason or a Coup. I just don't think it will get "replaced". And to be honest, if individual states are electing the Delegates, I wouldn't expect anything coming out of it to be any better than what we have now, given current laws, regulations and common law "precedent" (personal freedom precedents are getting wiped out, so...at least as of January 2022).

That said, lemme go ahead and drop this link like I've been known to do, because yet again, it is very relevant and can start to solve a lot of issues within the current US Constitutional framework.

www.politicalorphans.com

Democrats Should Weaponize Federalism

If Democrats truly believe in the power of their policies, they should be ready to weaponize federalism.
www.politicalorphans.com www.politicalorphans.com


To be clear, every Empire in history has fractured, reformed, and become something else. So long term, the current version of the US is untenable, but it doesn't mean we have to fracture now or anytime soon. We can at least set up the probable fractured pieces to start functioning as fractions, without it coming to a hot civil war to smash and grab as many resources from the "other" as possible. See the link.
 
To be conservative is to see the worst in people and to hold on to anything that makes it harder to implement anything those people might propose to make things better. If people are bad the majority is bad and the pull of the majority that creates appeal for change looks to them to be a real danger.

Liberals, on the other hand see clinging to the past as bad and change as vital. But we create what we fear and what we fear is disaster. The way out is conscious awareness that the world we see is the one our conditioning intends for us to believe is reality. Only absent conditioning can the world be what it really is. There are as many worlds as there are conditioned people, but only one world, the same one, for those who are free from it.

A new constitution comes into effect second by second for people who are awake.
 
Last edited:
So Americans are finally noticing that document is not perfect, and desperately needs fixing? It was a bad design from the start. What's curious to me is why it's been so over-venerated. Is it just because it was written in flowery poetic language?
 
Trouble is, I find myself coming to the same conclusion about everywhere - the UK, the EU, the US, and definitely Russia - all need to be torn down and rebuilt from the foundations up. The EU seems to have mirrored some of the mistakes of the US (e.g. unequal levels of representation, over-complex system, giving too much power to judges, making it too hard to amend the founding documents...)
 
Greenman said:
I would counter that the most successful country on the planet is the only one with a constitution.
Click to expand...

Say it as a mnemomic "AAAAAAAA..."

Countries with constitutions include Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Bahamas, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Cameroon, chad, Chile, China, Cuba, Denmark, Djibouti, Egypt, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Ierland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Kuwait, Malawi, Malta, North Korea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Russia, rwanda, Saint Lucia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, South Korea, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Turkey, Uganda, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe
Click to expand...
https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/zimbabwe-population

worldpopulationreview.com

Countries with Constitutions 2026

Discover population, economy, health, and more with the most comprehensive global statistics at your fingertips.
worldpopulationreview.com worldpopulationreview.com
 
pmv said:
So Americans are finally noticing that document is not perfect, and desperately needs fixing? It was a bad design from the start. What's curious to me is why it's been so over-venerated. Is it just because it was written in flowery poetic language?
Click to expand...

For the time, it was pretty fucking amazing. Aside from France no one was trying anything like it really. It’s been a coherent country for over 200 years, fairly peaceful all things considered, and it has been a very prosperous country. You can criticise it as bad design, but politics is the art of the possible and given the time period they did pretty well.

That being said, outside of economic/military power I’m not sure what it’s the best at anymore.
 
rommelrommel said:
For the time, it was pretty fucking amazing. Aside from France no one was trying anything like it really. It’s been a coherent country for over 200 years, fairly peaceful all things considered, and it has been a very prosperous country. You can criticise it as bad design, but politics is the art of the possible and given the time period they did pretty well.

That being said, outside of economic/military power I’m not sure what it’s the best at anymore.
Click to expand...

I don't know that I agree, given, for example, that it took an extremely bloody civil war just to amend it to recognise black people as human. I agree that it was a product of a lot of political compromises and horse-trading so it's a bit pointless to compare it with a counterfactual of some other better document.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top