Constitution is outdated

[psikeyhackr]

Computers, the internet, nuclear weapons nor genetic engineering have a thing to do with right and wrong, morality, ethics, respecting life, caring for all people and respecting their opinons.

But corporations can be given the rights of human beings like freedom of speech.

 

[Gaius46]

In the

In the first place the majority don't agree with you.
Latest polling show that 70% want restrictions of at least 15 weeks on abortion. The current democrat proposal is abortion on demand up to birth.

Thank you for making my point. Saying most people want a right to an abortion doesn't mean unrestricted access. Most people - probably closer to 80-85% do not want to see abirtion completely outlawed.

 

[Ahlevah]

It is laughable to suggest your pea shooter is the reason you have freedom.

I thank the barbaric Founders and their all-volunteer farmer army armed with manually-loaded, single-shot muskets for that, along with the millions of other men who wielded “pea shooters” throughout our history to keep it. Tens of millions of more-sophisticated weapons are in private hands, and can fire grenades, armor-piercing ammunition at a muzzle velocity of 3,000 feet per second, and can lay a man flat with iron sights at 1,000 yards.

So, while you see millions of high-powered, semi-automatic rifles as ”pea shooters,” your liberal brethren are freaking out over Encino Man and a few hundred other idiots armed with flags and selfie sticks who entered the Capitol on January 6th, presumably to end democracy as we know it. Talk about laughable!

 

[Deuce]

I thank the barbaric Founders and their all-volunteer farmer army armed with manually-loaded, single-shot muskets for that, along with the millions of other men who wielded “pea shooters” throughout our history to keep it. Tens of millions of more-sophisticated weapons are in private hands, and can fire grenades, armor-piercing ammunition at a muzzle velocity of 3,000 feet per second, and can lay a man flat with iron sights at 1,000 yards.

So, while you see millions of high-powered, semi-automatic rifles as ”pea shooters,” your liberal brethren are freaking out over Encino Man and a few hundred other idiots armed with flags and selfie sticks who entered the Capitol on January 6th, presumably to end democracy as we know it. Talk about laughable!

Democracy was attacked and none of your AR-15s defended it. Curious!

 

[Ahlevah]

Democracy was attacked and none of your AR-15s defended it. Curious!

Unlike you, I was never worried about Encino Man and the Beverly Hillbillies taking over the government. But Sleepy, Chuck, and Nancy attack democracy and freedom every day, with things like their Jihad against the Supreme Court and my right to own a gun for self-defense. If there’s a threat to democracy, it will come from the government, not the people.

 

[Deuce]

Unlike you, I was never worried about Encino Man and the Beverly Hillbillies taking over the government. But Sleepy, Chuck, and Nancy attack democracy and freedom every day, with things like their Jihad against the Supreme Court and my right to own a gun for self-defense. If there’s a threat to democracy, it will come from the government, not the people.

Yeah, like Donald Trump knowingly using fraudulent electoral votes as a basis to try and pressure Pence into an illegal and unconstitutional attempt to reject the election outcome, which almost certainly would have triggered a civil war.

 

[BirdinHand]

The current democrat proposal is abortion on demand up to birth.

Where?

Can you show me one place where that's what is being proposed or encouraged?

And do you understand that there are times when an incompatible with life diagnosis is made late in pregnancy and THAT is what drives parents to make the decision to abort vs. forcing a baby to be born alive and suffer excruciating pain for whatever short period of time that it might live?

There is NO ONE walking into an abortion clinic at 34, 35, 36+ weeks of pregnancy and going "Oh gee, I changed my mind". That is a MYTH and a lie.

 

[NewfieMom]

Lol

Talk about stating the obvious.

Watch, all the Trumpists will protest and say its fine. Why? Because it is so outdated that if they get 5 nuts on the court they can continue to live like its 1860.

They are bound and determined to buck nature and not progress.

The Constitution doesn't tell the Trumpists (or anyone) they have to keep those 5 nuts in control. It allows the number of Justices to be increased. Non-nuts could, in theory, be added.

 

[NewfieMom]

As I've said many times, the left is coming for the Founders, then the Founders Documents.

Not me. I'd be content if the right wing could be persuaded to follow the Constitution for a change.

 

[Ahlevah]

Unlike you, I was never worried about Encino Man and the Beverly Hillbillies taking over the government. But Sleepy, Chuck, and Nancy attack democracy and freedom every day, with things like their Jihad against the Supreme Court and my right to own a gun for self-defense. If there’s a threat to democracy, it will come from the government, not the people.

Well, tens of millions of people are convinced the Democrats stole the election, and I don’t see a civil war, do you? And these are the guys with the guns, since liberals think they’ll get cooties if they even touch one.

I see this January 6th crap on the evening news every night, but outside of New York, Hollywood, and the Beltway, does anyone really give a shit? Annual CPI came out today at 9.1%. With an election just a few months away, I can understand if Democrats want to change the subject, especially with their head cheerleader’s approval rating in the toilet.

 

[Luce]

If we rewrite the Constitution, essentially creating a new compact among the states, let’s kick out California, New York, and Massachusetts.

The Southern half of Arizona would like to go with them, if it's the same to everybody.

 

[Luce]

Well, tens of millions of people are convinced the Democrats stole the election, and I don’t see a civil war, do you? And these are the guys with the guns, since liberals think they’ll get cooties if they even touch one.

You have some weird ideas about liberals.

It's probably a sample-size issue from watching Fox and OAN.

 

[Ahlevah]

The Southern half of Arizona would like to go with them, if it's the same to everybody.

The Sonora Desert part? Tombstone, sand, cactus, horned lizards, and blistering heat? Yeah, they can have that.

 

[Ahlevah]

You have some weird ideas about liberals.

It's probably a sample-size issue from watching Fox and OAN.

They might have a duck gun or two, just so they can say they’re pro 2nd Amendment, but what prominent liberal is in favor of letting private citizens own “assault weapons”? Tell me, for the sake of argument, who would win in a war? The guy with birdshot in a pump shotgun, or the guy with the semi-auto, high-powered rifle?

 

[jmotivator]

How has that been working out?

You do realize you aren't guaranteed to be the one writing a new constitution, yeah?

And if we made it easier to amend the Constitution, you wouldn't be the only one able to amend it....

The Constitution is hard to change for a reason.

 

[noonereal]

You do realize you aren't guaranteed to be the one writing a new constitution, yeah?

And if we made it easier to amend the Constitution, you wouldn't be the only one able to amend it....

The Constitution is hard to change for a reason.

It being hard to change, as it turns out, has not been a good thing.

 

[jmotivator]

It being hard to change, as it turns out, has not been a good thing.

It has been a good thing, in fact. Imagine an easily modifiable constitution in the hands of Eugenics-loving, Pro-Hitler progressives in the 1930s!

Imagine you simplify the amendment process, write whatever amendment you like, and then have it overturned 2 years later...

Imagine getting all the amendments you want, and then you lose, the opposition overturns all of your amendments, passes others you hate, and then passes a new amendment raising the bar for all future amendments...

Even in the most agreeable scenario what you end up with is what amounts to legislation, not a constitution.

 

[Gatsby]

Only the civically illiterate think the US Constitution is outdated.

I mean...it obviously is. There are dozens of countries with better constitutions. At least if our metric of success is "The ability to get things done, in a way that is generally representative of what the people want, and without changing the fundamental character of the country too quickly."

There are all sorts of things in the US Constitution that are outdated, ripe for political abuse, or simply unfair/unrepresentative:

• Allowing Congress (or state legislatures) draw their own district boundaries.
• Giving each state the same number of senators, when there is a far bigger population gap between the smallest and largest states than there was in 1789.
• Allowing states to determine their own methods of appointing electors to the electoral college, which has set up a ticking time bomb for someone to try to steal a presidential election.
• Lifetime appointments for Supreme Court justices, combined with allowing the sitting president to appoint new justices when vacancies arise, means that if you want to see any change on the court you basically have to hope that one of the opposing justices dies an untimely death when their party doesn't control the White House.
• Senate confirmation for judges (combined with the total breakdown of the norm of deferring to the president) means that roughly half the time, virtually no judges will be confirmed...whenever the Senate and White House are controlled by opposing parties.

And that's not even getting into things that are permitted but not stated in the Constitution (i.e. the Senate filibuster), or the fundamental structure of the institutions themselves (i.e. the Senate, the Electoral College, the Office of the President).

 

[Gatsby]

It has been a good thing, in fact. Imagine an easily modifiable constitution in the hands of Eugenics-loving, Pro-Hitler progressives in the 1930s!

Would a pro-Hitler party follow the Constitution anyway? It's already pretty clear that there are ways to subvert the intent of the Constitution, written into the Constitution itself. For example, pick whatever politician you hate the most, and imagine that they are the presidential nominee of the opposing party in 2024. It's not difficult to imagine a chain of events that follows the letter of the law every step of the way, but ends up with the Constitution being a dead letter:

• Your party's nominee wins a majority of the votes in enough states to give them an electoral college majority, defeating Villain.
• Villain goes to the friendly state legislatures in states where they lost, and gets them to appoint a different slate of electors to vote for Villain in the electoral college. And gets the state governor to sign off on this.
• The courts rule that the states can allocate their electors as they see fit, and they are staying out of that political decision, essentially handing the presidency to Villain.
• Villain (along with friendly congressional majorities which were actually earned at the ballot box), passes a law to expand the Supreme Court and appoints 10 new justices who interpret the Constitution however he wants.

I'd rather have a system where the potential for such abuses is limited and more of this stuff is codified (e.g. how electors are chosen, regularly scheduled court appointments). And a system where politicians could generally enact their promised agenda (within reasonable bounds) without NEEDING to subvert the Constitution. Instead we have a system where no one gets to do anything, and even when a party loses an election they still have enough veto points to block most of the winning party's agenda.

Imagine you simplify the amendment process, write whatever amendment you like, and then have it overturned 2 years later...

We don't need to make it THAT easy to amend the Constitution. But the fact that we haven't had any important constitutional amendments since 1920 (just a few minor tweaks) should indicate that the process is too difficult, bordering on impossible.

Imagine getting all the amendments you want, and then you lose, the opposition overturns all of your amendments, passes others you hate, and then passes a new amendment raising the bar for all future amendments...

There have only been 3 periods in US history where substantively important constitutional amendments were passed into law:

• Right after it was first written, when there were a lot of housekeeping items and correcting quickly-spotted errors in the process.
• After the Civil War, when 3 amendments had to passed at the barrel of a gun.
• From 1913-1920, when 3 important amendments and 1 unimportant amendment were passed.

In other words, there have been no periods of major constitutional change in anyone's living memory. And only 3 such periods in all of US history, 2 of which followed major wars. I think there's a large middle ground between that level of stasis, and amending the Constitution every 2 years when one's own party wins an election.

Even in the most agreeable scenario what you end up with is what amounts to legislation, not a constitution.

Which doesn't seem like the worst thing in the world to me. IMO the Constitution should just be a few basic prohibitions (e.g. don't ban free speech), and a structural framework for the government (e.g. a legislature, judiciary, and executive with regularly scheduled elections/appointments). Beyond that, let the elected branches enact the agendas that they campaigned on. If they screw up, vote for someone else next time.

 

[Luce]

The Sonora Desert part? Tombstone, sand, cactus, horned lizards, and blistering heat? Yeah, they can have that.

Glad to hear it. We'll also be taking the copper and the silver if it's all the same to you.

 

[Luce]

They might have a duck gun or two, just so they can say they’re pro 2nd Amendment, but what prominent liberal is in favor of letting private citizens own “assault weapons”? Tell me, for the sake of argument, who would win in a war? The guy with birdshot in a pump shotgun, or the guy with the semi-auto, high-powered rifle?

Dude, even the hippies are strapped, here.

 

[jmotivator]

Would a pro-Hitler party follow the Constitution anyway? It's already pretty clear... winning party's agenda.

Hitler's rise to power was largely through legal means. And it was specifically due to the popular lack of respect for the new Weimar Constitution that made it so easy for Hitler to circumvent it. But then, this thread was started on the assumption that we should simply abandon the constitution anyways so ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯

Speaking of which, the Weimar Constitution could be amended buy a 2/3rd Parliament vote.. an easier path than the US, for sure.... but then when Hitler stormed into power on an upswell of Populism the German Parliament passed the Enabling Act which allowed Hitler to amend the constitution without even consulting Parliament! So technically everything he did was "legal" because he became a constitutional dictator.

The Enabling Act was justified by German Parliament using all the same excuses used today to oppose the US constitution.

And you've lost the argument as soon as you complain about a politician "needing" to subvert the Constitution. The US Constitution makes sweeping change difficult for good reason. It benefits both parties, especially when power flip flops in a country where power rides on narrow margins.

Also, challenging elections isn't unconstitutional, it's kind of essential to the whole election process. Both sides should be satisfied that the outcome was entirely above board and fairly conducted. The irony in your argument is that in your scenario the final act by the Villain is setting up a system where-in elections can't be challenged.

We don't need to make it THAT easy to amend the Constitution. But the fact that we haven't had any important constitutional amendments since 1920 (just a few minor tweaks) should indicate that the process is too difficult, bordering on impossible.

Or the Constitution has served us well for 100 years, and we haven't reached a point wherein a super majority existed AND was filled with an overwhelming need to amend the constitution.
The Republicans have planned Constitutional Conventions twice in the last 20 years when they had command of enough State legislatures to pass and ratify, but it never came together because it was too hard to get Republicans to agree on what Amendments they would bring... I'm sure that you'd consider that a good thing! (And I do too!)

There have only been 3 periods in US history where substantively important constitutional amendments were passed into law:

• Right after it was first written, when there were a lot of housekeeping items and correcting quickly-spotted errors in the process.
• After the Civil War, when 3 amendments had to passed at the barrel of a gun.
• From 1913-1920, when 3 important amendments and 1 unimportant amendment were passed.

In other words, there have been no periods of major constitutional change in anyone's living memory. And only 3 such periods in all of US history, 2 of which followed major wars. I think there's a large middle ground between that level of stasis, and amending the Constitution every 2 years when one's own party wins an election.

And, again, this is for good reason. Changing the core rules on which legislation depends should be difficult, and should have a very high bar.

Which doesn't seem like the worst thing in the world to me. IMO the Constitution should just be a few basic prohibitions (e.g. don't ban free speech), and a structural framework for the government (e.g. a legislature, judiciary, and executive with regularly scheduled elections/appointments). Beyond that, let the elected branches enact the agendas that they campaigned on. If they screw up, vote for someone else next time.

Well, your proposal "let the elected branches enact the agendas that they campaigned on" is the sticking point. And having to compromise was the purpose of our system of checks and balances. It's a pain in the ass in a narrowly split country with a wide ideological divide, but it benefits both parties by limiting how far either side can push the country.

 

[Ahlevah]

Glad to hear it. We'll also be taking the copper and the silver if it's all the same to you.

Yeah, but try eating it.

 

[noonereal]

It has been a good thing, in fact. Imagine an easily modifiable constitution in the hands of Eugenics-loving, Pro-Hitler progressives in the 1930s!

Imagine you simplify the amendment process, write whatever amendment you like, and then have it overturned 2 years later...

Imagine getting all the amendments you want, and then you lose, the opposition overturns all of your amendments, passes others you hate, and then passes a new amendment raising the bar for all future amendments...

Even in the most agreeable scenario what you end up with is what amounts to legislation, not a constitution.

It has kept us in the dark ages

 

[Glitch]

I mean...it obviously is.

Only to those who are completely ignorant about the US Constitution.

There are dozens of countries with better constitutions.

That depends on what you mean by "better."

There are countries with constitutions that have not been updated as often or are as current as the US Constitution. For example:

• Japan's Constitution hasn't changed since it went into effect in 1947.
• India's Constitution was last updated in 1972.
• The Australia's Constitution was last updated in 1977.
• Canada's Constitution was last updated in 1982.
• Mexico's Constitution was last updated in 1992.

The US Constitution was last updated in 1992.

Countries that provide an easy process for amending their constitution tend to make changes more often. There are currently 61 proposed amendments to the US Constitution pending in the 117th Session of Congress. None of them will rise to the level where Congress will even vote on them, much less ever pass Congress.

At least if our metric of success is "The ability to get things done, in a way that is generally representative of what the people want, and without changing the fundamental character of the country too quickly."

That is nobody's metric anywhere.

There are all sorts of things in the US Constitution that are outdated, ripe for political abuse, or simply unfair/unrepresentative:

• Allowing Congress (or state legislatures) draw their own district boundaries.
• Giving each state the same number of senators, when there is a far bigger population gap between the smallest and largest states than there was in 1789.
• Allowing states to determine their own methods of appointing electors to the electoral college, which has set up a ticking time bomb for someone to try to steal a presidential election.
• Lifetime appointments for Supreme Court justices, combined with allowing the sitting president to appoint new justices when vacancies arise, means that if you want to see any change on the court you basically have to hope that one of the opposing justices dies an untimely death when their party doesn't control the White House.
• Senate confirmation for judges (combined with the total breakdown of the norm of deferring to the president) means that roughly half the time, virtually no judges will be confirmed...whenever the Senate and White House are controlled by opposing parties.

And that's not even getting into things that are permitted but not stated in the Constitution (i.e. the Senate filibuster), or the fundamental structure of the institutions themselves (i.e. the Senate, the Electoral College, the Office of the President).

Each of those changes you propose would require two-thirds of Congress (both houses) and three-fourths of the State legislatures approval.

That is where you are going to run into problems. States are sovereign in the US, and they generally do not like the federal government telling them what they need to do. So you are not going to get any amendment to the US Constitution past the States if it makes them subservient to the federal government.

I realize that you truly hate the US and want to see it utterly destroyed, but trying to make the States slaves to the federal government is never going to happen.