What about redrafting the Constitution that's relevant for 2022 and not 1776. That takes into consideration the State of affairs of 2022 as opposed to 1776. The Constitution was written with the intention that our nation was to be governed by wealthy English descended landowners. A constitution which largely revolves around the fears of a monarchy which is something that I can comfortably say I'm not worried about anymore. What I am worried about is being shot when I go to the gas station.
Move to a different area, maybe one where RWE passed law revisions eliminating permit requirements for concealed carry.
Trump and members of his cultist party recently attempt to install him permanently, attempting nullification of certified election results.
74 million voted for Trump despite his "shortcomings".
The last thing we need is any of them participating in drafting your proposed, "new" constitution. The present one is a living document, originalist propaganda and revisionism, aside. RWE refused to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. They do not practice or support compromise. Their reaction to "winning" the white house in 2000 and in 2016, despite losing the popular vote, was to demonstrate their "commitment to unity," by supporting the corrupt Leonard Leo's effort for those two RWE POTUS
to nominate for SCOTUS seats, Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. All five just happen to be RWE white Roman Catholics.
The rest of us certainly know by now who we are dealing with. The problems with the Constitution would not be addressed by discarding
it and starting anew, but by removing the money of the wealthiest political donors from our politics and attempting to teach the average
voter to vote in their own best interests instead of in the best interests of the wealthiest RWE political donors!
Justice Clarence Thomas, in his most recent concurring opinion, again raises the issue of whether “substantive due process” should be used in creating constitutionally protected “rights.”
www.yahoo.com
Sol Wachtler, a former chief judge of the New York State Court of Appeals, is a distinguished adjunct professor at Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center.
March 11, 2019
"...
Despite these expressed personal beliefs, Taney felt that he was duty bound to interpret the words of the Constitution, to use Justice Scalia’s words: “As to what those words meant to the people who ratified the Bill of Rights or who ratified the Constitution.” Or, as Justice Taney put it: “(The Founders) spoke and acted according to the then established doctrines and principles, and in the ordinary language of the day, no one misunderstood them.
The unhappy black race were separated from the white by indelible marks, and the laws long before established, and were never thought of or spoken of except as property … .”
Taney, then, did exactly what Justice Thomas and the “originalist” five-member majority in our Supreme Court have said should be done: He explored the attitudes, state statutes, literature and history of the time to accurately ascertain “what the public at the time would have understood the words” of the Constitution to mean. In other words, to determine what was the original intent of the founders. He correctly noted that the states that condoned slavery would never have approved of a Constitution which would in any way diminish their right to own slaves.
Taney then properly concluded that African-Americans were not among the “people” referred to in the Constitution. The
Dred Scott decision was an unmitigated disaster for the country, the Supreme Court, and worst of all, for African Americans.
It was proof that a too unbending adherence to strict constructionism can end up destroying or discrediting the very document the strict constructionists would hold inviolate.
Of course, the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments rendered the
Dred Scott decision and its unconscionable results a nullity (although Governor Mike Huckabee recently proclaimed it is still good law); however, it should be remembered that it was written by a “strict constructionist” judge —just the kind of judge that Justice Thomas says he is and whom he admires. If Justice Taney and the majority of his colleagues had conferred certain protected rights on members of the black race, he would have done what the New York Court of Appeals did in 1860 in (
Lemmon v. People) ruling that slaves brought temporarily into the state from slaveholding states were free.
As it was written, however, the Dred Scott decision set the fuse for the Civil War by undoing the hard-fought compromises of 1850 and the Missouri Compromise, which had held the country together."