America's Constitution is terrible. Let's throw it out and start over.

[XacerbatedDem]

The American Constitution is an outdated, malfunctioning piece of junk — and it's only getting worse.

When written, the Constitution made a morally hideous compromise with slavery that took a war and 750,000 lives to make right. And while its basic structure sort of worked for awhile in the 20th century, the Constitution is now falling prey to the same defects that has toppled every other similar governing document the world over.

The truth seems clear: America is going to have to overhaul its basic structure of government, or eventually it will fall to pieces.

The major problem with America's Constitution is that it creates a system in which elections generally do not produce functioning governments, and there is no mechanism to break the deadlock (like calling snap elections). Most of the time, control of the House, Senate, and presidency is split between the two parties in some way. Bipartisan compromises to keep government functioning used to be common, but are near-impossible anymore due to extreme party polarization. So as Michael Kinnucan points out, during divided government "there is de facto no legislative body."

https://theweek.com/articles/750816/americas-constitution-terrible-lets-throw-start-over

This article is from 2018, but it really surprised me with what’s happened since then. It promotes 5 things that should be changed: “To fix the problem, America should aim to make itself more like a proportional parliamentary democracy, by far the most successful and road-tested form of government.”

What do you think?

[WarGamer]

1. lol...

no problem, just a Constitutional Convention...

e-z

[XacerbatedDem]

5. Ok, good start, not easy.

but what is these days?

[WarGamer]

9. It'd be harder than anyone can imagine.

You see you'd have to get a super-majority of States and Americans to agree to it.

Dems would only agree to it if it made the country more free and progressive.

GOP'ers would only agree to it if they could make it more conservative and shun Dems.

Understand?

The only time they will ALL agree on a CC will be to write up dissolution papers... and split into 2-3 countries.

[yardwork]

15. The problem is that it would come out far worse, not better.

In this political climate, we risk a theocratic authoritarian state. I agree that the U.S. Constitution needs to be updated. I think it's much too risky to try it now.

[FalloutShelter]

2. It has long been the objective of the right to

Get enough states onboard to convene a Constitutional Convention so that they can take the whole thing apart. So there’s that.
A hard no for me.

[Rebl2]

19. Same here

[relayerbob]

3. Good luck with that

The GOP and the red states will enshrine every single thing you hate into the document. I used to think that way, but while it is a mess, a rewrite at this time, would result in a complete loss of our freedoms.

[Hoyt]

4. Won't happen anytime soon.

[Scrivener7]

6. We'll get right on that.

[Skittles]

7. I'd rather it was the Electoral College that was thrown out

THAT has long outlived its purpose and is now damaging America

[Rebl2]

22. Agreed

[treestar]

66. The filibuster and the electoral college

getting rid of both would go a long way.

[lagomorph777]

83. That's in the Constitution.

So it's not actually a different issue.

[Gaugamela]

8. I wouldn't call it a piece of junk, I think that historically it's a pretty remarkable document, but

I agree that it is obsolete in many ways. Political Science has made a lot of advances since then.

Personally, I think that the winner take all voting system, along with the 2nd Amendment and the undemocratic aspects of the constitution (the structure of the senate, the electoral college) helps to both enable and encourage right wing authoritarians. Every time they pull something over on the majority it gives them a power rush, and sends them back to go even further.

Unfortunately, far-right conservatives have been angling to rewrite the constitution for decades now, and any convention for that purpose might well be taken over by them.

[brush]

10. It needs updating, that's for sure. The 13th-15th amendments...

in the '60s on citizenship and voting rights helped, as did the 19th amendment for women's right to vote in the early '20s. I'm saying that to say the Constitution is/was a good framework that can be fixed...if it wasn't so hard to get amendments done.

Congress should work on making updating the Constitution easier.

The 2nd amendment desperately needs to be updated from wording pertaining to muzzle-loading muskets to modern day weapons that can fire 900 rpm, and should not be in the hands of anyone but the military and police.

We shouldn't just throw it out the whole Constitution though.

[Solomon]

65. Only to the military. I wouldn't give them to police.

[brush]

78. On second thought, I agree. Only to the military.

[PJMcK]

11. Two ways to accomplish your suggestion

1. Constitutional Amendments. There hasn't been one since 1972 and it was never ratified. So, good luck with that.

2. Constitutional Convention where the whole document would be open for debate. Republicans would love this because they could dismantle many of our rights. It would also allow for the elimination of the Bill of Rights and the other Amendments.

We definitely must get rid of the Electoral College but that, too, would require an Amendment.

We're fundamentally stuck in a political rut.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

23. 27th Amendment was in 1992. n/t

[SickOfTheOnePct]

37. 27th Amendment

was ratified in 1992, but it passed through Congress in 1789, so not since 1972 has an amendment made it through Congress.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

75. Not the claim of the person I was responding to.

"There hasn't been one since 1972 and it was never ratified."

[SickOfTheOnePct]

79. Whatever makes you feel good n/t

[Cuthbert Allgood]

81. They said there hasn't been an amendment since 1972. There has been.

They didn't talk about the procedure or other time line. I don't understand why just pointing out that there has been is somehow me trying to feel good about myself.

[Deuxcents]

12. Why is our Constitution suddenly not relevant?

I dare say our Founding Fathers, with all their personal imperfections, were a whole lot more far sighted than these people today calling for it to be overhauled. I also vote no. Hell no. We need to make our country more equatable and we can do that with what we have.

[brush]

24. Some amendments to update the Constitution are in order.

Last edited Mon Mar 7, 2022, 10:48 PM - Edit history (1)

It's a good framework but the founding fathers, as farsighted as they were, had no way of anticipating the technological advancements that would come about since the document was written and ratified...such as automatic weapons that can fire 900 round per minute instead of muzzle loading muskets which took two minutes to reload (2nd Amendment).

They did provide a way for updating the document with amendments. As a matter of fact, they themselves made the first ten amendments with the Bill of Rights.

The 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th amendments have improved the document since then but Congress needs to pass laws now that can make amending the Constitution easier as it's way to difficult now.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

38. Congress can't just

"pass laws now that can make amending the Constitution easier...". The only way to change the way the Constitution is amended is to amend the Constitution with the changes.

[brush]

39. You sure about that? I'm not.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

40. Yes, I'm sure about that

Any changes to the Constitution require an amendment; it can't just be changed via legislation.

[brush]

41. I suggested Congressional action to make the process more accessible, not to...

actually make amentments.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

42. What you suggested

or rather, what you said is "...but Congress needs to pass laws now that can make amending the Constitution easier as it's way to difficult now."

The process for amending the Constitution is part of the Constitution. To "make the process more accessible" you would have to change the process. And since the process is part of the Constitution, the only way to change it is to actually pass an amendment that makes the change.

Congress can't just pass laws that change the Constitution.

[fescuerescue]

73. Not to mention the Internet.

They had no way to know that Russians and right wing extremist would abuse the ability to communicate to millions and then hide behind the 1st amendment.

[MineralMan]

13. Who will write the new one?

Tell me that, and how they will be selected.

Think hard before answering.

[WarGamer]

17. And that's the problem.

Approx 30 of the States would want Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Rand Paul writing it...

Approx 20 States would like to see Sen Whitehouse, Blumenthal and Former POTUS Obama write it.

Like I said... the ONLY thing that 80% of the population will agree to... some time in the future, is a dissolution.

[MineralMan]

21. Exactly

[XacerbatedDem]

28. I am not promoting getting rid of the Constitution.

Hey, I was only trying to promote discussion. The article had some good points and I wondered what you all here think about it. I'm not thinking hard about comebacks.

[Hekate]

53. Actually you said it should be thrown out & started over. What do you mean when you say that?

I know what I mean when I say “throw something out and start over.” Hm?

[XacerbatedDem]

61. I cited an article I read and brought it up here to see what people thought about it.

I didn't write the article. It was written by RYAN COOPER
JANUARY 26, 2018. Did you even read the entire article?

[MineralMan]

74. Discussion often includes questions from participants.

You aren't answering questions.

[XacerbatedDem]

77. I think, in my initial post, I asked what people thought of the article...

Those questions were directed to/at me, as if I wrote the article.

The whole idea was to get your responses so I could understand the ins/ outs of the ideas the article brings up.

What is wrong with asking what people think without trying to influence their responses so that I can have a better understanding of the whole affair?

What I don't understand is why people keep attacking me, personally, and not the article. That seems more like bullying. I guess it's the subject matter.

Believe me I'll think twice before posting anything ever again, some people here are just hateful. One guy called me a troll! And I've seen him call others the same thing. Half the time, I don't even think they hit the link and read the article.

God forbid that anyone asks for advice around here.

[Demsrule86]

14. Let me think...hmm well NO NO and NO...in case you missed my answer NONONONO.

[XacerbatedDem]

16. Ok, but what about the 5 ideas?

1. Get rid of the Senate filibuster.
2. Radically change the way House members are elected.
3. Neuter the Senate.
4. Elect the president from the House.
5. Throw the entire Constitution in the garbage.

What do you think about that?

I think the writer had some interesting points, maybe they could be adapted?

Obviously a no on that last one.

[WarGamer]

18. We've already told you.

There are ways to do all those things.

And they will (almost) never happen.

[XacerbatedDem]

27. That's fine by me.

I didn't write the article, I ran across it and just thought I'd post it to see what you all thought about it. Thanks for the feedback.

[brush]

26. No to all of those but no. 1.It's not in the Constitution.

It's just a Senate rule adopted in the late 18th century. It definitely needs to go.

No. 5 of course can stay, but absolutely ditch the Electoral College.

[Mr.Bill]

20. The Constitution has a mechanism to change (amend) it,

but in today's political climate the bar is too high to even do that.

[Fiendish Thingy]

25. Be careful what you wish for

Do you want ALEC writing the new Constitution?

Because that’s what would happen under current circumstances.

The only way I’d be in favor of changing the constitution is:

If Dems had solid majorities in both houses, including a supermajority in the senate;
A Dem was in the WH;
SCOTUS was expanded to 21 seats and packed with liberal justices;
Citizens United was overturned;
The Voting Rights Act was restored.

All of this would need to happen before a constitutional convention. Otherwise it would be too risky.

I’m not holding my breath,

[appalachiablue]

58. + ALEC, Kochs, more already holding practice const. conventions.

[vanlassie]

29. Welcome to DU.

[XacerbatedDem]

31. Thank you

[FakeNoose]

30. The Libertarians have been wanting to do that for 50 years

Why do you want to help them?

[XacerbatedDem]

32. Not trying to help the Libertarians.

Just trying to make up my own mind about the article I read. Didn't know if it was a good idea or not, so I thought I'd post it to see what you all think. You all seem to get upset when somebody asks questions, then start looking for underlying motives and such. I was just curious.

[appalachiablue]

59. ++ Toss the pesky parts re equality, gen. welfare, etc.

[Baked Potato]

33. Just need to let the earmarks work. Nt

[Sogo]

34. What do I think? I think you're a troll.

[XacerbatedDem]

35. Why?

I don't think that's fair and I reported you.

Have you even read the article?

So any body who asks for help in trying to understand something is a troll?

Totally unfair!

[Hekate]

54. From my point of view you are not "asking for help," but being deliberately provocative...

…for reasons that are not clear.

I can see how someone else might take exception to that.

[XacerbatedDem]

62. You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is.

But I stand by what I said.

[treestar]

68. oh for heaven's sake

you're proving the left can be as anti-intellectual as the right.

[LiberatedUSA]

36. Let me get my trusty Game Genie...

…snap the US Constitution cartridge into it, blow on it real good, stick in the Nintendo and see what cheat codes we can use.

[roamer65]

43. That would bring the breakup of the republic.

There is NO WAY blue and red states can get along on a constitutional rewrite.

[radius777]

44. It does need an overhaul to be more small d democratic.

Right now a rural conservative minority essentially holds the country hostage. House and local elections are overly partisan, gerrymandering etc means such officials are not accountable. There is too much big money and special interests that control outcomes.

Something can get done if we put together a truly bipartisan commission that looks at all of the structural issues. Even many regular Republicans don't like how partisan and rigid politics have become. I personally favor an overhaul which would break the two party system and open it up to multiple parties, to get more ideas and choices, that would lead to a healthier democracy.

[Hekate]

45. Take people's comments to heart. Most of all, recognize WHO really wants a Constitutional Convention

Hint: They are not friends of democracy.

The answer from me is a hard NO.

[cinematicdiversions]

46. I believe America is the second oldest country in the world as measured by Government.

The constitution is a remarkable document superior to almost all that came before it.

[iemanja]

47. This is the last point in time that I would want to see the constitution redone

Not with the raving lunatics in the GOP bearing influence.

[treestar]

69. It can't be done "now"

it would be a long process.

At some point, a huge urban majority is going to be sick of being ruled by a rural minority. That shift in population is only going to get worse.

[peppertree]

48. Mend it - don't end it

We've amended it 27 times already - surely more reforms could still be made.

Yes, it would be difficult - but certainly no less difficult than replacing it.

[XacerbatedDem]

49. I am tending to agree with you.

The overall consensus above does too, that it would be too hard to replace the constitution.

So, how to amend it. That's rough, also. There we run into the problems we've been having lately with things as they are now, with the filibuster. That's what caught my eye in the article:

"Even with unified control of government, a party now only gets one big law per year through the reconciliation process. To actually govern in a way that would be normal for any other country, it takes unified control of government plus a Senate supermajority of 60 votes to get past the filibuster — something that has happened only three times since the Second World War. If Democrats take control of either the House or the Senate in 2018, we are likely in for even fiercer partisan combat and high-stakes standoffs."

When I read that, I thought how prophetic. Seems like what we're going through now. I've always honored and admired the Constitution, but with the Repugs fighting everything we try to do, how can we get anything done? We need to get rid of the filibuster, for sure.

[XacerbatedDem]

52. My original thought was that some of these laws should be set before the voting public.

We do that in the states. If congress can't agree on the law, put it before the people. So many of these congressmen and senators are just using dirty tricks, or procedures to stop laws that are definitely needed in this country, even though they are supposed to be representing us. I do not agree with that. If they can't get their act together, maybe it should be put before the people as a national referendum, where we could vote on it democratically. Isn't it always said, "by the people and for the people."

I have to get some sleep, I have a VA appointment early tomorrow.

Thank you to all who offered a serious discussion of this subject.

[Hekate]

56. "The People" make some really stupid laws. Have you looked at the Proposition system in my state

… of California? Dumb, dumb, dumb.

[XacerbatedDem]

63. Granted.

I guess I am just getting tired of voting for people to represent me, and then they get into congress and do whatever they want after talking to all the lobbyists in Washington. Of course, the next time they are up for re-election, I would have the chance to vote them out, but by then, sometimes, the damage is done.

I remember a SYFY movie I watched once where people had these watch-like things on their wrist, kinda like a fit-bit, or whatever it's called, and it would alert them to another bill coming up for a vote, and they would acknowledge it and vote immediately on the bill being proposed. I thought it was an interesting concept.

[treestar]

70. Yes, it worked because both sides were respectful

now Repugs just use the rules to their advantage to gain as much power as they can. It's easier for them due to the way the Constitution is so tough to amend.

[Straw Man]

50. That's not necessary.

Getting rid of the electoral college and of partisan gerrymandering would do most of what you want. Something to think about: the two-party system that is causing us such grief is nowhere in the Constitution.

[rockfordfile]

51. wtf is this Russian crap?

[treestar]

71. Try reading the article.

[Lucid Dreamer]

55. How about this for a thought experiment?

XD> America's Constitution is terrible. Let's throw it out and start over.

Premises:
1. There are almost 200 countries in the UN.

2. Each one has some sort of documented basis for its government. [citation needed]

3. Ranked in the order of desirability, The Constitution of the United States is not number 1.

What countries have foundations that could be modified to make a better basis for our government?

[Patterson]

57. I don't want Republicans anywhere near the Constitution.

[Raine]

60. Leave it alone! 😖 nt

[ecstatic]

64. The world is changing so fast and Congress is deadlocked.

Unable to address important issues in a timely fashion.

[treestar]

67. Interesting article along with some of the linked ones

Perhaps in time people will come to see those problems.

The filibuster for sure needs to go. That can be done too. The Senate is already undemocratic so why did we decided to make that even worse?

When it comes clear we are under minority rule, people will be interested. All of the "give up right away since it won't happen right now" in the thread overlooks that other changes took years. Many women who worked hard on women's vote never lived to see it happen, but they worked at it.

We can get rid of the EC too, if we work at it. Just because we won't see it in our lifetimes doesn't mean it can't be done.

The urban/rural divide will get worse and worse. At some point, the more numerous urban citizens are going to say "enough." Urban people can have guns too - when there are so many more of them, if that is what is takes, the rurals will have to give in.

[fescuerescue]

72. So. Revolution and civil war eh

I'll pass.

[jimmy the one]

76. the dead should not rule the quick

The American Constitution is an outdated, malfunctioning piece of junk — and it's only getting worse.

I think this a valid observation. It is outdated. Thomas Jefferson thought the constitution should be rewritten every 19 and a half years:

Thomas Jefferson believed that a country’s constitution should be rewritten every 19 years. Instead, the U.S. Constitution, which Jefferson did not help to write (he was in Paris serving as U.S. minister to France when the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia), has prevailed since 1789.
“Jefferson thought the dead should not rule the living, thus constitutions should expire frequently, but the fact is that the U.S. Constitution quickly became enshrined by the public and is the oldest constitution in the world,” said Zachary Elkins, a professor of political science at Illinois.
https://fantasticfacts.net/117/

This was not a one time flippant opinion from jefferson. He restated it at intervals during his life; Iirc at least 20 years apart did he reiterate this, as well as surely in between.

So many things have changed since 1789 & the bill of rights 1791. If the election process was in effect as it was then, in 2016 Hillary Clinton would've been elected vice president to a president (cough) trump, since she recieved the second most electoral votes.
I think Jefferson's reasons for wanting a 20 year rewrite were somewhat financially based, but it is what it is.

[Hortensis]

80. Life's gotten a bit too aggravating, low tolerance for exacerbations. nt

[themaguffin]

82. The GOP is itching to do just that.