The obsolete constitution

[Joohan]

This is more directed towards those who consider themselves as ardent supporters of the constitution and are dissatisfied with the current liberal climate of the United States.

Acknowledging your current dissatisfaction with the state of affairs in this nation, how is it that you can continue to support the current US constitution? You may argue that our nation has ran itself upon it's current course as a result of individuals and leaders ignoring the rules within the constitution or the intent of them, thus the document itself is not to blame but poor leaders; however, in such a case, it must be acknowledged that the constitution was powerless and failed to stop such corruptions from occurring - thus making it incompetent. The other line of thought then would be that the constitution does in fact uphold our current state of affairs because of how loosely organized and defined it was in the first place, such a case meaning that it is the foundation of a state which you are at odds with. If the constitution can only either be found as incompetent in upholding the vision held by the founders or as being the basis for our current state, then, why would you support it?

I am personally dissatisfied with our constitution, though I admire the vision upheld by our founding fathers - it was a very different time, and 200 years of wear and tear has demonstrated the documents many weaknesses. I am not entirely certain of what I would support as an alternative, but I am sure that a radical change is necessary.

[The New California Republic]

This is more directed towards those who consider themselves as ardent supporters of the constitution and are dissatisfied with the current liberal climate of the United States.

Acknowledging your current dissatisfaction with the state of affairs in this nation, how is it that you can continue to support the current US constitution? You may argue that our nation has ran itself upon it's current course as a result of individuals and leaders ignoring the rules within the constitution or the intent of them, thus the document itself is not to blame but poor leaders; however, in such a case, it must be acknowledged that the constitution was powerless and failed to stop such corruptions from occurring - thus making it incompetent. The other line of thought then would be that the constitution does in fact uphold our current state of affairs because of how loosely organized and defined it was in the first place, such a case meaning that it is the foundation of a state which you are at odds with. If the constitution can only either be found as incompetent in upholding the vision held by the founders or as being the basis for our current state, then, why would you support it?

I am personally dissatisfied with our constitution, though I admire the vision upheld by our founding fathers - it was a very different time, and 200 years of wear and tear has demonstrated the documents many weaknesses. I am not entirely certain of what I would support as an alternative, but I am sure that a radical change is necessary.

What faults specifically do you think that it has? You have given vague references to it being incompetent in the face of corruption, but isn't that the case with almost every document of law out there, that they can either be circumvented or corrupted in various ways, or are unable to prevent corruption? It could be argued that documents themselves cannot prevent corruption, only the actions of people can, so the point about the constitution being unable to prevent corruption is invalidated from the start.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

I'll mention one obvious point: it can be amended.

[The New California Republic]

I'll mention one obvious point: it can be amended.

Indeed it can. But it seems that the OP considers the flaws in it to be much more fundamental than that, requiring the constitution to be completely scrapped.

[Flawless Walruses]

"The strength of a wall depends on the courage of the men who who defend it."
- apocryphal, attributed to Genghis Khan

The men who command the bayonets (and banknotes) cannot be compelled by a piece of paper, only by their dependency on others.

Written constitutions and codes of law must have seemed magical and mysterious in an age of general illiteracy (Hamurabi's, for example), but they have teeth only as long as they represent the will of the members of powerful. As soon as they don't, creative minds have always "reinterpreted" them to permit whatever the powerful want, and oppose whatever the powerful oppose. Witness Article 1 section 8, and the expansive definitions of "interstate commerce". When creativity fails, judges and politicians can simply make up loopholes where no loophole ever existed - "obscenity" and "national security" .

The only way to give Constitutions teeth is to make them out of something other than paper, something that can enforce itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_contract is one way to do it, but building a "smart contract" and political consensus to create chain of dependency all the way from a mathematical blockchain to a soldier in the rain is going to be a daunting project.

[Dagnia]

What specifically should be changed? Dissatisfaction with leadership is high in most democracies at the moment, and there is no common theme in the way their government is run (presidential, semi-presidential, parliamentary, unitary, federal, social democratic, darwinian capitalist, elections every x# years, etc.). The only common theme is the people running these countries, old elites who can jet themselves or just their money to anywhere in the world and have no real stake in anything and will happily see you starve if your existence gets in the way of their visions for the world or just them making an extra dollar.

[Joohan]

This is more directed towards those who consider themselves as ardent supporters of the constitution and are dissatisfied with the current liberal climate of the United States.

Acknowledging your current dissatisfaction with the state of affairs in this nation, how is it that you can continue to support the current US constitution? You may argue that our nation has ran itself upon it's current course as a result of individuals and leaders ignoring the rules within the constitution or the intent of them, thus the document itself is not to blame but poor leaders; however, in such a case, it must be acknowledged that the constitution was powerless and failed to stop such corruptions from occurring - thus making it incompetent. The other line of thought then would be that the constitution does in fact uphold our current state of affairs because of how loosely organized and defined it was in the first place, such a case meaning that it is the foundation of a state which you are at odds with. If the constitution can only either be found as incompetent in upholding the vision held by the founders or as being the basis for our current state, then, why would you support it?

I am personally dissatisfied with our constitution, though I admire the vision upheld by our founding fathers - it was a very different time, and 200 years of wear and tear has demonstrated the documents many weaknesses. I am not entirely certain of what I would support as an alternative, but I am sure that a radical change is necessary.

What faults specifically do you think that it has? You have given vague references to it being incompetent in the face of corruption, but isn't that the case with almost every document of law out there, that they can either be circumvented or corrupted in various ways, or are unable to prevent corruption? It could be argued that documents themselves cannot prevent corruption, only the actions of people can, so the point about the constitution being unable to prevent corruption is invalidated from the start.

My OP was vague on purpose. I am not pointing to any single article of the constitution as the cause of it's inadequacies, but rather the document as it's whole as being inadequate. The point of the constitution upon it's creation was to establish a system free from the corrupting tendencies prevalent in the British model. However, over the course of this nation's history, we have found that despite the safeguards initially placed in our constitution that we have adopted numerous negative qualities: a nearly supreme judiciary, party domination of government institutions, machine politics, ghost backers, etc ( nothing to mention of the social aspects, if you are of that ideological persuasion ).

The initial intent of the constitution was to avoid such qualities - and we find now that it is insufficient. Something new, and more than an amendment, is needed.

[Joohan]

I'll mention one obvious point: it can be amended.

An amendment isn't going to reverse 241 years of jurisprudence.

[Joohan]

"The strength of a wall depends on the courage of the men who who defend it."
- apocryphal, attributed to Genghis Khan

The men who command the bayonets (and banknotes) cannot be compelled by a piece of paper, only by their dependency on others.

Written constitutions and codes of law must have seemed magical and mysterious in an age of general illiteracy (Hamurabi's, for example), but they have teeth only as long as they represent the will of the members of powerful. As soon as they don't, creative minds have always "reinterpreted" them to permit whatever the powerful want, and oppose whatever the powerful oppose. Witness Article 1 section 8, and the expansive definitions of "interstate commerce". When creativity fails, judges and politicians can simply make up loopholes where no loophole ever existed - "obscenity" and "national security" .

The only way to give Constitutions teeth is to make them out of something other than paper, something that can enforce itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_contract is one way to do it, but building a "smart contract" and political consensus to create chain of dependency all the way from a mathematical blockchain to a soldier in the rain is going to be a daunting project.

I am not too familiar with smart contracts. Could you explain the idea you had in mind?

[Pope Joan]

It will be amusing to observe the gyrations of those who image they have the power to replace this foundational document.

[Joohan]

It will be amusing to observe the gyrations of those who image they have the power to replace this foundational document.

Isn't that pretty much all debate on the internet is?

[Bombadil]

It may be imperfect and perhaps a complete rewrite might be in order but.. it's a headache even contemplating the amount of partisan screaming that would be involved in doing so..

..for any of its imperfections it can be amended and I think that's probably the way to go.

[Hammer Britannia]

OP, you're Right. There should be a new constitution

Amendment 1. I am the Senate
Amendment 2. I have Unlimted Power
Amendment 3. You can own whatever firearm you want (Including Tanks, Battleships, and RPGs, no nukes sorry ancaps)
Amendment 4. Pineapple on Pizza is punishable by death
Amendment 5. What am I doing with my life
Amendment 6. Send help, he has a gun. My address is 3303 Sage Rd, Houston HELP

There, it's perfect.

[Pope Joan]

On the positive side, it would keep the main stream media occupied for awhile, which would be an improvement

[Godular]

It is the fact that it can be amended that keeps it from being obsolete.

[Joohan]

It may be imperfect and perhaps a complete rewrite might be in order but.. it's a headache even contemplating the amount of partisan screaming that would be involved in doing so..

..for any of its imperfections it can be amended and I think that's probably the way to go.

I don't think that a single amendment will be enough, and if we are doing a plethora of amendments we might as well just rewrite the whole thing. Of course such things are hard - but woe is the life of the easy.

[Joohan]

OP, you're Right. There should be a new constitution

Amendment 1. I am the Senate
Amendment 2. I have Unlimted Power
Amendment 3. You can own whatever firearm you want (Including Tanks, Battleships, and RPGs, no nukes sorry ancaps)
Amendment 4. Pineapple on Pizza is punishable by death
Amendment 5. What am I doing with my life

There, it's perfect.

You've got my vote

[Kernen]

I'm curious what, exactly, is obsolete? Is there a set of failings in the articles? A balance of powers issue? Or is the notion of a nigh-immutable document of the nation's highest laws itself an issue?

[Joohan]

It is the fact that it can be amended that keeps it from being obsolete.

a single amendment would be inadequate, and if a plethora were to be proposed than we might as well just rewrite.

[Xmara]

And what do we replace it with?

[Kernen]

It is the fact that it can be amended that keeps it from being obsolete.

a single amendment would be inadequate, and if a plethora were to be proposed than we might as well just rewrite.

Not necessarily. What areas do you believe require adjustment specifically?

[Dark Socialism]

And what do we replace it with?

The Futurist Manifesto

[Bombadil]

It may be imperfect and perhaps a complete rewrite might be in order but.. it's a headache even contemplating the amount of partisan screaming that would be involved in doing so..

..for any of its imperfections it can be amended and I think that's probably the way to go.

I don't think that a single amendment will be enough, and if we are doing a plethora of amendments we might as well just rewrite the whole thing. Of course such things are hard - but woe is the life of the easy.

I think a more pressing issue is campaign finance, that's essentially where the corruption comes in. Honestly a lot of campaigning and lobbying could be managed online.

Remove those and I think the Constitution stands very well as a structure for government. If you've ever seen the EU Constitution, which runs to some billion pages.. that's the likely outcome of a complete rewrite, so much faff it becomes even more political.

[Thermodolia]

This is more directed towards those who consider themselves as ardent supporters of the constitution and are dissatisfied with the current liberal climate of the United States.

Acknowledging your current dissatisfaction with the state of affairs in this nation, how is it that you can continue to support the current US constitution? You may argue that our nation has ran itself upon it's current course as a result of individuals and leaders ignoring the rules within the constitution or the intent of them, thus the document itself is not to blame but poor leaders; however, in such a case, it must be acknowledged that the constitution was powerless and failed to stop such corruptions from occurring - thus making it incompetent. The other line of thought then would be that the constitution does in fact uphold our current state of affairs because of how loosely organized and defined it was in the first place, such a case meaning that it is the foundation of a state which you are at odds with. If the constitution can only either be found as incompetent in upholding the vision held by the founders or as being the basis for our current state, then, why would you support it?

I am personally dissatisfied with our constitution, though I admire the vision upheld by our founding fathers - it was a very different time, and 200 years of wear and tear has demonstrated the documents many weaknesses. I am not entirely certain of what I would support as an alternative, but I am sure that a radical change is necessary.

What faults specifically do you think that it has? You have given vague references to it being incompetent in the face of corruption, but isn't that the case with almost every document of law out there, that they can either be circumvented or corrupted in various ways, or are unable to prevent corruption? It could be argued that documents themselves cannot prevent corruption, only the actions of people can, so the point about the constitution being unable to prevent corruption is invalidated from the start.

I believe it might have something to do with treating women as equals and the fact that gay people are allowed to be openly gay and blacks aren’t in slavery

[Kernen]

I don't think that a single amendment will be enough, and if we are doing a plethora of amendments we might as well just rewrite the whole thing. Of course such things are hard - but woe is the life of the easy.

I think a more pressing issue is campaign finance, that's essentially where the corruption comes in. Honestly a lot of campaigning and lobbying could be managed online.

Remove those and I think the Constitution stands very well as a structure for government. If you've ever seen the EU Constitution, which runs to some billion pages.. that's the likely outcome of a complete rewrite, so much faff it becomes even more political.

Campaign finance law can be effectively dealt with via statute, though. No need for a constitutional amendment on a topic that will necessarily require routine revisions.