The Constitution is at once sacrosanct, and deeply flawed. Much of it is vague, ambiguous, or outdated. What’s more, the system of government that we have stands in sharp contrast to the parliamentary system employed by every (or almost every) other First-World democracy.
Suppose the pieces are set in motion to write a new Constitution (doesn’t matter how those pieces are set in motion). The new Constitution installs a parliament, based on the best practices of the European parliamentary model. It also retains the essence of the Bill of Rights, BUT: those freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights (press, religion, etc.) are written in such a way as to be modern, relevant, and less ambiguous. For example: the clause outlining freedom of religion would include language that precisely and unambiguously lays out the Separation of Church and State, such that the meaning of the phrase won’t, in future generations, be subject to conflicting court decisions. Or to put it more succinctly, it would be written in such a way that there would be no need to go to court to determine whether or not it’s Constitutional for a public high school coach to lead his team in prayer before a football game, for example.
I, for one, would be all for it. The Constitution, as it exists now, has largely served its purpose, and not always to great effect. What’s more, the Parliamentary model, though far from perfect, is leaps & bounds better than the disaster we have now. It’s resulted in, among other things, a two-party stranglehold on our democracy, whereas the parliamentary model allows for third parties, and fourth and fifth and sixth parties, to have a voice. For another thing, the current system allows for gridlock and government shutdowns; in the parliamentary model, if the government can’t or won’t govern, elections are held and a new government is put into place.
So, American Dopers: has the time come for a new Constitution?
Of course. But if I were in charge of writing that clause, I would allow for some limitations, such as background checks, keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, that sort of thing.
I’m all in favor of a new Constitution that says what I want it to, of course. And I might be reasonably happy with your version.
Is that what we’d get, though? Putting up amendments one at a time risks, at worst, the downside of the specific amendment (or of not getting it.) Setting up to rewrite the whole thing at once entails way more risk than I’d be willing to take.
Could not this be accomplished with amendments to the current constitution? (Presumably any congress motivated enough to throw out and rewrite the constitution would also be amenable to significant amendment.) If there are unamendable parts of the constitution, which of those parts would you find problematic?
There are changes I’d like to see in our Constitution. But I’d rather see them enacted through amendments than through a complete re-write.
I see our current Constitution as a document that’s around 90% good and 10% flawed. And I’d worry that a re-write would be more likely to mess up the good parts rather than fix the flaws.
If I get to write the new Constitution, of course I’m all for it. If a bunch of other clowns (and let’s face it, that’s who’ll be writing the thing) get to write it, I’m out. It’s a minor miracle that our current Constitution was written in the first place, and despite all its faults, it’s still better than any other Constitution I can think of, written or otherwise. Certainly it could be improved, but like using a claw hammer to fix a watch, almost anything anybody tries will make things worse, not better. Considering the few ways it could be improved, and the almost infinite number of ways it is likely to be ruined, I doubt I would ever support a Constitutional Convention.
WADR I don’t think this kind of rewording is possible.
You could rewrite the First Amendment to be twenty volumes long, and there would still be fringe cases. What counts as “leading”? What if the students requested it? What if only one of the students objects? Etc.
“No government agency will endorse, favor, or promote any religion or religious organization; in the eyes of the government religions and religious organizations shall be considered private civil organizations and treated accordingly. (This includes regarding taxation and financial disclosure.) No government agent will act in a way that endorses, favors, or promotes a religion or religious organization while acting in their capacity as an agent of the government. Religious, philosophical, and atheistic beliefs, and membership in organizations centered on such beliefs, are considered protected classifications. (See protected classifications.)”
So “leading” would be problematic when the coach promotes religion (by, for example, telling people to “pray”). And it doesn’t matter if the students request it, in the same way a student request to buy them beer doesn’t make buying them beer legal.
If only one student objects, then the other students don’t care about the law. Doesn’t make the other students right.
The OP’s suggestion would be akin to trying to right a policy manual for citizenry. There’s no way you could take into consideration every type of situation that citizens would face. And your attempt would be so large and voluminous and would quickly become outdated as society and technology evolved. The idea is myopic and not well thought out.
Well said. I prefer more succinct writing which is re-interpreted for changing circumstances.
The trend in legislation for some time has been to have every specific duty, obligation, and prohibition spelled out. This leads to more and more voluminous legislation, with protection for every moneyed interest, which instantly becomes obsolete, and which is too cumbersome to allow consistent application/enforcement.
In our recent society, we are shying away from many shared values such as “decency.” “Don’t be a jerk” works pretty well around here, but not out there. And entities seem to try to style their actions into the gaps. You can act in a way ANY decent person would know to be dickish, but so long as you can claim, “It isn’t specifically precluded…”
As others have said, whatever the shortcomings of our existing Const, I cannot imagine trusting that anything NEARLY as good would result from the actors/institutions/forces I perceive to be influential today.
Is there going to be anything in this new version of the First about government not interfering with the free practice of religion?
He wasn’t telling anyone to pray - he was leading them.
That’s begging the question. Buying beer for minors is illegal regardless of their consent. If the students consent, and want the coach to lead them, isn’t that interfering with the free practice of their religion?
Unless, as I said, there isn’t going to be anything in the new First to protect free exercise of religion. If that’s the case, then no, I would not support a new Constitution that said that.
Society didn’t use to be based on decency. If you don’t believe me, ask a woman or a black person or a gay person.
Most of the problems we’re experiencing now come from people being told that they have to start acting decent towards people who are different from them. And they resent having to show this decency.
My biggest question would be…why? To what end? I get it…you want to live in a European style parliamentary system. Presumably with European type parliamentary citizens who think like you do. This begs the question…why not move to Europe, instead of try and make the US like Europe?
The thing is, our Constitution isn’t written in stone. There is no reason to write a new one…we have the mechanisms to change the one we have. Assuming you have enough support to do so. So, a couple of things that leap out at me. If you DO have such support, then you can change the Constitution using the mechanisms we already have. You could basically re-write the entire thing in fact, over time (well, you could write a series of Amendments that change the parts you don’t like or added on features you want). If you DON’T have the support (which you wouldn’t to do what you are proposing) then this seems to be a case of what you really want is to make the US as you would like it to be…i.e. your ideal of what a European style democratic country is, complete with happy, European type citizens doing what you want them to do and being what you want them to be.
To answer the question in the title, no…I’m not into that. If we, the people want to change the Constitution then we can. If we want to do away with any of the Amendments or make them say something different then we can do that. Anything COULD be changed in there, if there is a will to do so. This isn’t even something that’s theoretical…it’s happened throughout our history as society changes. Hell, this is a feature of the thing…it’s what was intended. There is no reason to write a new one.