# American Dopers: Would You Support A New Constitution? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 25, 2019, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043 "2019-06-25T17:03:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043/41 "2019-06-27T21:54:24Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > “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. I agree with the others. You cannot write something that will get rid of court cases and disputes about its meaning. There are debates about statutory construction all of the time. Your modified First Amendment might get rid of some problems but create many more others. Apart from eliminating church tax exemptions (but do they get exemptions for being non-profit charitable groups or is that “endorsing” religion?) the law is pretty much the same today. What is the point of this new amendment? ---
**Author:** ![MacTech](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c0e974/32.png) [@MacTech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MacTech)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043/42 "2019-06-27T23:51:15Z")
> [@HeyHomie](#): > > 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. Background checks _ALREADY EXIST_, Firearms purchased at an FFL (including at the “gun shows”) require the filling out of [Federal Form 4473](https://www.atf.gov/firearms/atf-form-4473-firearms-transaction-record-revisions) before any purchase, the form is entered into the NICS (National Instant Criminal background check System), and in 15 minutes to an hour depending on backlog), the ATF will return the results; Pass; background check passed, sale may proceed Delay; (More info is needed, can take up to 3 days for enhanced check, if after 3 days no results, it is considered a Pass) Fail; background check failed, sale denied the only “loophole” is a person-to-person sale and even that has a limitation that both people must live in the same state, and the seller does not suspect the customer is a prohibited person Mental illnesses, controlled substance use, domestic violence, and violent criminal offenses/felonies are all disqualifying conditions and covered on the 4473, falsifying responses/info on a 4473 is a Federal crime. there is no “gun show loophole”, that’s misinformation peddled by idiotic politicians and the media. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043/43 "2019-06-28T01:48:00Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > For sure - but I want to know what’s in it first. > > No need to bear arms, but free speech, free religion, 4th/5th Amend. rights must stay - indeed, be expanded. The Bill of Rights was written specifically because even the authors of the Constitution weren’t quite sure the original document would protect individual rights. I’d be really interested in seeing the “modern, relevant, and less ambiguous” wording that deals with whether taxing religious organizations is or isn’t a tool to drive them out of business. By the way, the right to abortion (to birth control, for that matter) is due to a rather stretchy interpretation of the 14th Amendment. And up until a Supreme Court decision in 1967, my wife and I couldn’t have gotten married in our home state. But what’s so great about a parliamentary system. If one side wins, they run everything; if the other side wins, they run everything; and if a third-party gets enough votes you end up with a coalition faster than you can say [“Italy.”](https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2013/04/24/why-is-it-so-hard-to-form-a-government-in-italy) ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043/44 "2019-06-28T02:56:41Z")
> [@MacTech](#): > > there is no “gun show loophole”, that’s misinformation peddled by idiotic politicians and the media. There may not be a specific exemption for gun shows. But there is a much broader exemption which applies everywhere, including gun shows. That’s the one you mentioned; person-to-person sales generally don’t have to comply with the regulations that apply to professional sales. So people can sell guns at a gun show by doing so as a private individual rather than as a licensed dealer. And a lot of people are doing this; government reports say that these private sellers make up 25-50% of the sellers at gun shows in states that don’t have a state law prohibiting them. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043/45 "2019-06-28T03:19:52Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > There may not be a specific exemption for gun shows. But there is a much broader exemption which applies everywhere, including gun shows. That’s the one you mentioned; person-to-person sales generally don’t have to comply with the regulations that apply to professional sales. So people can sell guns at a gun show by doing so as a private individual rather than as a licensed dealer. And a lot of people are doing this; government reports say that these private sellers make up 25-50% of the sellers at gun shows in states that don’t have a state law prohibiting them. Yes, and that can be fixed in five minutes by the ATF defining what a "dealer’ is, say by anyone selling more than 12 guns\* a year. or 25. or any reasonable number. But they flat out wont. - not counting _curios and relics_, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043/46 "2019-06-28T12:13:57Z")
I think trying to make policy decisions in a new constitution is a mistake. What we most need to decide is _how to decide things better._ In other words, how do we choose people to best represent us? That’s the area where the current constitution fails us most. Our electoral processes are a mess and perceived to be unfair to many, if not most, voters. You can not manage a country’s affairs effectively if so many don’t think their representation is fair. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043/47 "2019-06-28T13:50:07Z")
I think some of y’all are associating _parliamentary_ systems with _multi-party_ systems a little too much. As I understand it, it’s more a question of the specifics of how members of the legislature are elected (stuff like [“first-past-the-post” voting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting) and [single-member districts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-member_district)) that produces a two-party system, as opposed to the difference between a presidential system vs. a parliamentary system. Parliamentary systems are not at all incompatible with two-party systems, and historically there have been [parliamentary democracies with two-party systems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system#Examples). ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043/48 "2019-06-28T16:42:32Z")
Horrible idea, filled with naive notions. First, there is no way to draft such a document to avoid future litigation. You will leave something out, or the document will be longer than the Bible and the Kama Sutra combined, without all the naked pictures. Second, and most importantly, attempting to draft a new constitution in the current political atmosphere will end in either civil war or theocracy. Given that choice, I’d prolly have to start singing the songs of angry men… ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043/49 "2019-06-28T17:48:14Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > That is not true. What is true is that SCOTUS more or less made almost no 2nd Ad rulings until Heller, where it clarified it was a individual right. So, until Heller, it wasnt clear whether it was individual or state. Also not true, for certain values of “more or less”: [Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Supreme_Court_cases). ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043/50 "2019-06-28T18:53:07Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > Also not true, for certain values of “more or less”: [Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Supreme_Court_cases). Five decisions in a hundred years, none of which really did anything. Compare to how many 1st Ad dec there have been, literally hundreds if not thousands. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2019, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043/51 "2019-06-29T13:51:15Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > I think some of y’all are associating _parliamentary_ systems with _multi-party_ systems a little too much. As I understand it, it’s more a question of the specifics of how members of the legislature are elected (stuff like [“first-past-the-post” voting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting) and [single-member districts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-member_district)) that produces a two-party system, as opposed to the difference between a presidential system vs. a parliamentary system. Parliamentary systems are not at all incompatible with two-party systems, and historically there have been [parliamentary democracies with two-party systems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system#Examples). It depends what you mean by a “two-party system”. If you mean a system where there are two major parties and several smaller ones, then yes, that’s part of FPTP in a parliamentary system. But if by “two-party system” you mean two and only two parties, as is the case in the United States, then no, that’s not found in modern parliamentary democracies. Since World War I in Canada, and before that in the UK, there have been smaller parties as well as the two big ones; and note that the “big ones” can change over time. For example, in Britain, the Liberals were a powerhouse for the latter part of the 19th century, but lost their support after the War. In Canada, in the past 25 years, the Progressive Conservatives, the Liberals and the Conservatives have each formed government, while the Bloc Québécois, the Reform Party, the Canadian Alliance, the Conservatives, the Liberals and the New Democratic Party have all in turn been the Official Opposition. And that’s not really unusual in a parliamentary system, where the party system is much more fluid, generally, than the duopoly party system in the United States. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2019, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043/52 "2019-06-29T13:55:38Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I agree with the others. You cannot write something that will get rid of court cases and disputes about its meaning. There are debates about statutory construction all of the time. Exactly. If you don’t want court fights about the meaning of a constitutional provision, your new Constitution has to ban judicial review. Which is not unheard of. France, for example, is clearly a democratic republic, with protections for individual rights, but the scope of judicial review is much more limited and not done through the ordinary courts. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2019, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043/53 "2019-06-29T14:35:28Z")
Our current Constitution is deeply flawed because its creators were amateurs who didn’t know what they were doing. But you can hardly blame them for that: They tried their best; there just wasn’t much precedent for what they were trying, so they couldn’t have known how badly they’d botch it. Nowadays, though, we’ve got people who _should_ know better, but who would set out to deliberately make it ambiguous, vague, and poorly-structured. And a lot of those folks are the ones who would be doing the re-writing. We _could_ do lot better, but I’m not confident that we _would_. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2019, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043/54 "2019-06-29T18:34:41Z")
np ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2019, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043/55 "2019-06-29T18:35:46Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Our current Constitution is deeply flawed because its creators were amateurs who didn’t know what they were doing. … Amateurs? Madison has been in Office for over a dozen years. He got advice by mail from Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration, and John Adams. Geo Washington Presided. Rutledge has ben in politics for over 20 years. Not to mention Alexander Hamilton ,William Paterson,Edmund Randolph and many other Founding Fathers. They had seen how the Articles of Confederation didn’t work , and had the Constitutions of several states to base their work on. Not to mention, many, many nations have based their Constitutions on our 'flawed one". It has worked well for 200 years. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2019, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043/56 "2019-06-29T18:54:59Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Amateurs? > > Madison has been in Office for over a dozen years. He got advice by mail from Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration, and John Adams. Geo Washington Presided. Rutledge has ben in politics for over 20 years. Not to mention Alexander Hamilton ,William Paterson,Edmund Randolph and many other Founding Fathers. > > They had seen how the Articles of Confederation didn’t work , and had the Constitutions of several states to base their work on. Agreed! I was going to post something like this - the group that met in Philadelphia was one of the most experienced group of people versed in self-government in the western world. They had an impressive mixture of experience in government and detailed research into how governments work and how they fail. Madison and Mason in particular stand out in that regard. They certainly weren’t amateurs. > [@](#): > > Not to mention, many, many nations have based their Constitutions on our 'flawed one". The track record of other countries based on the US model has not been very impressive. This is one area where commenting on American exceptionalism does have some weight. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2019, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043/57 "2019-06-29T19:26:53Z")
Plenty of other nations have used our Constitution as a starting point or inspiration, but then improved on it. That’s the natural way that progression of ideas works. But our Founders didn’t have those other examples to work from. Look at any modern constitution, and it’ll be very, very different, as a result of all of those incremental improvements and learning from others’ example. Saying that our Constitution must be the best because so many others are based on it is like saying that the Model T is the best car. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2019, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043/58 "2019-06-29T19:30:42Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Plenty of other nations have used our Constitution as a starting point or inspiration, but then improved on it. That’s the natural way that progression of ideas works. But our Founders didn’t have those other examples to work from. > > Look at any modern constitution, and it’ll be very, very different, as a result of all of those incremental improvements and learning from others’ example. > > Saying that our Constitution must be the best because so many others are based on it is like saying that the Model T is the best car. The same with ours, there are a good number of amendments. and who said “the best”? I mean, there is a huge gap between “the best” and “deeply flawed”. What is wrong with the Constitution? Sure, there’s the Electoral college, which would have made a difference in one recent race. That’s bad, but it worked for centuries before. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2019, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043/59 "2019-06-29T19:58:30Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Sure, there’s the Electoral college, which would have made a difference in one recent race. That’s bad, but it worked for centuries before. The Electoral College gave us the presidencies of George W. Bush and Donald Trump. And Rutherford Hayes was no prize. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2019, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043/60 "2019-06-30T01:57:36Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Look at any modern constitution, and it’ll be very, very different, as a result of all of those incremental improvements and learning from others’ example. My father used to say that the [constitution of the Soviet Union](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/12/05.htm) was one of the finest guarantees of human freedom in history, until you got to the fine print. > [@Article 69](#): > > The Council of People’s Commissars of the U.S.S.R. has the right, in respect of those branches of administration and economy which come within the jurisdiction of the U.S.S.R., to suspend decisions and orders of the Councils of People’s Commissars of the Union Republics and to annul orders and instructions of People’s Commissars of the U.S.S.R. > [@Article 113 ff](#): > > ARTICLE 113. Supreme supervisory power over the strict execution of the laws by all People’s Commissariats and institutions subordinated to them, as well as by public servants and citizens of the U.S.S.R. is vested in the Procurator of the U.S.S.R. > > ARTICLE 114. The Procurator of the U.S.S.R. is appointed by the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. for a term of seven years. > [@Article 146](#): > > The Constitution of the U.S.S.R. may be amended only by decision of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. adopted by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the votes cast in each of its Chambers. In other words, all power eventually flowed from the Supreme Soviet, which even had the power to veto any attempt to change the law. But the first 68 sections were a vast improvement over the U.S. Constitution. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043.md?page=4)