# 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:** 13\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043/81 "2019-07-11T13:12:08Z")
> [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](#): > > Right before you pick up your guitar and play? > > Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk Nah, it would be over in the corner, gently weeping. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043/82 "2019-07-11T13:15:53Z")
> [@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.)” Can a Sikh employee of the government wear a turban on the job? That’s a religious symbol to Sikh men, an d so could be construed by someone as “endorsement” of a religion. How about a small crucifix around the neck? A yarmulke? There are always thing like that. no matter where you draw the line, I can find a case that straddles it. You will never, ever, ever be able to legislate people from being assholes. The problem in the USA with fundamentalist Christianity worming into politics cannot be Constitutioned away. This is not going to be a popular opinion but I’ll offer it away; what is WRITTEN in a Constitution is usually unimportant. Many countries have had beautifully written Constitutions that were cheerfully ignored by dictators, assholes, or the armed men who started the next coup. The precise details of the Constitution of the United States are not actually what is important; the U.S. would be the same country with the same basic strengths and weaknesses if you changed the wording of some of the clauses. I’m Canadian, and our Constitution is really quite a mess in a lot of ways; the Senate alone is just ridiculous, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a mess of compromises, I could go on. Nonetheless, the country works quite well. It works not because of the wordsmithing of the Constitution, but because Canadians WANT it to work, and have a fundamental shared vision in the country running in a harmonious manner. Were the Constitution to be made clearer, more democratic and more elegant, it wouldn’t really improve things. But no matter how well written it is, if we didn’t want the country to function or could not agree on how to make it work, it would all fall apart, and all the Constitutional genius you could write would not help. The U.S. Constitution is not the work of scintillating, perfect genius Americans think it is - at least, it’s not in terms of statecraft. Its real value is as an aspirational, even inspirational, statement of values. It says in words what Americans wish their country could be, and serves a focus for Americans to agree, “we want this thing to work for all of us.” The day enough Americans do not want that, the country is doomed, no matter what words are in the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043/83 "2019-07-11T15:26:31Z")
> [@Red\_Wiggler](#): > > I don’t know my Canadian history but it seems unlikely that Trudeau would come to power by concealing his preferences for UHC. And, since it could have been subsequently abolished and hasn’t, the indications are that the decision to implement UHC didn’t occur in a vacuum of popular sentiment. No one said otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043/84 "2019-07-11T17:32:05Z")
> [@SCAdian](#): > > And we should care about this … why? It is sometimes stated that the system of government we have is the best of all possible choices, so to recognize that pretty much nobody else on earth even considers it adequate is a useful reality check. If someone went around bragging that raisin soda was the king of all beverages, it’s perfectly reasonable to point out that they are alone in that assessment. But back to the OP: I would have a hard time advocating for a new constitutional convention. I agree with others that it would be a mess fraught with peril. But if by some unexpected mechanism I was faced with a vote between two constitutions – vote for the current U.S. Constitution or some new proposal – I’d take a serious look at the new one and not just assume I’d support the current. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043/85 "2019-07-11T18:14:37Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > It is sometimes stated that the system of government we have is the best of all possible choices, so to recognize that pretty much nobody else on earth even considers it adequate is a useful reality check. If someone went around bragging that raisin soda was the king of all beverages, it’s perfectly reasonable to point out that they are alone in that assessment. > … Really? Other than some dictatorships, and some authoritarian Communist nations, nearly every nation is a republican/representational form of democracy. Now sure, beyond that, most Euro nations have a parliamentary form of representational democracy rather than a Presidential democracy . However, many nations still use our system, most nations in the Americas are Presidential democracies. > **[Presidential system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_system)** > > A presidential system, or single executive system, is a form of government in which a head of government, typically with the title of president, leads an executive branch that is separate from the legislative branch in systems that use separation of powers. This head of government is in most cases also the head of state. In a presidential system, the head of government is directly or indirectly elected by a group of citizens and is not responsible to the legislature, and the legislature cannot di... P_residentialism is the dominant form of government in the continental Americas, with 19 of its 22 sovereign states being presidential republics. It is also prevalent in Central and southern West Africa and in Central Asia._ So "_pretty much nobody else on earth even considers it adequate"_ is pretty much totally wrong. Euro nations use parliamentary, American nations use Presidential democracy systems. Africa uses several systems, mostly broken, and Asia uses both. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043/86 "2019-07-11T19:17:58Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Really? Other than some dictatorships, and some authoritarian Communist nations, nearly every nation is a republican/representational form of democracy. > > Now sure, beyond that, most Euro nations have a parliamentary form of representational democracy rather than a Presidential democracy . > > However, many nations still use our system, most nations in the Americas are Presidential democracies. > [Presidential system - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_system) > P_residentialism is the dominant form of government in the continental Americas, with 19 of its 22 sovereign states being presidential republics. It is also prevalent in Central and southern West Africa and in Central Asia._ > > So "_pretty much nobody else on earth even considers it adequate"_ is pretty much totally wrong. Euro nations use parliamentary, American nations use Presidential democracy systems. > > Africa uses several systems, mostly broken, and Asia uses both. I’m not aware of any other country that has the features of the Constitution that are in line with: - three separate, coequal branches of government - a Federal government with substantial, but also sharply limited powers - sub-Federal government with a generous degree of sovereignty - single member constituencies under an effective two party system with fixed terms - robust primary election system to determine general election candidates with typically popular decisionmaking Pretty much every other country I can think of has some features of parliamentary system, multimember districts, or substantially less sovereignty afforded to its components. You know, all the stuff that makes certain Americans’ heads explode with how anti-American those features are. If you want to inform me with the names of countries that fit these criteria, I’m eager to hear. ETA: or, to make it easier, if you can identify a country with a process as convoluted as the electoral college to choose the head of government, that would be wonderful. TIA! ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043/87 "2019-07-11T22:05:27Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I’m not aware of any other country that has the features of the Constitution that are in line with: > > - three separate, coequal branches of government > … > > If you want to inform me with the names of countries that fit these criteria, I’m eager to hear. > > ETA: or, to make it easier, if you can identify a country with a process as convoluted as the electoral college to choose the head of government, that would be wonderful. TIA! That’s just details, every nation has it’s own weird details, like the Canadians with their Governor General. Bolivia: [Bolivia - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivia#Politics_and_government) \*The constitution, drafted in 2006–07 and approved in 2009, provides for balanced executive, legislative, judicial, and electoral powers, as well as several levels of autonomy. \* There are quite a few more, but that’s not important. I could go down the whole list and provide examples, but I dont think that matters to you. > **[Electoral college](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_college)** > > An electoral college is a set of electors who are selected to elect a candidate to particular offices. Often these represent different organizations, political parties or entities, with each organization, political party or entity represented by a particular number of electors or with votes weighted in a particular way. The United States has been the only democracy in the 21st century that still uses an electoral college to select its executive president. The other democracies that used an ele... \*“Colleges” of electors play a role in elections in other countries, albeit with electors allocated in ways differing from the United States. In Germany, the members of the federal parliament together with an equal number of people elected from the state parliaments constitute the Federal Convention, that exists for the only purpose of electing the (non-executive) head of state.[6] Similarly, in India the members of the both houses of parliament together with weighted votes from the members of the state legislative assemblies constitute an electoral college that elects the head of state.[7] In Italy, the (non-executive) head of state is elected by the members of both houses of Parliament in joint session, together with delegates elected by the Regional Councils to ensure the representation of minorities.[8] Other countries with electoral college systems include Burundi, Estonia,[9] Kazakhstan, Madagascar, Myanmar, Pakistan, Trinidad and Tobago[10] and Vanuatu. The Seanad Éireann (Senate) in Ireland is chosen by an electoral college. Within China, both Macau[11] and Hong Kong each have an Election Committee which functions as an electoral college for selecting the Chief Executive and formerly (in the case of Hong Kong) for selecting some of the seats of the Legislative Council. In Guernsey, an electoral college called the States of Election chooses the island’s jurats.[12] Georgia will have the Electoral College to elect the President of Georgia beginning in 2024.[13]\* But again, this is all details. The fact is that there are two main **SYSTEMS** of representative democracy: the parliamentary **system** , popular in Europe- and the Presidential democracy **system** , popular in the Americas. You said _“the system of government we have is the best of all possible choices, so to recognize that pretty much nobody else on earth even considers it adequate is a useful reality check.”_ **You were totally wrong.** The Presidential\*\* system \*\*of representative democracy is just about as popular as the parliamentary **system** of representative democracy. It’s true, I dont think any nation runs theirs identical to the way the USA does, but that’s true of just about every sovereign nation- they all have quirks and differences. ---
**Author:** ![DirkHardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6a8cbe/32.png) [@DirkHardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DirkHardly)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2019, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043/88 "2019-07-30T07:30:58Z")
With all due respect to the OP the whole notion behind this thread is mind-boggling in its naivety and over-simplification. First of all, and this is a important fact that most laypeople seem oblivious to, the Constitution and its text is just the beginning of Constitutional Jurisprudence and reading the document itself tells you relatively little about how the Constitution actually functions. See the words of the Constitution by themselves don’t really get you very far without having courts interpret those words and apply them to the various fact patterns of cases that come before them. The result is a huge body of case law over the 200+ years of US history. Changing any significant portion of the Constitution, possibly even a single word, and suddenly the entire relevant body of Constitutional Jurisprudence becomes suspect if not outright invalid. The potential repercussions of this cannot be understated, it could potentially disrupt our entire legal system and those disruptions would reverberate through our entire society. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and so could potentially have an effect on any area of the law as it relates to not only the people but to the organization and parameters under which the government operates. Our legal system functions to a significant degree based on concepts of certainty and predictability and such changes would undermine those assumptions if not, at least temporarily, render them non-existent. So what happens, for instance, when police are no longer reasonably sure when they are allowed to conduct a search because courts have not yet had years to consider the implications of the changes in the Constitution and a definitive rule of law has not yet emerged? What happens if you change Constitutional property rights? Seems like that might have profound effects. Are all State Constitutions and state laws consonant with this new Constitution or are there going to have to be major changes there as well? And what happens when our court system is overwhelmed with parties seeking to relitigate previously decided Constitutional issues under the new language? Secondly, related to the first point and perhaps even more important, if you don’t understand the case law and legal, philosophical and historical underpinnings of the Constitution then you don’t understand the Constitution. You can memorize every word of the document front-to-back and the level of your knowledge of Constitutional Law will remain just above jack-shit. There’s a reason legal academics and attorneys spend entire careers specializing not only in Constitutional Law but frequently narrow aspects such as Free Speech Law or Fourth Amendment Law. There’s also a reason numerous courts have spent centuries hashing these issue out. So if you can’t reasonably claim to fully understand such a complex issue how can you reasonably advocate for changes where you not only don’t fully understand what you’re changing in the first place but can’t possibly appreciate the implications of such changes? ---
**Author:** ![DirkHardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6a8cbe/32.png) [@DirkHardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DirkHardly)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2019, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043/89 "2019-07-30T08:32:14Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > That is, in fact, how it was long interpreted. A conservative majority on the Roberts Court saw things differently eleven years ago, however. > > [District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller) With all due respect as I know you have some legal expertise this is a potentially misleading statement about 2nd Amendment Jurisprudence. While it’s true that there is a dearth of 2nd Amendment cases relative to other areas of Constitutional Law and that one of the few notable (if suspect even before _Heller_) precedents did focus on the militia aspect, the notion that an individual right to personal arms for protection was not an invention of the Roberts Court or even more ridiculously as some have claimed an invention of the NRA. We not only have writings from one of the preeminent and most influential Constitutional scholars of the period (among others) that proves without a doubt that the idea of an individual right to bear arms dates back to the time of ratification but we can easily trace the origin even further back as part of an emerging focus on the rights of the individual and common citizen in England. As English Law evolved and the power of the monarch and nobility diminished the various courts and Parliament assumed more power ostensibly in the name of the common people and the right to bear arms was just one aspect of this overall shift as evidenced by various cases and legislation of the period as well as the writings of scholars such as Coke. So the idea of an individual right to bear arms for protection didn’t arise out of a vacuum any more than it is a recent invention. The Framers were simply able to take ideas which had already originated sometimes centuries before in English Jurisprudence and implement them and even expand them because they were starting a new government largely from scratch outside the confines of the English system. ---
**Author:** ![DirkHardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6a8cbe/32.png) [@DirkHardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DirkHardly)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2019, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043/90 "2019-07-30T09:51:31Z")
> [@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. You work in a scientific field correct? I’m curious, how much consideration do you give people who critique or offer input on your work and who have no appreciable knowledge or credentials in your field? It’s odd, I’ve known quite a few Constitutional scholars and read the academic works of a far larger number over the years and while there is certainly some selection bias at work (they did become Constitutional scholars after all) they pretty much universally have profound respect for both the Framers and the construction of the document itself. Strangely enough the strongest criticisms of both come from people who lack that knowledge and expertise. Funny how that works. And by what criteria do you judge that other countries have improved on our Constitution via their own versions? Is it based on your vast knowledge of the law in general and your expertise concerning both US Constitutional Law and those of whatever other countries? In your use of the Model-T analogy I think you seem to embody a fundamental misconception of about how the law works, perhaps in your case because of your background in the hard sciences. Law isn’t like science where there is a fairly steady and linear evolution of ideas as new data is discovered and old ideas become suspect or summarily discarded. It can certainly occur but with science such changes are inevitable and with the law they simply are not. Law is the foundation of human civilization and deals with the basic interactions of people within that civilization. While details may change many fundamental concepts remain remarkably consistent throughout history and across cultures. The Code of Hammurabi, Roman Law, and Justinian’s Code, for example, are not irrelevant to modern law just because they are old and modern scholars and students still study them, courts still cite them, and they remain incredibly influential. And while ancient astronomy, or medicine, or chemistry may have limits to what they can offer us today (though we keep constantly learning that even in the sciences that our ancestors weren’t as ignorant as we thought and at least some of their methods and discoveries may still have significant value) the law has no such inherent expiration date on its utility. Almost every fundamental aspect of our basic laws such as criminal and property law are based on very old ideas and the details and changes that characterize modern life most of the time are not sufficiently impactful to shift those underlying premises to any great degree. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2019, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043/91 "2019-07-30T12:05:13Z")
The truth is, any political system has holes that can be exploited. Any democracy can be hacked. I read somewhere (I’ve forgotten the source, unfortunately) a meta-study which concluded that the democratic systems that are the most vulnerable to authoritarianism are presidential systems and also those that give disproportionate power to states or local districts. In other words, the more powerful the presidency as an institution and the more they depend on republican features, the more susceptible they are to factions whose purpose is to obstruct and undermine democracy. That being said, it was one paper, and as we’ve seen in the UK recently, parliamentary political systems don’t necessarily guarantee that there won’t be political dysfunction. A democracy’s underlying strength or weakness is its value system. ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2019, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043/92 "2019-07-30T13:57:37Z")
> [@Malden\_Capell](#): > > While you’re at it ban referendums. They’ve proven a dreadful idea. Here in Michigan they’ve proven valuable for getting around the gerrymandered Republican legislature. As for the second amendment the word “people” would not be defined so as to mean “any moron with a pulse”. ---
**Author:** ![DirkHardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6a8cbe/32.png) [@DirkHardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DirkHardly)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2019, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043/93 "2019-07-30T15:58:53Z")
> [@E-DUB](#): > > Here in Michigan they’ve proven valuable for getting around the gerrymandered Republican legislature. > > As for the second amendment the word “people” would not be defined so as to mean “any moron with a pulse”. While I realize the phrase “any moron with a pulse” is at least somewhat intentionally hyperbolic the 2nd Amendment has never extended the right to gun ownership to anything close to that broad a standard. The courts have of course consistently upheld what they see to be reasonable restrictions including background checks, age requirements and even prohibiting gun ownership to felons, the mentally ill etc. This is exactly how it is supposed to work. No statute or even the Constitution exhaustively covers defining every word and every possible factual application because not only is that the function of the courts but to do so would be a Herculean and largely impossible task. So while the language of either current law or proposed changes to our law are by no means irrelevant, courts can only stretch interpretations so far (although to a sometimes surprising degree), the real issue is how courts are going to subsequently interpret that language and less the actual language itself. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-dopers-would-you-support-a-new-constitution/836043.md?page=4)