I would not support a new constitution, because it’s not possible. When there’s a consensus that this constitution no longer serves its purpose, that’s the end of America as we know it. America will probably disintegrate into smaller “Americas.” I don’t think that will necessarily happen anytime soon. I think we’ll fight to preserve the constitution and try to come to an, ahem, understanding, as we have in the past. But if one major party ends up saying “You know, fuck Article, I’m president for life and by the way, no more brown people in the country.” Or if ‘the libs’ ‘come fer yer guns’ I could see factions forming to say “Okay, the experiment’s over. Was fun while it lasted.”
There are ways I wish the Constitution could be revised; for example I really wish there was a semi-Parliamentary way of giving small special interest factions more voice; but realistically it can’t happen. First, the ideological split between progressive and conservative is so severe today that the two sides wouldn’t even be able to agree on what purpose a Constitution ought to serve. let alone the specifics of the content. Second, almost nobody other than libertarians really believes anymore in the bottom-up grass roots Enlightenment theory of democracy- government of the people, by the people, for the people- that was the ideological foundation that (most of) the Framers attempted to institute. Collectivism of one sort or another has almost completely replaced that. For all its faults, almost any change to the Constitution would be for the worse from the viewpoint of* individual* rights and freedoms.
That is a literary device.
One of the lesser known founding fathers, Vince Lombardi, allegedly once said “…if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.” According to legend he demanded that the opening of the preamble begin “We the People of the United States, while chasing perfection in order to catch a more excellent union…”
As the story goes, one Mr. Morris said “That’s not bad Vince, but too wordy. You sound like a pretentious douchebag” and revised the quote to what made the final edit in the constitution.
Cite: this was on School House Rock one Saturday morning around 1975 or so.
The challenge I see in changing the constitution is that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
The Constitution was written in a way the protected the interests of the rural, slave-owning Democratic South. It gave smaller states disproportionately more representation relative to its actual population. The Constitution gave disproportionate power to a population that was inherently more racist, more authoritarian, and less egalitarian than their counterparts. Those same flaws are still there, and there probably won’t be any changes to the Constitution that call for our society to be more inclusive because that’s not what the white nationalists who support the originalist interpretation of the Constitution support. Their view of the Constitution supports their view of what Republicanism means and in their view, it is the cornerstone of the American nation-state.
Nobody is going to change that anytime soon. People who want something more than what the Constitution offers will either have to work within the framework of the constitution and, in a sense, use grassroots politics, congress, and local governments to work around the Constitution’s limits, or they may simply try to secede and form a federation of post-American states.
I’ll give you the US situation for sure … can you name any others which have lasted any more than say a decade or so before collapsing into anarchy with it’s inherent tendency to authoritarianism?
I’ve cited this previously but an example that this inherent weakness was recognised is the Japanese constitution which was imposed by the US in the aftermath of WWII. The drafting team was lead by Col. Kades who produced the final document in less than a week. Rather than rebadge a version of the US constitution, it was reportedly may not even have been discussed during the drafting process.
John Dower’s Embracing Defeat (1999)
Australia.
Here is a huge long discussion on the subject.
I would have to say no, although I would love to see the introduction of a multi-party, parliamentary system which would allow minor parties to participate in the government. The problem is that the roadmap currently in place for enacting a new Constitution is heavily biased towards low-population, conservative states simply because ratification would be on a state-by-state basis, rather than by population. Less than a million voters in Wyoming would have just as much say in this question as the millions and millions of voters of California.
Really? Have a passing familiarity of the document and it’s development and I think that’s a bloody long stretch.
Did the Australian Founding Fathers consider the US model? Would be surprised if they didn’t but they went with a constitutional monarchy, not a republic. They chose to separate Head of Government and Head of State, didn’t incorporate a Bill of Rights and all manner of differences in governance structures.
But 120 years without a civil war, revolution or coup and functional independence without a shot being fired, we’ve done OK.
This is quite correct, and to my knowledge, US advisers don’t necessarily advocate embracing the US model but models which are likely to succeed based on the circumstances and conditions present in their society.
And I’ll add that the US Constitution hasn’t necessarily worked well. We damn near split into two separate countries in a horrific civil war, and three of the most important amendments were ratified only by making their ratification by Confederate states a condition for reentry into the Union.
The Constitution, much of which survives in its original form, was not really a democracy but a republic, which leaves it out of step with the movement to embrace democratic reforms and expand the franchise that occurred globally throughout much of the 19th and 20th Centuries.
Having grown up in the US and lived 5/8 of my life in Canada, I am not sure a parliamentary system is best. Generally, anything the prime minister wants the prime minister gets. For if he is rebuffed, he dissolves parliament and calls a new election and very few sitting members want that.
The big problem with the US constitution is the outlandish power it gives to small, mainly rural, states. And that cannot even be remedied by amendment since the amendment clause forbids that. I suppose you could start by amending the amendment clause, but that would never get past 38 states. An amendment to change the presidential election system would be possible, but I cannot see it being ratified either. As for a new constitution, hopeless. It would almost certainly come out worse.
The big change I would make is to seriously limit money in politics and stop lobbying. I don’t know how to do that. There are certainly lobbyists in Canada, but they seem to have much less influence than in the US.
Here is one clear advantage to the parliamentary system. When Trudeau (père) decided Canada would have medicare, Canada got medicare. But if some future PM decided to abolish it, it would be abolished. (Except it is actually done province by province, so all he could is abolish requiring provinces to offer it.)
That’s pretty much where I’d come down too.
But I’m a polite guy. I’d tip my hat to the new Constitution.
Right before you pick up your guitar and play?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
And we should care about this … why?
I see it as very clearly stating that it is “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” that shall not be infringed.
And even if it’s restricted to the militia, why not let the members of said militia save the government money by buying their own weapons if they want?
Really? I don’t think I’ve ever voted in a national election with fewer than five – certainly not with fewer than four – choices on the ballot.
The only major change I would like with the electoral college is to require that electoral votes be proportionate to the popular vote (perhaps allowing half or even quarter points) – none of this winner-take-all nonsense.
We’d have to meddle with the 1st Ad, and I am against that.
I count that as a disadvantage. Yes, I would love UHC, but one guy deciding to spend that much money on such a large program? Nope. Sure, you can get something like UHC, which would be great, but think of the crap a trump could pull. And not all your PMs have been great, not by any means.
I might, under ideal & conceivable circumstances, wish for a new Constitution. But my immediate reaction to anything remotely resembling a Constitutional Convention is to do everything in my power to stop it. We just had exactly that scenario play out in New York, which officially has it on the agenda at intervals. It’s an invitation to powerful and monied interests to stack the deck, to deluge the media with one-sided depictions of a proposed change, to get people representing their perspective seated as delegates.
I might feel different if a very long-range movement with long-range objectives were to arise and created extremely democratic mechanisms for discussion and feedback. That’s not the appearance of most social change movements, to be honest. They tend to spell out a set of objectives and to go after them like a military company with lots of emphasis on absolute loyalty to The Cause. More to the point, though, these opportunities to bring people together and perhaps write a new Constitution for us all to play by do not tend to be accompanied by anything even remotely approaching long-term / long-range communications processes. It’s more like “hey the circus is coming to town, bring your clowns, it’ll be FUN!” visceral shudder
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.
Seconded. I think rewriting an entire document that is a benchmark for all other law is a mistake. Amending any issues is a more efficient method.
Trying to assemble a Constitutional Convention would be a nightmare to begin with, and the debates over the content of a document would de-evolve into a quagmire of partisan politics. However, “eating the elephant one bite at a time” through discussing discrete issues and drafting amendments would be a better, targeted approach to the issues any Amendment committees saw fit to remedy.
Tripler
The Constitution made amendments possible–use that tool!