…strawman. I wasn’t arguing for a “repeal.” The “this is what happens when…” should have made that clear.
Questions really can’t be strawmen.
…you either understood what I said (which means the question was redundant, and, IMHO a strawman question) or you didn’t. As it appears that you didn’t, can I suggest you read my post again. The entire point of my post was that “short of a revolution, you cannot fix this.” I wasn’t arguing for a repeal. It isn’t something I think is remotely possible in the short or long term. The system, and the way America is right now, wouldn’t allow it.
I’m not sure then how the answer to this question,
Which parts of the Constitution should we repeal?
given this,
This is what happens when a bunch of long-dead-white-men create a framework for society centuries ago that is treated today like a sacred tome with an almost cult-like intensity.
isn’t therefore, all of it.
…with all due respect, this sentence doesn’t make any sense at all? I have absolutely no idea what you are asking of me.
I’ve answered your question twice already. I’m not asking for any part of the constitution to be repealed. I’m simply stating that “this is how America came to be.” The constitution isn’t a modern document. It wasn’t drafted by a fair representation of the American people. No women had input. No indigenous people. No Black people. And even today, even in this very thread, people will argue about the position of a comma in the amendments.
This is the end result of the experiment. This is what you get. That was the point of my post.
Should the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments that a bunch of long-dead-white-men created as a framework for society centuries ago not be treated today like a sacred tome with an almost cult-like intensity?
How about the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, and 24th?
…I think the more important question here is, do you not think that the constitution is treated by Americans as a sacred tome with an almost cult-like intensity?
Because imagine this happening in every school, every school day, all across the nation.
Imagine pledging allegiance to a flag.
No, I don’t think that the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments that a bunch of long-dead-white-men created as a framework for society centuries ago should be treated today like a sacred tome with an almost cult-like intensity.
But my opinion is largely immaterial here. I’m just pointing out that this is what happened.
Yeah, I think the right to a fair trial (et al.) should be seen as something sacred.
…do you also support the right for prisoners to be used as slave labour in Angola?
Because its entirely possible to support “the right to a fair trial” without a rigid adherence to a document drafted centuries ago. And it isn’t as if that matters much today anyway. Not when you consider things like this:
Its like…I don’t even know what you are arguing for here. If you support the constitution and the “right to a fair trial” then why are you seemingly more angry with my posts than you are with what is happening with your criminal justice system?
Which again demonstrates my point. There is no fixing this. Because the ideal of “the right to a fair trial” is more important than actually ensuring that people actually get a fair trial. And I’m not directing this comment at you. It’s just that this is how it is.
No.
I am so reminded of this,
William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”
I see. So we just need to write the same thing down on fresh paper.
…why does that remind you of this?
Are you gish-galloping? Strawmanning? Arguing for the sake of argument? I’m not quite sure. But I still don’t get what point you are trying to make here. The constitution isn’t what gives people “the right to a fair trial.” That was really the only point that I was making. It was a direct response to your post.
And if women and Black people and indigenous people were given the opportunity to be part of the process of drafting a new constitution it probably wouldn’t be “the same thing down on fresh paper.” Which would be an excellent idea for a new thread. But I’m not sure what this entire tangent has to do with the American Experiment.
Could it be that it’s easier for legislatures to create new criminal offences and tougher sentences, than to involve themselves in the detail of executive management of services that would divert people from going astray in the first place?
The easiest - and potentially most dangerous - reaction to a problem is “There ought to be a law against it”.
…Kalief Browder was locked up in Rikers for three years because he was accused of stealing a backpack. He was on probation at the time because when he was 16 he was charged as an adult, pleading guilty to “joyriding”, something that he later denied. Bail was set at $3000. He couldn’t raise it. So he was sent to jail. He spent two years in solitary confinement. Was regularly beaten by both inmates and his jailers. Trial was set for December 2010. Then January 2011. Then June. Then August. Then November. Then January 2012.
It finally went to trial. Was offered a plea bargain of 3.5 years. He turned it down. In June they offered another plea bargain. Browder turned it down again.
It wasn’t until March in 2013 that Browder got another day in court. He still hasn’t been convicted of anything yet. The judge offers another plea deal: immediate release if he pleads guilty to two misdemeanors. Browder again declines.
It isn’t until May of 2013 that Browder finally gets released. The judge freed him “in anticipation of the dismissal of the charges against him one week hence”.
In June 2015 Browder hung himself outside his bedroom window. He was 22.
Multiply this story by hundreds of thousands. Imagine many people choosing to accept that plea deal instead of declining it. It isn’t really about “new criminal offences” and “tougher sentences.” Browder was never convicted of that crime. It isn’t about "diverting people from going astray in the first place. Its just the system. This is how it works. The police arrest people. They get thrown in jail. The DA’s offer a plea bargain. Most take the deal. The ones that don’t often get punished harder.
Rinse. Repeat.
It’s called the “prison industrial complex” for a reason.
Because here’s the thing:
This practice, this utterly broken system has been normalized. This is just how its done. People have tried to reform the system. But its an uphill battle because the reality is that most people don’t really care. The people that are living in the experiment are invested in the experiment and don’t really want to face the reality that it’s failed.
And as I continue to argue in this thread, I don’t think that this can be fixed. This is the end result of the experiment. This is it. Endgame.
Look, many of us believe in the doctrine that the Constitution, useful as may be for organizational purposes, ought to be a “living document” whose application evolves with time, and at the very least is to be interpreted through basic common sense, rather than a set of immutable Holy Tablets. There’s nothing about preserving the first and fifth amendments, or division of powers, that forces us into the aforementioned incarcerative justice system or into for-profit health care or that mandates elected politicians instead of trained professionals run the county law enforcement.
So yeah, we should have made major adjustments.
A pretty large proportion of your contributions to this thread have focused on the criminal justice / penal “system” in the US. I don’t think that’s as fundamental to “the American Experiment” (whatever that is) as you apparently do. The problems you (rightly) are so concerned about don’t come from the Constitution or the way America was founded. We didn’t have a “prison industrial complex” in the early years of the USA.
Assertions about how the experiment has failed do not have to be Constitution-related.
…what is different about America that makes healthcare cost twice as much as the rest of the modern world? Why the electoral college? Why do you have a branch of government lead by a council of nine unelected wizards who have zero accountability and can stay in the job until they die?
What makes America different? Why have these extremes evolved?
I’ve focused on criminal justice / penal “system” because 1) they provide the easiest-to-explain examples of the extremes and 2) people were asking about it. But that isn’t all I’ve talked about.
And the way America was founded is important because America was founded on a legacy of white supremacy. And you can’t ignore how much of that has shaped how America is today. I’m not blaming everything on the constitution. Because the constitution, at the end of the day, is only a piece of paper. It’s the way the constitution is regarded that is the problem. The so-called “sacred tome” that is used by the council of wizards to make decisions that decide the way things are done in America.
Black people were bought to America in chains.
That looks pretty industrial to me.
Again, I go back to the parameters set out in my first post in this thread. By those metrics, the experiment has failed. Feel free to provide your own.
I do admit: I’ve probably danced around the main point here, but the main reason why it has failed IMHO isn’t the constitution on its own, but the legacy of white supremacy. I think if we examine any of the big picture issues I’ve raised here it can all be all traced back to that. For example: look at this graph showing pregnancy mortality:
Why do Black and American Indian women have 2-3 times the mortality rate of white women? (And the most recent numbers show the disparity hasn’t changed). The short answer is that Black and American Indian women are treated differently in the American healthcare system.
The long answer involves (IMHO) the legacy of white supremacy, and the failure of the American experiment.
I hate to compare you to Thomas Jefferson, but that’s what he said.
A revolution is not at hand. So now what?
…so now what?
What I’d like more than anything is for you to prove me wrong.
I’d very much like to see America turn things around.
I’d like to see the rogue Supreme Court fixed. I’d like to see the police defunded. I’d like to see predatory student loans schemes dismantled. I’d like to see genuine, nationwide parole reform. I’d like to see the gig economy destroyed. Power given back to the unions. Universal healthcare. Assault weapon bans. Corrupt politicians held to account.
But I don’t see any of that happening. I think that the “American Experiment” will continue, even though it’s clear in my mind its already failed. Which will mean we will see increasingly more partisan decisions from the Supremes. The Republican States will become increasingly more extreme. Nothing will be done about prisons, the healthcare system, wealth inequality, policing. How it is now is how it will continue. And most people will be fine with that.
That isn’t what I want. I want to be wrong. So I’ll throw that question back to you.
A revolution is not at hand. So now what?