Why is it so controversial to suggest that the USA needs a new constitution?

US isn't a banana republic that gets a new constitution every other year (or 200 years). Get 38 states to agree with you and you can make the constitution say whatever you want. What I don't understand is why those who insist that the constitution is so defective aren't making any serious attempts to amend it.

US hasn't thrived in the past 250 years? I wonder why people around the world line up outside US embassies waiting years for a visa? Or risk their lives crossing the deserts and oceans trying to get here? They must not have gotten the memo about how repressed Americans are.

For starters, the U.S. is a REPUBLIC. If you can’t define REPUBLIC with accuracy, remove yourself from any conversation about a new constitution.

We can get 38 states to agree to term limits for those elected to the US Congress.

We just can’t get a majority of those in Congress to send that amendment to the states.

That’s where the current Constitution is flawed.

just reverse-devolve the whole thing. get rid of this ridiculous grey-space of being a country but not country. are you in the united states or not? naybe just break up the whole country. all independent countries.

just reverse-devolve the whole thing. get rid of this ridiculous grey-space of being a country but not country. are you in the united states or not? naybe just break up the whole country. all independent countries.

Can you elaborate on what you mean here? Can you provide context?

The second the Republican Party figures out they'll get Whatever They Want by writing a new constitution, they will.

Just watch when Texas turns blue, which will happen in our lifetimes. The USA will have a new constitution by noon the next day.

Because the 1800s were so cutting edge. And all the best thinkers were there.

Nothing new is needed.

We don't need medicines or flying machines.

The US is on its way to becoming a one-party state, in which the minority holds power. The coup is ongoing. Arguing about your constitution here is fiddling while Rome burns.

Hmm. Do you mean the class where they talk about Altemeyer's outdated notion that authoritarianism is a right-wing phenomenon?

Here's the academic article about left-wing authoritarianism: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2021-74485-001

And a link to the Atlantic's article about recent research on left-wing authoritarianism:

theatlantic.com

The Experts Somehow Overlooked Authoritarians on the Left

Sally Satel

Many psychologists wrongly assumed that coercive attitudes exist only among conservatives.

Open link

I don't think most politicians have private security details using AR15s. They're kind of hard to carry around and not be conspicuous. A handgun is enough.

I believe the US Constitution is one of the best documents but it does require some changes such as adding term limits. Having said that however, I think maybe Adams
was correct when he said it was written for a moral people. We are obviously not a moral people given the amount of crime, hypocrisy and support for killing babies in the womb at 9 months.
Many people also think it was written for an educated citizenry which is not reflected in the above comment. My question to Court packer is “Are you knowingly using a misleading sound bite to support your position or do you really not understand why the 3/5ths compromise occurred?”
This is what students in the US should have learned by the 7th grade. The compromise was required to save the Union. The second piece of critical information is which side supported which position and why. For the record, the slave states supported counting each slave as a full person. It was the anti-slave states that did not want to count slaves at all. And the significant reason for their positions was representation. The anti-slave
states did not want to give the slave states more representation in the House
of Representatives. Why is that so difficult for people to understand?

Dems are finding that Hispanic voters are more socially conservative than they thought. That doesn’t bode well for Texas turning blue.

Ive heard more from the dems in the last 4 years about changing the constitution than any Republican. Yeah yeah, throw out January 6th as your example. That’s fine. But dems have called for: Getting rid of the electoral college, packing the Supreme Court, doing away with the filibuster, doing away with the Supreme Court and probably more that I can’t think of. Why do they want to do that? To get and keep power.

Your entire argument blithely ignores the obvious fact that the entire enterprise was pure poison from the start and that your beloved constitution was merely part of the poison. Any culture/civilization that so readily embraces the kidnap and enslavement of other people, as farm animals on a massive industrial scale, is broken from the outset. The drafters of our foundational documents forced accommodation for their own vile ownership of people, which means that their documents were morally bankrupt then and are worth even less now.

The constitution is fruit from the poison tree. Right along with an actual reckoning regarding this country's most vile original sin, the entire structure and underlying assumptions about representation and governance desperately call for remaking in the US.

Every item you mentioned is blatantly anti-democratic:

Electoral College: Right wingers cannot win national elections anymore, so now you support this relic which ignores the national popular vote.

Supreme Court: Has been refashioned into just another right wing power lever, a group of appointed lifetime-appointee activists intent on returning the country to the 1800s, several of whom lied under oath during sworn testimony.

Filibuster: a racist Jim Crowe mechanism that is undemocratic and has caused decades of essential gridlock.

So, more bad faith talking points from the right wing.

Yet dems have not had much issue with these “anti-democratic” relics until recently. It’s the classic attempt to change the rules when you’re losing the game.

Electoral college works as intended to keep super urban areas from dictating the elections as people who live in these areas aren’t representative of the entire country.

Not a single Supreme Court justice lied under oath. Senators saying they feel betrayed by them is only a sign of their own misunderstanding.

Dems love the racist filibuster:

repustar.com

Fact Brief: Did Democrats make record use of the filibuster in the last Congress? | Gigafact

YES, The filibuster, which allows the Senate minority party to block legislation by refusing to end debate, has been used by both Democrats and Republicans, almost always while occupying the Senate minorit

Open link

If you believe in limiting the power politicians wield, you should be ok with limiting ALL of them, not just the "other" side. BOTH parties are trying to gain absolute power and both are wrong to do it. They are not doing the will of the people. We need to elect more politicians who have backgrounds in common with the majority.

Constitutional amendments to limit terms, money and dark money in politics could help greatly, but neither party would support it despite an overwhelming majority of citizens support.

You are one of the worst and most prolific liars and promulgator of arguments and false talking points on LRC, which is to say you act in bad faith. You right wingers have lies, obfuscation, what-aboutism and minimization to make your arguments. You are nothing more than bad faith actor.