What we need is a fluid document, sorta like gender fluidity. The document could just change based on your feelings that day, like a mood ring. That’s the only thing that would fit the world we live in today. Nothing wrong with the current document, just with peoples ability to understand it and not get their feelings hurt.
Wrong, why do you think so many are talking about making a change?
How similiar is todays USA compared to 1776?
Because the pendulum is swinging back toward the right. It has been to the left for quite a while. People are having a hard time understanding why, so they just want to change the system rather than address the underlying condition. Similar to a patient with hypertension wanting to redefine what hypertension is.
Why are we just hearing such an outcry the last 4-5 years? Because conservatives started taking back ground they had given up for quite a while.
Progressives can’t see past their own insular bubble to realize that it’s their policies people don’t like, it’s not the system.
Over the last four years I’ve heard we need to: get rid of the electoral college, get rid of the filibuster, get rid of the senate, pack the Supreme Court, do away with the Supreme Court.
Seems like sore losers are crying about the rules. Like I said, they’d turn the constitution into Calvin Ball if given the chance.
Wrong, why do you think so many are talking about making a change?
How similiar is todays USA compared to 1776?
Because the pendulum is swinging back toward the right. It has been to the left for quite a while. People are having a hard time understanding why, so they just want to change the system rather than address the underlying condition. Similar to a patient with hypertension wanting to redefine what hypertension is.
Why are we just hearing such an outcry the last 4-5 years? Because conservatives started taking back ground they had given up for quite a while.
Progressives can’t see past their own insular bubble to realize that it’s their policies people don’t like, it’s not the system.
Over the last four years I’ve heard we need to: get rid of the electoral college, get rid of the filibuster, get rid of the senate, pack the Supreme Court, do away with the Supreme Court.
Seems like sore losers are crying about the rules. Like I said, they’d turn the constitution into Calvin Ball if given the chance.
They're like children...Crying and throwing tantrums because they lost...Waaaa
If Americans only had muskets, then they would have never defeated the British. It was the American rifle that beat the British, and the British learned a lesson from the Americans to create their own rifle regiments to use against Napolean. Perhaps through your ignorance of firearms you confuse the firing mechanism, flintlock in the case of mid-18th century firearms, with the type of weapon. However, regardless of the weapon of the day, for the people to remain on parity with the government and thus remain free, at a minimum, the people should be armed in the same manner as the government infantryman.
Crispy is right on, our 2A rights have already been infringed upon because we are not permitted to match firepower with our government. Thank God we still have 2A intact as much as it is. Our constitution is brilliant and created in a way that was nearly genius.
The validity and sustainability of the constitution has taken a big step back with originalism, this SC is regressive.
The Supreme Court is not really legitimate (Thomas should not have passed confirmation 30 years ago, Garland should have been confirmed, Kavanaugh was not fit for the job, and Barrett was crammed in demonstrating total hypocrisy of McConnell and the Senate). Not to mention that they lied about Roe v. Wade during confirmation. We are facing minority rule by religious regressionists, and now one of the parties is rolling headling with an authoritarian bent, believing in lies. Meanwhile, voter repression is just getting its wheels.
The constitution did work, sometimes better than others, for over 200 years. It is not working now, and we are heading for some time of crises.
Yeah bro that why the right had to steal the court because their policies are so popular they could’ve just legislated them. GTFO with that
How did the right steal the court? If anything, the left gave it away when they couldn’t convince RBG to retire before she died. All trump did was appoint justices to fill vacant seats, just like it’s always happened. Bad timing for leftists but as Obama said “Elections have consequences”
The whole thing is broken. We are not a democracy, certainly not one that citizens deserve.
Every state getting two Senators, an effing joke.
The Jim Crow Senate itself, worthless.
Nine unelected judges holding seemingly unlimited power? Offensive.
All of them working from a relic document written 240 years ago, by a gaggle of slave owners whose primary driving belief was in utterly unfettered capitalism?
If you believe we have a well-working representative democracy than you aren't paying attention. This country is in decline and if it works for you then you're probably one of those 1% riding merrily along on the shoulders of the rest of us.
This is an old thing that I had sort of given up on, but the US is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. While we have democratic aspects, we do not rule by majority. The Constitution is set up to prevent the tyranny of the majority. If we were majority rule slavery would have existed far longer.
We elect representatives to create laws. If we do not like those laws, we can elect new ones. In many states citizens can get a referendum on the ballot to pass laws or state constitutional amendments.
The Senate was set up because when the nation was formed there had to be lots of give and take to get 13 very different colonies to agree. The smaller ones did not want to be overpowered by larger states.
I bet you were okay when those 9 unelected justices ruled in ways you like. Would you just put all questions to a national vote and say "sorry you lost"!?
The founders were largely slave holders and at the same time they wrote documents that set the stage to argue that slavery was wrong. And also put forth a situation where at least the importation of slaves became illegal in 1808.
I don't understand why the US constitution is weirdly revered by people in this country. It was fairly forward thinking for its time... but it was written almost 250 years ago. I think it's safe to say the world has changed pretty dramatically over the course of a quarter of a millennium.
To come up with a new constitution you're going to need founding principles and agreement on things.
I would argue most of those things we're in agreement with are already in our constitution.
One of the best points of our constitution is built in a process so that it can be amended. So that is the route to go in my opinion to make changes.
Exactly.
An unappreciated fact about the founding fathers is they had the humility to admit they would wrong about some things, and with time, new facts would dictate the constitution would need to be amended. Thomas Jefferson even famously said there should be regular constitutional conventions to review the document.
If I would say something needs to be looked at, it would be the makeup and rules of the US Senate. When it was ratified, the 13 colonies were (fairly) similar, so having 2 senators per state (who at the time were appointed by the governor, not elected) seemed fine. Now we have Vermont, Connecticut and Rhode Island, with a combined population less than Dallas, having more power than Texas and Florida (with a population of >60 million). The Senate represents acreage, not people.
Wrong, why do you think so many are talking about making a change?
How similiar is todays USA compared to 1776?
Because the pendulum is swinging back toward the right. It has been to the left for quite a while. People are having a hard time understanding why, so they just want to change the system rather than address the underlying condition. Similar to a patient with hypertension wanting to redefine what hypertension is.
Why are we just hearing such an outcry the last 4-5 years? Because conservatives started taking back ground they had given up for quite a while.
Progressives can’t see past their own insular bubble to realize that it’s their policies people don’t like, it’s not the system.
Over the last four years I’ve heard we need to: get rid of the electoral college, get rid of the filibuster, get rid of the senate, pack the Supreme Court, do away with the Supreme Court.
Seems like sore losers are crying about the rules. Like I said, they’d turn the constitution into Calvin Ball if given the chance.
No, it does not seem like sore losers but rather like totalitarians executing a plan to take total control.
Agreed 1000%. For starters, in regards to the Second Amendment, bullets weren't even invented until approximately 50yrs after it was written. All they had was muskets lol.
If Americans only had muskets, then they would have never defeated the British. It was the American rifle that beat the British, and the British learned a lesson from the Americans to create their own rifle regiments to use against Napolean. Perhaps through your ignorance of firearms you confuse the firing mechanism, flintlock in the case of mid-18th century firearms, with the type of weapon. However, regardless of the weapon of the day, for the people to remain on parity with the government and thus remain free, at a minimum, the people should be armed in the same manner as the government infantryman.
The exhibition "A Revolution in Arms" examines the weapons used by American troops during the Revolutionary War and their importance to the achievement of independence.
people voted for Obama to Nominate judges. He was denied (And don’t give me some made up bs rules)
And if they’re following those BS rules, then Barrett was a stolen seat.
and ironically, Clarence Thomas as an in qualified affirmative action pick.
I will agree RGB should’ve retired.
I figured you were salty about Garland. The senate fulfilled their obligations in regards to garland. They advised Obama that he wasn’t acceptable and did not consent to his hearing.
Trump had every right to nominate ACB, just as Obama had every right to nominate garland, the difference is trump had a Republican majority senate who confirmed his pick. Obama didnt have a democratic majority for his pick, again to quote Obama “elections have consequences”.
Didn’t Obama appoint two Supreme Court justices? I don’t get your issue.
Because the pendulum is swinging back toward the right. It has been to the left for quite a while. People are having a hard time understanding why, so they just want to change the system rather than address the underlying condition. Similar to a patient with hypertension wanting to redefine what hypertension is.
Why are we just hearing such an outcry the last 4-5 years? Because conservatives started taking back ground they had given up for quite a while.
Progressives can’t see past their own insular bubble to realize that it’s their policies people don’t like, it’s not the system.
Over the last four years I’ve heard we need to: get rid of the electoral college, get rid of the filibuster, get rid of the senate, pack the Supreme Court, do away with the Supreme Court.
Seems like sore losers are crying about the rules. Like I said, they’d turn the constitution into Calvin Ball if given the chance.
No, it does not seem like sore losers but rather like totalitarians executing a plan to take total control.
I’m getting a kick out of quoting Obama so much lately, but here we go again: “Elections have consequences.”
The dems marched Hilary Clinton out against Donald trump and she got beat. RBG, and the entire Democratic Party, misjudged the political climate. RGB dies and Trump gets to nominate ACB.
Im sure you would be fine, had Hilary gotten elected, with more liberal justices being appointed by her. Instead, we had a Republican senate and a republican president. “Elections have consequences”.
Now all we hear are sore losers wanting to change the rules.
I’m also confused how a SCOTUS literally saying they’re giving the power back to the voters can be called totalitarian…odd.
Crispy is right on, our 2A rights have already been infringed upon because we are not permitted to match firepower with our government. Thank God we still have 2A intact as much as it is. Our constitution is brilliant and created in a way that was nearly genius.
The validity and sustainability of the constitution has taken a big step back with originalism, this SC is regressive.
The Supreme Court is not really legitimate (Thomas should not have passed confirmation 30 years ago, Garland should have been confirmed, Kavanaugh was not fit for the job, and Barrett was crammed in demonstrating total hypocrisy of McConnell and the Senate). Not to mention that they lied about Roe v. Wade during confirmation. We are facing minority rule by religious regressionists, and now one of the parties is rolling headling with an authoritarian bent, believing in lies. Meanwhile, voter repression is just getting its wheels.
The constitution did work, sometimes better than others, for over 200 years. It is not working now, and we are heading for some time of crises.
None of them lied. Please share a video clip where they promise under oath not to overturn Roe? I have looked and find them all saying pretty much: I respect precedent as the law of the land". Well decisions can be overturned just as every justice sitting on the court has done with some prior decision. If precedents could not be overturn Plessy would still be in effect.
I would argue both parties have authoritarian streaks in them. The GOP is more blatant and ham handed.
People are upset over Roe. I get it. I think Roe was a horrible decision. I do not think "penumbra from emanations" appears in any other legal decision...At the same time I think abortion should be legal within reason (15 weeks, life of mother, rape/incest). I think that should be done through legislation in each state to reflect the differences between states. For those who want majority rule, well in the states that passed restrictive abortion laws the majority in those states prefer that. Now I am not keen on a simple majority running roughshod over a minority, but I think deciding these thorny issues through legislation is better than the courts. Something Ruth Bader Ginsburg thought.
The way the system was set up is as follows: if enough people want change, they will vote for politicians who will enact change.
For example, take abortion. If enough women are really upset about this, they have enough votes to elect pro-abortion politicians who will pass laws making abortion legal. And potentially make an amendment. This is why it is silly everyone is angry at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court does not make laws. Your vote politicians do. The same applies to gun control. If enough people are angry about gun violence, they will vote in anti-gun politicians who will pass gun control laws.
The US Constitution is a good outline but they made some major mistakes that they did not foresee.
They didn’t put in term limits for people getting elected to Congress, yet gave only the Congressmen the power to change that. And they didn’t foresee the power they’d accumulate. It was supposed to be a part time job for o term or two.
They didn’t see how political parties could paralyze the law making process.
They didn’t see how there could be a great disparity of confessional representation with states having largely different population sizes. You can have a 50-1 difference between two states with House members but each state gets 2 senators.
Sure, it can be amended, but that’s virtually impossible these days. If women weren’t allowed to vote right now, I don’t think we could get the 2/3 in order to get that amendment.
Garland was a centrist and more than qualified. What McConnell did was egregious and unprecedented. And then he turned around and rammed Barrett through. The ultimate in hypocritical maneuvers. He wielded power because he could. And that's just what this SC is doing now, and this is why the system is broken. Too much power to the Senate with the filibuster and to small states.
And to those saying it's just over the past 4-5 years that conservatives have had the power. No not at all. The Dems did dominate congress and had presidency more for about 45 years (FDR to end of Carter era), but not necessarily the Supreme Court (R v Wade was passe in fairly a conservative [at the time] court). But From 1980 through 2016 congress, the presidency, and the courts were by no means liberal dominated--more of a back and forth and increasingly contentious.
Things have changed in the past 5 years.
Lies are truth and truth are lies. Republicans have turned toward and openly admire authoritarianism (Trump, Orban, and even Putin). This is just the first full term of the current Supreme Court and it's just the beginning. It is an activist regressionist court and packed to the right by circumstance and a fair amount conniving. The far right has been relentless and now they have the ducks in a row for minority control for a long time, and it's only going to become more staunch and repressive. Limit free speech (Trump really wanted to shut down the press and protest and did all that he could), freedom of choice/bodily autonomy, no separation of church and state basically we are heading toward an authoritarian quasi-religious state where it's cool to spy on and report your neighbors (Texas and abortion, now with another 20 states to follow soon).
Our founding father/constitution narrative is a foundational part of a long exploited and deeply rooted my of exceptionalism including the special providence lie. The entire social engineering of our country, for better, worse, or neutral, is tied to this continuance of narrative and myth.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
