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

Actual question here. Do any other countries have a similar setup to our Supreme Court? It seems anti democratic to have increasing partisan judges who serve for life.

1. It's not a good constitution. It's reactionary to the challenges of the time when it was written, which was never going to age well.

2. Too much of the country now draws its advantages from the obvious mistakes in the constitution, which means it's not going to get thrown out.

3. any changes that come to it now will come, such as the most recent SC appointments did, as a result of hunger for power, not equality and fairness.

These are the most obvious reasons why the country is irreperably broken.

Justices who were identified, trained, groomed and funded by dark money funneled to the Federalist Society for decades. One thing that can be said for the authoritarians of this world, those including the Stalinists, Nazis and our Republicans, is that they are aggressive, they are persistent, and they will do everything possible to ruin the places they rule and to spread strife and division.

Thanks! I would support amending the constitution on how the judges are appointed. It gives the president too much power to appoint judges in my opinion (bad for both sides)

Our country is now ruled by the corporate establishment that creates all the rules in their favor. The new Constitutional Convention would be overrun by the establishment and the lackeys who carry water for them. The rules would be bent even more in their favor, at the expense of the rest of us.

It involves the states calling for a constitutional convention. Our US constitution is a union of fifty states. Therefore, the unified states can call for a constitutional convention. The last effort at calling for a convention was in 2015 when 19 states supported such a move. As of this moment in US history constitutional law scholars debate whether Article 5 allows for more than amendments. "Single Issue amendments" versus the states having the "power to propose anything they see fit" is at the center of the debate.

You just stated many reasons why you should not want your right to keep and bear arms to be infringed.

Rather than creating a new constitution I hope in my life time the Federal government is abolished and the states go through a major break up. Let the libs in New York and California do their thing. But don't make us in Ohio have to abide by the ideas of anyone from those states. We'd be much better off on our own.

What are common citizens going to do against laser guided missiles, nuclear weapons, tanks - give me a break. It isn't a level playing field between the police and people and it hasn't been for a long time. It is a complete illusion that a gun will protect you from the 'government'

Dude, we are not the ones who follow the leader with clearly the most tyrannical tendencies... to say the liberals are the party that want a despotic government is not aligning with current reality

You're mad the court didn't agree with your views. You want to recreate the government to ensure your views are always followed. The fact that the constitution prevents it is exactly why it's a good constitution.

The reason the Constitution needs either amending or a complete redo is that it may not be robust enough top survive attack by determined political party that is willing to fight dirty. The Constitution was designed to prevent tyranny, by forbidding authoritarianism and instead giving power to the majority of the citizens, but then restraining the power of the majority to the extent it violated the rights of the minority. It must be said that it is the Republican party who is trying to violate the rights of the majority, by claiming falsely to be winning elections despite only having a minority of voters, and by establishing autocratic rule. Because the Constitution is designed exactly to thwart these goals, the Republicans have attempted to steal elections, suppress the vote, politicize the Supreme Court, and finally resorted to armed insurrection, to hold onto power they could not earn at the ballot box.

It is more accurate to say that the country is becoming more divided and more polarized than to say that "the pendulum is swinging to the right." Since the Democrats are the majority and the Republicans the minority, Republicans have decided to lie, cheat, steal, and violently attack the government in order to get their policies implemented.

The Constitution needs to be changed, if only to make it less vulnerable to such attack.

No. Other countries have a clearer separation of powers and don't permit political influence in the appointment of judges, except where things have gone badly wrong (such as Poland currently, The Philippines, Venezuela, etc). Most European countries have civil law based legal systems with heavy codification of the law anyway and are signatories to the ECHR and other human rights agreements. And then they tend to have referendums and constitutions which lay down the requirements for constitutional change, such as weighted majorities of 3/5 or 2/3 in favour of whatever following a referendum. Islamic countries on the other hand tend to have very rigid constitutions and little flow of new legislation which are accordingly quite outdated in many areas.

Considering that the founding fathers of the US constitution recommended that it be reviewed every 20 years to avoid it becoming out of date, its remarkable that changing it to reflect modern times is all that controversial, providing requirements are met.

All armed forces of the UNited States "Swear to protect" and "uphold" the United States Constitution...

It's literally a document written and bound in blood.

So, Ancient Rome Praetorian Guard style, you'd have to convince the soldiers and guardsmen of the military (as Trump often tried to) to prioritize the legitimacy of a commander over the legitimacy of the legal document if you wanted a "New Constitution."

Ask the Taliban maybe? They seem to have held their ground against a far superior fighting force with lesser weaponry.

You sound like a fake Trump RHINO. We real republicans know and acknowledge this and don't speak of other Americans like you do. You're welcome to go back to Europe if you don't like this country!

So you think bullets were invented in 1841 too eh?

I suggest you first try reading the US Constitution. It is only a few pages long and it is written in fairly simple language. After yoy have read and understood it, make your suggestions for what things are not fixable by a Constitutional Amendment. Also remember that most of the "Rights" people hold dear are actually amendments - ex. The first 10 amendments are called the Bill Of Rights.

In fact, there are 2 amendments that cancel each other, Prohibition and the Repeal. So changing the Constitution can be done. Is done, and using the procedures of the Constitution, ensures that drastic changes are supported by a large majority. That is the system you want to dismantle?