You change the laws through the Constitutional process. Period. Otherwise, you are arguing for revolution, and that only involves violence of some sort. If you want things to get really bloody, then revolution is what you want. And guess what? A bunch of people are willing to fight you to the death over it.
1. Revolutions don't always involve "violence of some sort" 2. I'm not arguing for a revolution, I'm arguing for a constitutional convention
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.
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.
I don't know what you're talking about. None of this has to do with what happened last week. It's been true for a long, long time. hell, the fact that Roe/Wade can be decided two different ways by the same court 50 years apart shows how inherently flawed it all is.
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.
To an extent you're right. We broke the U.S. Constitution by amending it to allow for the direct election of senators. The entire Federal Government was not intended nor structured to operate with direct elected senators. In the two houses of Congress, the people were to elect their local U.S. representatives and their local state representatives were to select their respective state senators. All democracy was to be locally based resulting in the House representing the interests of the people and Senate representing the interests of the states as determined by the locally elected state legislatures. We need to go back to the state legislatures selecting the senators.
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.
You just stated many reasons why you should not want your right to keep and bear arms to be infringed.
Do you genuinely believe “the right to bear arms” for private citizens is sufficient to take on the US military in a fight?
Garland was nominated by Obama. Do you really think a Republican controlled senate was going to confirm him? Would a Democratic controlled senate confirm a Republican nominee? Presidents get to nominate justices, that’s it. People act like McConnell took Obama’s right to nominate someone away. He didn’t. He just advised Obama there was no point in moving forward as he wouldn’t get the votes. Why have a hearing if the outcome is already known?
So the next time a Republican is in the White House with a Democratic Senate and a Justice retires 6 months into the presidency, you're cool with no hearing for 3.5 years? Heck let's call it 7.5 years if everyone gets re-elected.
Because it sounds like you are fine with McConnell's tactics, and if we start playing by those rules no new Justices will be confirmed unless the President and Senate are in the same party.
there is no reason to 'change' the constitution since there is already a process to amend it (there are already many amendments); also when you or someone says why not change the constitution, do you or they ever provide details of what changes they want?
This is actually a great discussion, thanks everyone. I was slightly sympathetic to the OP's point but I was quickly dissuaded by the people pointing out that a new constitution would have to be written by present day politicians. No thank you.
I guess what I really want is for it to not be impossible to pass an amendment. 3/4 of states will never agree on anything. There is too much money in politics today, even if you could get 75% of people/states to agree on something, those profiting off the status quo can buy up dissent.
as you say many things in the world have changed, but sadly human nature has not , and the purpose of a constitution (and bill of rights ) is to protect individual freedom from govt overreach and totalitarianism/authoritarianism; the dems 'ideas' of packing the Supreme Court, giving voting rights to 15 or 16 yr olds , no voter ID, and allowing illegals in to the country to vote, are all for one purpose and one purpose only to get power and keep it
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?
I've read the Constitution. I think I have a fairly okay understanding of it. I've also already stated in a couple places that I'm not talking about specific "rights." What I'm suggesting, as I've already said, is that I think a move away from a single executive system to a semi-presidential or parliamentary system (that utilizes proportional representation) would provide for a more modern structure and better represent the citizens of this country.
Would it be easier to rewrite a modern constitution or to retrofit the archaic one we currently have now to meet these ends?
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.
I don't know what you're talking about. None of this has to do with what happened last week. It's been true for a long, long time. hell, the fact that Roe/Wade can be decided two different ways by the same court 50 years apart shows how inherently flawed it all is.
"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."
You don't even know what youare talking about...
Equality to who? Fairness to who? Power for who? The entire basis of the constitution is literally limiting the power of central government.
there is no reason to 'change' the constitution since there is already a process to amend it (there are already many amendments); also when you or someone says why not change the constitution, do you or they ever provide details of what changes they want?
Read the thread, I've stated what changes I want a number of times
Read Thomas Sowell for a better understanding of history, economics, government and society.
It’s understandable when the young have idealistic thoughts and emotions but it seems like parents and professors have taught them that Socialism and Utopia are possibly without knowing reality of China, USSR and Cambodia.
The Radical Revolutionaries of the 1960s and Che and Mao were tyrannical psychopaths yet posters of them have been on college dormitory walls for decades. It’s okay to be hopeful but at some point it’s pathetic to be an idiot.
Concerning guns and the 2nd Amendment, why do the politicians who are legislating against citizens owning the same weapons the public or private security protecting them 24/7??
as you say many things in the world have changed, but sadly human nature has not , and the purpose of a constitution (and bill of rights ) is to protect individual freedom from govt overreach and totalitarianism/authoritarianism; the dems 'ideas' of packing the Supreme Court, giving voting rights to 15 or 16 yr olds , no voter ID, and allowing illegals in to the country to vote, are all for one purpose and one purpose only to get power and keep it
I don't know why it's controversial to have liberals leave the country permanently. They clearly hate the USA. Everyone would be better off. Common sense to me.
Founding Father's were progressive because they wanted change. Conservatives do not want change because that's the basis of their principles. Your common sense is common conservative sense. It's not a bad thing, but hope you understand it is not the prevailing viewpoint.
conservative - a person who is averse to change and holds traditional values.
progressive - a person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal* ideas.
*willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
as you say many things in the world have changed, but sadly human nature has not , and the purpose of a constitution (and bill of rights ) is to protect individual freedom from govt overreach and totalitarianism/authoritarianism; the dems 'ideas' of packing the Supreme Court, giving voting rights to 15 or 16 yr olds , no voter ID, and allowing illegals in to the country to vote, are all for one purpose and one purpose only to get power and keep it
I actually think expanding the Supreme Court makes a lot of sense. The way it is now with such a small number of people is really volatile. Just as a sense check the last two Presidential elections the popular vote was 48% Dem/46% Republican and 51% Dem/47% Republican. And yet right now the Supreme Court is 67% conservative. If our country is truly close to 50/50 or 51/47 or whatever it doesn't make sense that the current process can be so volatile that it produces such a skewed Supreme Court. Throw 21 judges on there and the impact of any given judge is diluted.
Even recognizing that our Justices aren't based on a popular vote, doesn't make sense that the balance on the Court somewhat matches the beliefs of our population? Right now it's skewing conservative but the situation would also not make sense if it were skewed 67% liberal.
If your objection is - why didn't anyone bring this up until now? Well yeah, of course sometimes we don't notice the problem when it's not affecting us or until the limitations of the current situation occur.
as you say many things in the world have changed, but sadly human nature has not , and the purpose of a constitution (and bill of rights ) is to protect individual freedom from govt overreach and totalitarianism/authoritarianism; the dems 'ideas' of packing the Supreme Court, giving voting rights to 15 or 16 yr olds , no voter ID, and allowing illegals in to the country to vote, are all for one purpose and one purpose only to get power and keep it
I actually think expanding the Supreme Court makes a lot of sense. The way it is now with such a small number of people is really volatile. Just as a sense check the last two Presidential elections the popular vote was 48% Dem/46% Republican and 51% Dem/47% Republican. And yet right now the Supreme Court is 67% conservative. If our country is truly close to 50/50 or 51/47 or whatever it doesn't make sense that the current process can be so volatile that it produces such a skewed Supreme Court. Throw 21 judges on there and the impact of any given judge is diluted.
Even recognizing that our Justices aren't based on a popular vote, doesn't make sense that the balance on the Court somewhat matches the beliefs of our population? Right now it's skewing conservative but the situation would also not make sense if it were skewed 67% liberal.
If your objection is - why didn't anyone bring this up until now? Well yeah, of course sometimes we don't notice the problem when it's not affecting us or until the limitations of the current situation occur.
as you say many things in the world have changed, but sadly human nature has not , and the purpose of a constitution (and bill of rights ) is to protect individual freedom from govt overreach and totalitarianism/authoritarianism; the dems 'ideas' of packing the Supreme Court, giving voting rights to 15 or 16 yr olds , no voter ID, and allowing illegals in to the country to vote, are all for one purpose and one purpose only to get power and keep it
The "human nature" argument is so overused and lazy. Also, you're looking at things through a very cultural specific lens; the notion that the purpose of a constitution is to protect individual liberty from government overreach is at the core of much western liberal thought (eg Hobbes, Locke), but at the end of the day it's just another ideological assumption. There are numerous equally valid ways of conceptualizing political life and the role of government
Revolutions ALWAYS involve violence. History demonstrates that as a fact.
A Consititutional Convention - THAT is legal under the Constitution, and in fact is already taking place as a movement by my Conservative brothers/sisters.
