Hell of an assertion to make when the laws have given rise to an administration that, by virtue of loading the courts, have effectively mimicked the exact sort of power plays one expects from a dictator, up to and including allusions from the leader about not having the next election.

▲

normalaccess 2 days ago | parent [-]

The constitution is not a list of rights the people have, it's a list of rights the Government Doesn't have. You want to add government to fix government? Or take rights away to support your own chosen party? That's a fools errand.

It's easy to spot a problem, but very hard to get the right solution.

▲

ToucanLoucan 2 days ago | parent [-]

Your entire assertion seems to boil down to "government bad" with no further analysis or theory. "Add government to fix government" is effectively how representative democracy works, at least in theory. The amendments we are currently discussing in fact fit the description of "adding government to fix government" quite literally; they were ratified additions to the Constitution.

And like, yeah spotting problems is easier than giving right solutions, but what you're discussing here feels a lot more like just giving up on it entirely, which seems a horrific practice when the entity in question literally runs your society?

	▲	normalaccess 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		The amendments to the U.S. Constitution generally limited the power of the government as time went on. Less government is almost always better. I'm no anarchist but I do believe that we need to massively trim the fat from time to time. And I also believe that America has the best foundation to build upon. I have yet to see better founding documents.