| ▲ | jen729w 8 hours ago |
| > Constitutional changes Y'all have proven how worthless that piece of paper is. |
|
| ▲ | pavlov 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| There are many countries that have functioning constitutions that are regularly revised. It’s not impossible for the USA to get there one day. |
| |
| ▲ | stevenwoo 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | We still haven't fixed things caused by putting chattel slavery into the Constitution almost 150 years after a civil war. | | |
| ▲ | pavlov 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Well, that's why I wrote "not impossible" rather than "likely"... These things can be fixed even though it's difficult. Sometimes the pressure just boils over. Americans are a lot more defeatist about their politics than in many other democratic countries. | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Hell, we deliberately left it in. > Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. |
| |
| ▲ | bdangubic 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | it is impossible and it is great that it is impossible because you need one party to basically run everything at the federal level and vast majority at the state level which means that any changes to the constitution would be heavily politically motivated to one side of the isle. | | |
| ▲ | pavlov 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Looking at the results, it's obviously not great that there's no reasonable process to update the constitution. It's the most dysfunctional democracy in the West. Change that seems inevitable in retrospect often feels like a surprise in the moment. France its on its fifth republic. A second American republic is not impossible. | | |
| ▲ | fuzzfactor 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | >there's no reasonable process to update the constitution. Au contraire, a Constitutional Convention of the states to define the way they can all agree to be united. Just like the first time. There weren't that many states back then anyway. | | |
| ▲ | bdangubic 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | You talking theoretically or in practice. Theoretically we could have Constitutional Convention of the states to define the way they can "all" agree to be united (just like the first time). In practice there is a higher chance of me marrying Beyonce |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | zeroonetwothree 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Doesn’t this decision exactly prove the opposite? |
|
| ▲ | maxwell 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| What piece of paper is worth more to you? |
| |
| ▲ | jen729w 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | The difference with many other countries -- I'm Australian -- is that we don't constantly bang on about how glorious our constitution is and how it's the be-all end-all. We just get on with it. And I wouldn't mind if the American constitution did provide all of these tremendous benefits that everyone bangs on about all the time. That'd be great! But it turns out nobody's really tested that, until now. And you get an F, my friend. Hard fail. | | |
| ▲ | maxwell 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I mean, it was the world's first codified constitution, written after the world's first successful war of independence. Which later constitutions do you grade higher? Who has stronger rights? | | |
| ▲ | Freedom2 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is moving the goalposts, but I'll entertain this. What does the time / date of the original document have to do with the fact that it's rarely updated and that there's seemingly a constitutional crisis every week for the last year and a bit? No one is arguing here about the strength of rights or the 'grade' of the constitution. |
| |
| ▲ | unethical_ban 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The problem with the US Constitution and its religious status in the US is that it contains both fundamental rights and protections for citizens, AND the mundane details of implementing the government. If you put 500 mock Constitutional conventions together at universities and cities across the country, I would polymarket my 401k that none of them would come up with the same structure we have today in the US. Many republics founded since 1791 have far better democratic structures than the US does. I call the US a semi-democracy because of our Senate, Electoral college, gerrymandered House districts and first-past-the-post voting. Edit: I got "danged" so here is my response to the person below - Consider the bill of rights and federal limits separately from the structure of government. I believe France and Australia have better "democratic infrastructure" and I'm sure they aren't the only ones. | | |
| ▲ | maxwell 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Which later republics, specifically? Who has stronger rights? | | |
| ▲ | unethical_ban an hour ago | parent [-] | | France and Australia pop to mind. I'm not talking about legally protected rights, I'm talking about the "democratic infrastructure". Voting systems, legislative assembly design, power balance, and so on. |
|
|
|
|
