6 ms·

I would not trust the present day to create a viable constitution. It would likely be dominated by whatever party is in charge to perpetuate their specific plat

I would not trust the present day to create a viable constitution. It would likely be dominated by whatever party is in charge to perpetuate their specific platform rather than to establish principle based rules. The original constitution is really kind of amazing at how well it’s functioned. It has flaws, obviously, but seems really effective.

markdown 5y ago
Those flaws are pretty massive though. Legalising slavery and letting anyone and his dog own guns? That barbaric and doesn't belong in any constitution in 2021.
- jdpedrie 5y ago
  Those two things are in no way comparable.
  - tomrod 5y ago
    But they are, as both are no longer necessary in a civil, functioning society. Consider Europe, much of Asia, which have been able to achieve democracy, stability, and little need for open carry or slavery. Now, one has a lot of open supporters (gun rights exceeding the US second amendment, in that the regulated militia component gets left out).
    - harpersealtako 5y ago
      1) A more fair interpretation of the pro-gun argument would be that firearm rights are designed to guarantee long-term stability and democracy. The current stability of a small amount of relatively young democracies in Europe and Asia that do not have gun rights does not debunk the claim that gun rights protect against tyranny over the long term. 2) Considering the EXTREMELY violent, turbulent history of the last 100-150 years of governance (democratic and otherwise) in Europe and Asia, I don't think this is the strong argument you think it is.
- fuckcensorship 5y ago
  > Legalising slavery The original constitution did not address slavery until the passing of the thirteenth amendment in 1865 which made it illegal except as punishment for a convicted crime.
  - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
    https://www.britannica.com/topic/three-fifths-compromise https://www.britannica.com/topic/three-fifths-compromise it's true that the word slavery is not used, but if you talk about free people and then note that there are not free people and make political rules for how those non free people should be counted, then in a slave holding society it becomes somewhat obvious who you're talking about.
  - dignan 5y ago
    Article 1, Section 9 specifically prevented slavery from being abolished until 1808. The three-fifths compromise (Article 1, Section 2) also addressed slavery. The word never appears, but there are plenty of euphemistic references.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - mcny 5y ago
    » which made it illegal except as punishment for a convicted crime It is time to revise this in my opinion. Just because I am in prison does not mean you can require me to work. If you can't afford to feed, clothe, house, and provide necessary medical services, release me. The fact that the state of Texas can deny air conditioning to inmates (when the temperature is ought to be enough for the US to require Texas to release all inmates in those conditions. How can states that are arguably in direct violation of basic human rights still have representation in the union is beyond me. » Refusing to install air conditioning is a matter not just of short-term cost savings, but of appearing tough on crime. State and local governments go to astonishing lengths to avoid installing air conditioning in prisons. In 2016, Louisiana spent over $1 million in legal bills in an attempt to avoid installing air conditioning on death row, an amount four times higher than the actual cost of installing air conditioning, according to an expert witness. Similarly, in 2014, the people of Jefferson Parish, LA only voted to build a new jail after local leaders promised there would be no air conditioning. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2019/06/18/air-conditioning/ https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2019/06/18/air-conditionin... It isn't just Texas. Prisoners throughout the country are malnourished and starving. It costs way too much to make a phone call so much so that public libraries offer assistance with phone calls. Democracy should not mean tyranny of the majority. I don't understand how this is controversial. If states and local governments are in violation of the constitution, they should automatically lose representation in the union.
- FpUser 5y ago
  I am very much against slavery even as a punishment. I think it is a shame that the US allows it in such form. Guns, I am not so sure. There are numerous benefits to be able to own guns besides protection.
- prepend 5y ago
  Slavery should have been outlawed, but the gun bit isn’t so bad, I think. But I think, at the time, slavery was still legal in most of the world so while it would have been right to outlaw it, it’s understandable how it was allowed. And the amendments outlawing it actually show how the constitution works as ideas change over time. If Americans change their opinion on guns then that could change as well. But I don’t think that will happen in 34 states.
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    > And the amendments outlawing it actually show how the constitution works as ideas change over time. The amendment to end slavery happened on the backbone of killing several hundred thousand Americans. The compromise between two sides was to shoot people until one side agreed.
    - markdown 5y ago
      > The amendment to end slavery This didn't happen, and the constitution still explicitly allows slavery.
    - prepend 5y ago
      I think the civil war was independent of the constitution and it would have occurred regardless of whatever the legal structure was.
      - threatofrain 5y ago
        The southern states were required to ratify the 14th Amendment as a condition of having any federal representation, and it nullified a prior Supreme Court ruling on the Constitution. The 15th Amendment was specifically designed to counter anticipation of tactics to dodge the 14th Amendment. You were just talking about how the 14th Amendment reflects how the Constitution adapts to the changing values of a nation. Yes, after one side shoots the other side into agreement, and after 750,000 lives ended. Then the victor decided the outcome of history. One can only imagine how the course of the Constitution would have been "independent" to the course of the Civil War if the northern states had lost.
rootusrootus 5y ago
On the other hand, modern countries who once used the US Constitution as a starting point for their own version no longer do, because ours is stuck two centuries back and there is no reason to believe we have the ability to change that.
- readflaggedcomm 5y ago
  That sounds like a feature rather than a bug.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    Certainly there are different perspectives. I think many people don't trust that we have the ability to change the Constitution to suit modern American culture without ruining it. But it's also arguable that we could do much to clarify modern interpretation of principles that aren't as obvious given the dramatic shift in technology between 1789 and today.
- zamadatix 5y ago
  1865-1965 saw more than 1 amendment per decade which was a pretty good clip IMO, churning enough that the 21st was to repeal the 18th for example. It has only really been the last 50 years it slowed down with the long proposed and relatively minor 27th amendment catching a second wind of state approvals. Not the longest dry spell either, the early 1800s also had a 50ish year void.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > 1865-1965 saw more than 1 amendment per decade No, it didn't. It averaged more than one per decade, which isn't the same thing. In that period you had the post-Civil War Amendments (3, between 1865 and 1870), more than 40 years with nothing, another burst from 1913-1920 (3 amendments), a burst in 1933 (2 amendments), one by itself in 1951, and then a flurry overlapping the end of the period from 1961-1971 (4 amendments, 2 each before and after your 1965 cutoff). And, just to be complete, after that you’ve got one solitary amendment in 1992 (the last of the 11 that have passed of the 12 proposed together as the Bill of Rights) and nothing since. > Not the longest dry spell either, the early 1800s also had a 50ish year void. 61 from the 12th Amendment, the last of the fairly immediate post-Constitution ones, in 1804 to the 13th, the first of the post-Civil War ones, in 1865.
vzcx 5y ago
I'll take a crack at it. How about a two-person consularship with a red consul and a blue consul? Together they wield full executive control, but nothing happens unless both agree on a particular action. Would you ratify?
- erect_mom 5y ago
  Why do you guys keep dreaming up there bizarre forms of government when the parliamentary system exists and works well enough…
- davemp 5y ago
  What happens when one person dies suddenly?
  - unclenoriega 5y ago
    The appropriate vice-consul takes over, presumably.

markdown 5y ago

Those flaws are pretty massive though. Legalising slavery and letting anyone and his dog own guns? That barbaric and doesn't belong in any constitution in 2021.

jdpedrie 5y ago
Those two things are in no way comparable.
- tomrod 5y ago
  But they are, as both are no longer necessary in a civil, functioning society. Consider Europe, much of Asia, which have been able to achieve democracy, stability, and little need for open carry or slavery. Now, one has a lot of open supporters (gun rights exceeding the US second amendment, in that the regulated militia component gets left out).
  - harpersealtako 5y ago
    1) A more fair interpretation of the pro-gun argument would be that firearm rights are designed to guarantee long-term stability and democracy. The current stability of a small amount of relatively young democracies in Europe and Asia that do not have gun rights does not debunk the claim that gun rights protect against tyranny over the long term. 2) Considering the EXTREMELY violent, turbulent history of the last 100-150 years of governance (democratic and otherwise) in Europe and Asia, I don't think this is the strong argument you think it is.
fuckcensorship 5y ago
> Legalising slavery The original constitution did not address slavery until the passing of the thirteenth amendment in 1865 which made it illegal except as punishment for a convicted crime.
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  https://www.britannica.com/topic/three-fifths-compromise https://www.britannica.com/topic/three-fifths-compromise it's true that the word slavery is not used, but if you talk about free people and then note that there are not free people and make political rules for how those non free people should be counted, then in a slave holding society it becomes somewhat obvious who you're talking about.
- dignan 5y ago
  Article 1, Section 9 specifically prevented slavery from being abolished until 1808. The three-fifths compromise (Article 1, Section 2) also addressed slavery. The word never appears, but there are plenty of euphemistic references.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mcny 5y ago
  » which made it illegal except as punishment for a convicted crime It is time to revise this in my opinion. Just because I am in prison does not mean you can require me to work. If you can't afford to feed, clothe, house, and provide necessary medical services, release me. The fact that the state of Texas can deny air conditioning to inmates (when the temperature is ought to be enough for the US to require Texas to release all inmates in those conditions. How can states that are arguably in direct violation of basic human rights still have representation in the union is beyond me. » Refusing to install air conditioning is a matter not just of short-term cost savings, but of appearing tough on crime. State and local governments go to astonishing lengths to avoid installing air conditioning in prisons. In 2016, Louisiana spent over $1 million in legal bills in an attempt to avoid installing air conditioning on death row, an amount four times higher than the actual cost of installing air conditioning, according to an expert witness. Similarly, in 2014, the people of Jefferson Parish, LA only voted to build a new jail after local leaders promised there would be no air conditioning. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2019/06/18/air-conditioning/ https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2019/06/18/air-conditionin... It isn't just Texas. Prisoners throughout the country are malnourished and starving. It costs way too much to make a phone call so much so that public libraries offer assistance with phone calls. Democracy should not mean tyranny of the majority. I don't understand how this is controversial. If states and local governments are in violation of the constitution, they should automatically lose representation in the union.
FpUser 5y ago
I am very much against slavery even as a punishment. I think it is a shame that the US allows it in such form. Guns, I am not so sure. There are numerous benefits to be able to own guns besides protection.
prepend 5y ago
Slavery should have been outlawed, but the gun bit isn’t so bad, I think. But I think, at the time, slavery was still legal in most of the world so while it would have been right to outlaw it, it’s understandable how it was allowed. And the amendments outlawing it actually show how the constitution works as ideas change over time. If Americans change their opinion on guns then that could change as well. But I don’t think that will happen in 34 states.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  > And the amendments outlawing it actually show how the constitution works as ideas change over time. The amendment to end slavery happened on the backbone of killing several hundred thousand Americans. The compromise between two sides was to shoot people until one side agreed.
  - markdown 5y ago
    > The amendment to end slavery This didn't happen, and the constitution still explicitly allows slavery.
  - prepend 5y ago
    I think the civil war was independent of the constitution and it would have occurred regardless of whatever the legal structure was.
    - threatofrain 5y ago
      The southern states were required to ratify the 14th Amendment as a condition of having any federal representation, and it nullified a prior Supreme Court ruling on the Constitution. The 15th Amendment was specifically designed to counter anticipation of tactics to dodge the 14th Amendment. You were just talking about how the 14th Amendment reflects how the Constitution adapts to the changing values of a nation. Yes, after one side shoots the other side into agreement, and after 750,000 lives ended. Then the victor decided the outcome of history. One can only imagine how the course of the Constitution would have been "independent" to the course of the Civil War if the northern states had lost.

rootusrootus 5y ago

On the other hand, modern countries who once used the US Constitution as a starting point for their own version no longer do, because ours is stuck two centuries back and there is no reason to believe we have the ability to change that.

readflaggedcomm 5y ago
That sounds like a feature rather than a bug.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  Certainly there are different perspectives. I think many people don't trust that we have the ability to change the Constitution to suit modern American culture without ruining it. But it's also arguable that we could do much to clarify modern interpretation of principles that aren't as obvious given the dramatic shift in technology between 1789 and today.
zamadatix 5y ago
1865-1965 saw more than 1 amendment per decade which was a pretty good clip IMO, churning enough that the 21st was to repeal the 18th for example. It has only really been the last 50 years it slowed down with the long proposed and relatively minor 27th amendment catching a second wind of state approvals. Not the longest dry spell either, the early 1800s also had a 50ish year void.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > 1865-1965 saw more than 1 amendment per decade No, it didn't. It averaged more than one per decade, which isn't the same thing. In that period you had the post-Civil War Amendments (3, between 1865 and 1870), more than 40 years with nothing, another burst from 1913-1920 (3 amendments), a burst in 1933 (2 amendments), one by itself in 1951, and then a flurry overlapping the end of the period from 1961-1971 (4 amendments, 2 each before and after your 1965 cutoff). And, just to be complete, after that you’ve got one solitary amendment in 1992 (the last of the 11 that have passed of the 12 proposed together as the Bill of Rights) and nothing since. > Not the longest dry spell either, the early 1800s also had a 50ish year void. 61 from the 12th Amendment, the last of the fairly immediate post-Constitution ones, in 1804 to the 13th, the first of the post-Civil War ones, in 1865.

vzcx 5y ago

I'll take a crack at it. How about a two-person consularship with a red consul and a blue consul? Together they wield full executive control, but nothing happens unless both agree on a particular action. Would you ratify?

erect_mom 5y ago
Why do you guys keep dreaming up there bizarre forms of government when the parliamentary system exists and works well enough…
davemp 5y ago
What happens when one person dies suddenly?
- unclenoriega 5y ago
  The appropriate vice-consul takes over, presumably.