The problem is-- who is going to re-write it? This is a serious question. Do you really think a consensus of those currently running the US government could do better than the Framers?
No they won’t. But someone will. Because someone would need to. Probably a lot of people. And the states would need to ratify it. If you can get all the states on board with something, it might be better than what we currently have. It might not.
But that doesn’t matter. What we have today is broken. Unquestionably, it needs a major overhaul. Nothing lasts forever. Not even the United States of America. The Framers weren’t special people. They were ordinary men. No smarter than us today. And we understand the world today much much better than they ever could. So I’d bet on any random one of us, over them.
We come down to the same underlying problem that we have today- the people of the country are not actively engaged in the political process, not nearly to the same degree the Framers intended.
The difference between those people who wrote our constitution and the people we have today is those people recognized the importance of what they were doing. They were willing to stand up and fight and die if necessary to create a free society. Today the inheritors of that free society largely can’t even be bothered to vote, let alone put in an hour or two of research to figure out who to vote for.
So I will agree with you that the wording of the original document is imprecise, and a lot of what we now call constitutional law comes as much if not more from various Court decisions than from the document itself.
But given the situation that we have currently, I am genuinely curious what you think could be improved? Knowing the players in question who would be writing the new constitution, knowing the amount of influence various people and groups and companies have over our political process, a. What do you think could or should be changed or improved, and b. How likely is it do you think that would actually happen without the process being corrupted?
Knowing the players in question who would be writing the new constitution
We don’t know who. Members of the current government certainly wouldn’t. They have too much invested in the current system. They’d do everything they could to fight it. No revolution ever included officials or influencers from the old government.
As for what changes would be needed? That would be a massive list. Heavily dependent on details.
Generally speaking:
More explicit guardrails around corruption.
Less centralized power in the executive branch. Maybe multiple “Presidents”
A mechanism for the public to unilaterally recall an elected offical.
Intrabranch enforcement of powers over each other. So the courts can’t just be ignored.
That’s just the high flyers off the top of my head.
I completely agree on corruption. And I would love a uniform mechanism for elected officials to be recalled.
That said, the rest of what you described I don’t think it is due to problems with the Constitution, but rather with the people in government. The executive branch has seized a huge amount of power not because the Constitution granted it but because the other branches let them have it and do not appropriately enforce their own checks and balances against the executive.
The dysfunction of Congress is a primary issue. But that is because the idiot voters keep electing the same assholes with no research until they literally die of old age. The result in Congress is too busy serving their own ends to really exert power over the executive or properly manage the courts. That is not a constitutional problem.
And the courts make rulings all the time that get ignored, but judicial doesn’t hold anyone’s feet to the fire. Also not a constitutional problem.
I think you could fix a lot of this pretty simply with an amendment or two. 1. Voting day is a paid national holiday. 2. Term limits in Congress. 3. Legal prohibition against gerrymandering.
4. An explicit process to recall any politician or judge in any federal position- 1. Need a petition signed by 5% of their constituency, or 1 million people if federal. 2. A majority vote 6 weeks after the petition is approved.
The problem is-- who is going to re-write it? This is a serious question. Do you really think a consensus of those currently running the US government could do better than the Framers?
No they won’t. But someone will. Because someone would need to. Probably a lot of people. And the states would need to ratify it. If you can get all the states on board with something, it might be better than what we currently have. It might not.
But that doesn’t matter. What we have today is broken. Unquestionably, it needs a major overhaul. Nothing lasts forever. Not even the United States of America. The Framers weren’t special people. They were ordinary men. No smarter than us today. And we understand the world today much much better than they ever could. So I’d bet on any random one of us, over them.
We come down to the same underlying problem that we have today- the people of the country are not actively engaged in the political process, not nearly to the same degree the Framers intended.
The difference between those people who wrote our constitution and the people we have today is those people recognized the importance of what they were doing. They were willing to stand up and fight and die if necessary to create a free society. Today the inheritors of that free society largely can’t even be bothered to vote, let alone put in an hour or two of research to figure out who to vote for.
So I will agree with you that the wording of the original document is imprecise, and a lot of what we now call constitutional law comes as much if not more from various Court decisions than from the document itself. But given the situation that we have currently, I am genuinely curious what you think could be improved? Knowing the players in question who would be writing the new constitution, knowing the amount of influence various people and groups and companies have over our political process, a. What do you think could or should be changed or improved, and b. How likely is it do you think that would actually happen without the process being corrupted?
We don’t know who. Members of the current government certainly wouldn’t. They have too much invested in the current system. They’d do everything they could to fight it. No revolution ever included officials or influencers from the old government.
As for what changes would be needed? That would be a massive list. Heavily dependent on details.
Generally speaking:
That’s just the high flyers off the top of my head.
I completely agree on corruption. And I would love a uniform mechanism for elected officials to be recalled.
That said, the rest of what you described I don’t think it is due to problems with the Constitution, but rather with the people in government. The executive branch has seized a huge amount of power not because the Constitution granted it but because the other branches let them have it and do not appropriately enforce their own checks and balances against the executive.
The dysfunction of Congress is a primary issue. But that is because the idiot voters keep electing the same assholes with no research until they literally die of old age. The result in Congress is too busy serving their own ends to really exert power over the executive or properly manage the courts. That is not a constitutional problem.
And the courts make rulings all the time that get ignored, but judicial doesn’t hold anyone’s feet to the fire. Also not a constitutional problem.
I think you could fix a lot of this pretty simply with an amendment or two. 1. Voting day is a paid national holiday. 2. Term limits in Congress. 3. Legal prohibition against gerrymandering. 4. An explicit process to recall any politician or judge in any federal position- 1. Need a petition signed by 5% of their constituency, or 1 million people if federal. 2. A majority vote 6 weeks after the petition is approved.