Does the US need a new constitution?

Post Reply New Topic

The US Constitution is no longer working. It's had a good 231-year run, but just as my time will some day come to an end, likewise our beloved Constitution should consider stepping aside.

The Constitution no longer protects us from dictatorship. It no longer guarantees us peaceful and orderly transition of power. It should allow people of different beliefs to live and work peacefully together but now we face possible civil war (the real thing as occurred in Spain, not what happened here in the 1860s although that was bloody awful enough).

My suggestion would be to return to some sort of Confederation, by which I mean that States would be self-governing and the sole purpose of the Federal Government would be to ensure that the States co-exist peacefully (as they failed to do in the 1860s despite our "more perfect union") and when needed to represent our homeland to outside interests. The US has gotten too big for a unified government like the one we have now as there is no natural consensus (although the consensus we had earlier may have very well just been a matter of the political élite imposing its will while convincing us by persuasion that we were in fact free). We have a choice of either an authoritarian Confucianist model like China (which would probably only happen if China were to seize control and impose it on us) or else decentralization so that Americans could make decisions about their lives within smaller, more governable groups.

At present we are playing a winner-take-all game in which 2 very closely matched factions, who agree on very little, are vying for absolute control (not all that dissimilar to Palestine vs. Israel). Don't act surprised if this leads to violence. I don't see how our present-day Constitution provides a framework for making that situation any better.

It stopped working long before we were born.

The "New Deal" should be been stopped.

The US government has no business running a health care operation.

The US government has no business running a retirement savings program.

They're awful at both.

It harms people.

I'll take either right now. Strict constructionist, or loose constructionist. As long as they know what the Constitution IS! But right now we dont have the luxury of having that perennial debate between those permanent factions because we have a POTUS who never took a grade school civics class in his life, and never even heard of the US Constitution, doesnt understand the concept of the rule of law,

You entirely miss my point.

The remainder of your response sounds like Libertarian snake oil. I see no reason to believe the US Constitution was intended as a Libertarian Manifesto. No successful Western "democracy"(*) has ever adopted Libertarianism, or its ugly sister Objectivism, as a basis for governing, nevertheless the political culture in the US has been pushed in that direction for the last 40 years and has sunk ever lower in comparison with our peers in the West (I limit my comparisons to the West in order to avoid a number of unrelated arguments I wish to avoid).

Ironically, for the US to become a Libertarian Utopia would require drastic changes to the Constitution. Not only would we need to abolish Social Security etc. but we would need provisions in the Constitution to prevent states from enacting laws that violate the teachings of Libertarianism and Objectivism. Imagine if California were to adopt policies based on Democratic Socialism! BTW the population of California is 8 times that of New Zealand, even my own little state (Maryland) is bigger than NZ. PM Ardern really has quite an easy job compared to that of the Governor of Maryland, or the PM of Canada for that matter.

Another problem I see echoed in your response is the suggestion that the Constitution is some sort of sacred document. The fact being that even America is gradually becoming less religious, I see the Right adopting the Constitution as a sort of substitute for the Christian Bible. Well, no country can remain free once its Constitution becomes sanctified as a holy document, that is a recipe for totalitarianism.

But it wasn't my intent to promote or disparage any particular philosophy of government. I merely proposed that the power of the Federal Government has grown beyond its capacity to be effective or consistent with the peaceful co-existence of our 100s of millions-strong diverse population. TBH I would recommend we transition to some sort of confederation. Please don't point out to me that the Articles of Confederation were a failure. A lot changes in 231 years.

(*) I use the asterisk because I want to avoid a discussion about the definition of "Democracy".

You either draw the line somewhere, or there is no line.

You don't think the Constitution should address the general welfare of its citizens?

The US Constitution doesn't grant the US government the powers to do whatever it wants for "general welfare".

SCOTUS initially struck down the "New Deal" as being unconstitutional.

It only passed based on a 5-4 vote.

SCOTUS allowed it because they said, "it is just a tax not earmarked towards anything".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... ted_States

So, Social Security could be ended at any time, because, legally, it has nothing to do with Social Security taxes.

We seem to be at a point where the US government just does whatever it wants.

Also, it's a TERRIBLE "deal" ...

Well, I am glad you are rich and will always be so. SS keeps a whole bunch of people out of poverty. It is also a disability, life, and unemployment insurance covering 18% on those on SS. It is not an investment tool.

But like I pointed out, the Constitution does allow for the general welfare of the people. The collective nature of government action is important. And you greatly benefit from that action. And even though you hate the nation created under that Constitution, you are welcome to speak out against it and even vote against it (taking up arms against it is another matter). While I understand you would rather live in a plutocracy and you have the financial ability to do so, you will find that system is far more harmful.

This is not about being rich.

The yearly rate of return on invested Social Security money is horrible.

Over a lifetime , that money loss is substantial.

This applies to everyone.

You do understand that SS is not an investment instrument? If you want to gamble on the stock market, there are ways. Stocks don't guarantee a rate of return and retirement investments have been known to go bankrupt leaving the person with nothing (fortunately, many of those people have SS to fall back on).

SS is also insurance. And SS will pay out for the rest of your life, unlike 401Ks that only pay out for a specified period. And this applies to everyone.

Keep the constitution - abolish the electoral college/delegate system. It became obsolete when the telegraph was invented. Long overdue.

In the meantime, vote November 3rd. Make your 0.7 of a vote count...

There needs to be additions to it I think. For example, there needs to be protections for The LBGTQ people that can't be taken away with a court decision. It was mentioned but, Corporations ARE NOT people and should not be treated as such.