Talk of changing the United States Constitution at this time is akin to painting the living room while the house is on fire. Do we really need to water down our efforts in preserving the Democratic form of Government we currently enjoy? We have got to coalesce around the 2022 and 2024 elections.
Perhaps the Constitution is not so much at fault as the people who interpret it.
Mike All this talk about a Constitutional Convention is totally irrelevant to what is occurring in modern-day America In over 250 years there has been fewer than 30 Constitutional Amendments, of which only a handful were substantive. The suggestion that a Constitutional Convention could тАШrepairтАЩ the Constitution defies political realities [requirement for approval from 3/4 of states].
I commented earlier today on the volatility of the Constitutional checks-and-balances provisions. Additionally. There is the ongoing struggle over federal/states rights as reflected in the 10th Amendment.
We are obliged to work within our existing amended Constitution under which, for now, we have a тАШrogueтАЩ Supreme Court. Currently it seems highly unlikely that the Legislature can clip the wings of this court and a president has limited opportunity to enforce Executive Orders.
The document doesn't need repairing - it needs replacing, preferably with a document that supports a Westminster (i.e. parliamentary) style system rather than the Latin American-style presidential system now in place (Look up the stats on which countries besides the US actually have presidential systems. You'll be shocked.)
Why in the world would we now try to be like the very form of government we rebelled against?
You also discount the sense of tradition, Patriotism and downright love Americans have for their Founding Fathers and the Constitution of these United States.
At present the United States is going through what is undoubtedly a cataclysmic and frightening time. We are in a serious battle for our Democracy. Constant disparaging of who we are, our past and how our Constitution works is untimely to say the least.
Maybe because it works, for the UK and for most of the world outside of the United States. (And has worked for upwards of a thousand years.) Why would the US want a form of government which is found almost exclusively in South America, and in South American dictatorships at that? There was nothing inherently wrong with the form of government in place in England at the time of the American Revolution - just in its policies toward its colonies in the New World. I grew up in the US and would love to see its brave political experiment succeed, but at the rate things are going, I'm afraid it might not - at least not without some major rethinking.
I think the biggest problem is that it allows the states too much latitude in formulating their own laws and policies. This was appropriate for a very young America, which had a small, culturally and ethnically uniform population, occupied a relatively small geographic area, and where, for the most part, the states were on the same page politically. Now that the United States is a huge, multicultural, ethnically diverse conglomeration of 50 individual states, each of which with its own views on critical issues like reproductive rights, voting rights, housing, access to health care, and the provision of a welfare infrastructure, the original constitutional concept has become all but unworkable. (Look what's happened with abortion legislation in Texas, for example.)
And the Republicans argue for more States' rights whereas the Democrats argue for more Federal control. A perfect example is where President Biden instituted mask mandates which infuriated the Republicans. They prevailed upon the courts who in some cases overturned the mandates. I don't have the specifics on why they overturned the mandates. I don't see where this is the fault of the Constitution but the interpretation.
It's hard to misinterpret the 10th Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States, and to the people." In my way of thinking, this gives the states an INCREDIBLE amount of latitude - a degree of latitude which is literally tearing the US apart.
Talia I can appreciate your frustration with our Constitution as it has gradually evolved over more than 250 years. Can you describe how we might scrap the present Constitution and create some sort of parliamentary system? As I described in my commentary, the devil is in the details. I donтАЩt foresee such a revolutionary endeavor.
Hate to admit I lived in Massachusetts for over two decades and have never read its Constitution. It did seem to work well. Now living in Texas I don't think I could make any sense out of its Constitution and its 507 amendments! That what odd year elections are for - to pass Constitutional amendments by small turn-out on important things like allowing rodeos to do raffles.
The US Constitution was a brilliant and appropriate document for its time, when the US was a small, close-knit country with a relatvely homogeneous population and common social values. Its creators had know way of knowing that in 200 years, the country would become a sprawling , coast-to-coast conglomerate of fifty states, each of which with disparate politics, demographics, characters, and philosophies. Had they known, I think the Constitution would hsve been written quite differently.
Your comment is illustrates why I almost always vote no on constitutional amendment ballot measures in California. Some of the things people want to hammer into a state or federal constitution do NOT belong in a constitution.
I say we substitute the Massachuesetts Constitution for the US Constitution.
A MUCH better document and sans all the compromises with the slave states and rich plantation owners.
Talk of changing the United States Constitution at this time is akin to painting the living room while the house is on fire. Do we really need to water down our efforts in preserving the Democratic form of Government we currently enjoy? We have got to coalesce around the 2022 and 2024 elections.
Perhaps the Constitution is not so much at fault as the people who interpret it.
Mike All this talk about a Constitutional Convention is totally irrelevant to what is occurring in modern-day America In over 250 years there has been fewer than 30 Constitutional Amendments, of which only a handful were substantive. The suggestion that a Constitutional Convention could тАШrepairтАЩ the Constitution defies political realities [requirement for approval from 3/4 of states].
I commented earlier today on the volatility of the Constitutional checks-and-balances provisions. Additionally. There is the ongoing struggle over federal/states rights as reflected in the 10th Amendment.
We are obliged to work within our existing amended Constitution under which, for now, we have a тАШrogueтАЩ Supreme Court. Currently it seems highly unlikely that the Legislature can clip the wings of this court and a president has limited opportunity to enforce Executive Orders.
The document doesn't need repairing - it needs replacing, preferably with a document that supports a Westminster (i.e. parliamentary) style system rather than the Latin American-style presidential system now in place (Look up the stats on which countries besides the US actually have presidential systems. You'll be shocked.)
Why in the world would we now try to be like the very form of government we rebelled against?
You also discount the sense of tradition, Patriotism and downright love Americans have for their Founding Fathers and the Constitution of these United States.
At present the United States is going through what is undoubtedly a cataclysmic and frightening time. We are in a serious battle for our Democracy. Constant disparaging of who we are, our past and how our Constitution works is untimely to say the least.
Maybe because it works, for the UK and for most of the world outside of the United States. (And has worked for upwards of a thousand years.) Why would the US want a form of government which is found almost exclusively in South America, and in South American dictatorships at that? There was nothing inherently wrong with the form of government in place in England at the time of the American Revolution - just in its policies toward its colonies in the New World. I grew up in the US and would love to see its brave political experiment succeed, but at the rate things are going, I'm afraid it might not - at least not without some major rethinking.
Someone asked you what specifically in the US Constitution you thought was in error. Have you answered that?
What exactly isn't working in our Democratic form of government?
I think the biggest problem is that it allows the states too much latitude in formulating their own laws and policies. This was appropriate for a very young America, which had a small, culturally and ethnically uniform population, occupied a relatively small geographic area, and where, for the most part, the states were on the same page politically. Now that the United States is a huge, multicultural, ethnically diverse conglomeration of 50 individual states, each of which with its own views on critical issues like reproductive rights, voting rights, housing, access to health care, and the provision of a welfare infrastructure, the original constitutional concept has become all but unworkable. (Look what's happened with abortion legislation in Texas, for example.)
And the Republicans argue for more States' rights whereas the Democrats argue for more Federal control. A perfect example is where President Biden instituted mask mandates which infuriated the Republicans. They prevailed upon the courts who in some cases overturned the mandates. I don't have the specifics on why they overturned the mandates. I don't see where this is the fault of the Constitution but the interpretation.
It's hard to misinterpret the 10th Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States, and to the people." In my way of thinking, this gives the states an INCREDIBLE amount of latitude - a degree of latitude which is literally tearing the US apart.
Talia I can appreciate your frustration with our Constitution as it has gradually evolved over more than 250 years. Can you describe how we might scrap the present Constitution and create some sort of parliamentary system? As I described in my commentary, the devil is in the details. I donтАЩt foresee such a revolutionary endeavor.
The question should be: What is in the Constitution that you perceive as not working?
Hate to admit I lived in Massachusetts for over two decades and have never read its Constitution. It did seem to work well. Now living in Texas I don't think I could make any sense out of its Constitution and its 507 amendments! That what odd year elections are for - to pass Constitutional amendments by small turn-out on important things like allowing rodeos to do raffles.
The US Constitution was a brilliant and appropriate document for its time, when the US was a small, close-knit country with a relatvely homogeneous population and common social values. Its creators had know way of knowing that in 200 years, the country would become a sprawling , coast-to-coast conglomerate of fifty states, each of which with disparate politics, demographics, characters, and philosophies. Had they known, I think the Constitution would hsve been written quite differently.
RAFFLES at rodeos? it's the beginning of the end.
Your comment is illustrates why I almost always vote no on constitutional amendment ballot measures in California. Some of the things people want to hammer into a state or federal constitution do NOT belong in a constitution.