How do you feel about drafting a new constitution?

47 comments

1. There is a process for amending the constitution defined in the constitution.

2. Against, it could improve things but it could also massively fuck things up. I’d rather play it safe.

3. Absolutely not. If you want to change it there’s a process to add amendments.

4. Which are too broad? Which should be changed? Why?

5. >The base can be the same just updated.

   Perhaps we could *amend* it.

   >Feels like we can clean it up and make it less broad.

   Not really.

6. I think the US constitution is atrocious (and I think a lot of people knew this, considering all of the post-war constitutions we helped write and how much they differed from our own) but the idea of trying to write a new one would make me want to kill myself. Cannot imagine the Republican Party having that opportunity.

7. No, let’s just follow the old one

8. What would be the need or the point, since Article 5 is all about how to amend the Constitution?

9. No.

10. It would be ideal but you’re asking a sub that is very right wing so obviously the response here would be negative.

    The US constitution fundamentally benefits conservatives and allows for the tyranny of the minority. The US senate allows the minority of the population to dictate policy and the selection of the Supreme Court. Popular will is subverted by the electoral college. The constitution is why the US is a two party state rather then a multiparty democracy like other civilized countries.

    The US constitution and system of government empowered the worst elements of the US; right wing white nationalism, neoliberalism, a broke culture, and political dysfunction.

11. This is the hill I die on.

12. Not opposed to it conceptually, but quite frankly I wouldn’t trust a single living person with the task. The Founding Fathers were intellectual superiors to us.

13. Do you think that a new constitution written today would be anything other than 4,000 pages of word salad written for the benefit of big business and special interest?

    Inalienable rights? Kiss that concept goodbye.

14. No, we can just amend it where needed. If you’re asking for a list of amendments, I have some ideas for you:

    -Make 4th-6th Amendments more robust so we don’t end up in a dark future of surveillance.
    -Make all levels of government financially liable for constitutional violations that injure the rights of individuals by adding a right to sue any government (federal, state, local) that violates your enumerated rights, and eliminating sovereign immunity for claims made by US citizens.
    -Strike the Commerce Clause and replace it with a narrower clause that is not subject to “necessary and proper” expansion.

15. It could never happen in today’s political climate. The original constitution was drafted after an enormous social upheaval and civil war when people had damn good reason to set aside their differences and compromise. That’s not the case today. I mean we can’t even pass constitutional amendments any more.

16. That would be the absolute worst case scenario in the current state of politics

17. No one would agree what to put in the new constitution.

    Democrats would band guns

    Republicans will declare guns citizens

18. >My main two things are
    >
    >- It was made a long time ago by ppl who had diffrent concerns. The base can be the same just updated.
    >.

    Was it? It was written by people who were concerned with setting up a form of government that would be stable, and democratic in perpetuity. I consider those to be the absolute highest priorities I want from a government today as well.

    >- Feels like we can clean it up and make it less broad. There are definitly issues. Like amendments that are there just to cancel out other amendments.

    What the heck needs cleaning up? What do you want to narrow? The fact that so much of it is written in broad strokes has allowed it to be reinterpreted as the times change. The original is still serving well 240 years later. Are you proposing to narrow it down so that it *can’t* be reinterpreted by future generations?

19. Nope I like what we got

20. No.

21. Heck no

22. My feelings are that people who support such an idea don’t know what the constitution actually does. They have ideas of policies they want to change that there isn’t quite enough support to actually change. Gutting a government structure is risky business, though. What do you want to change about the way the presidency works? What do you want to change about the way the House of Representatives works? Do you have enough confidence in the longterm implications of your system and your ability to implement it?

23. Not with these jerks around.

24. I dont believe that a full reboot is really possible.

    I’m no expert and haven’t read the current rules for abandonment of the current constitution, everything I write here is opinion, not fact, so please do not downvote the shit out of this comment.

    I believe that this would all start with a Constitutional Convention. And apparently once it begins, everything bad or good in the constitution is on the table and not safe from removal or replacement. So the People would have to trust our elected representatives to do what we want and do the job well. Given that they have Not for the last 50 years, there is no reason to believe they would now.

    So ultimately our new constitution would favor the rich and powerful even more than it does now, politics would end up even more corrupt than it is now, and things like Freedom would be history.

    I think it’s likely that we would end up in a totalitarian dictatorship instead. All for nothing.

25. *OP is a teenager vibes intensify*

26. The Constitution certainly isn’t perfect, and there are things I’d change or add if it was my decision, but that’s what the amendment process is for.

    If we were to entirely throw out the Constitution, it’s important we recognize what that means. Our entire system of government exists because it’s defined in the Constitution. It’s not simply a given that we have a President, a Congress, and a Supreme Court. Starting over with a new constitution doesn’t just mean re-examining our enumerated rights (which is huge enough on its own); it puts *everything* on the table.

    It wouldn’t just reset a document; it’s hitting the reset button on the country.

27. No thank you. I’d rather **amend** it.

28. I think you have a very limited understanding of Constitution. The Constitution is a living document. It has a mechanism for updating and changing it. If there were broad support for changing a portion, we have a mechanism for making that change. The constitution is as new as the last amendment.

    Amendments do not cancel out others, unless specifically stated. In that case they become the Constitution. And the SCOTUS exists to clarify intent.

    And the whole thought of somehow magically replacing it with another document is incredibly naive. The Constitution exists because of compromises such as the Connecticut Compromise. These were hard to achieve, but it is this resilience that makes our government stable. Any two bit dictator can rewrite their constitution as they feel. To think that we would somehow give large states more power at the cost of small states in a new agreement is just foolishness.

29. i do not trust a single person with an ounce of political power to come up with a new constitution when it can be amended as outlined within the document itself. period.

30. Cringe.

31. Everyone I see wanting this, frankly, strikes me as either a crackpot or a crackpot-enabler. Big no.

32. Hard pass.

33. >- It was made a long time ago by ppl who had diffrent concerns. The base can be the same just updated.

    Why rewrite the entire thing? That’s what the amendment process is for.

    >- Feels like we can clean it up and make it less broad. There are definitly issues. Like amendments that are there just to cancel out other amendments.

    There are resources online and off that translates the language into more modern terms. It was written in broad terms on purpose to allow for the states to make more specific laws tailored to their area and population provided they don’t violate any of the protected rights. Keep in mind the Constitution also exists to limit powers of the federal government.

34. The one we have is excellent. Leave it alone.

35. Nothing wrong with this constitution if people would understand it is a living document and our understanding of it needs to change with the time. The current Supreme Court is actually ruling that it must be viewed through the 18th century lens from the time it was written. That will kill it.

36. I’m good with the one we have.

37. It was made by people a long time ago who also had many of the same concerns.

    What specific things do you want to change?

38. It’s supposed to be broad. The legislature passes more specific laws and the judiciary rules on the constitutionality.

    More important, the 10th Amendment gives the states power to anything not mentioned. I’ve lived in two states. Both which seem to uphold my values system. When a job opportunity came from a state very different from my values, I knew that wasn’t the right move for me.

39. I immensely distrust people who make these kinds of suggestions.

40. If the English can still use their Magna Carta we can still use our constitution.

41. Why? It works.

42. Why don’t you write up a new one for your high school assignment and see if everyone else likes it.

43. In my opinion there exists no better constitution in the world. Therefore absolutely do not get rid of it. It’s honestly as close to perfect as it can be.

44. Maybe a good idea in principle, but with the ability to amend the constitution there’s needs to be a *really* good reason to start over from scratch and right now that reason doesn’t exist.

45. Look at almost any other country that “throws out” their constitution for a better one. It already is a totalitarian state or on the way to becoming one. I don’t trust either party to write a new one.

46. Never. No way we could ever agree on anything as reasonable and effective as what we have now

47. There is nothing approaching the kind of consensus necessary to amend the Constitution using the rules we already have, much less scrap it and start over. Especially since, as you stated, you would want to recontextualize gun rights (really just make gun control easier). Good luck getting that Constitution passed and the dissenting states to abide.

    Right or wrong the Constitution is not going anywhere. To scrap it would be to dissolve the nation.