Should We Scrap The Constitution And Start Over?

[cali]

I was inspired to ask this question by some of the posts on this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=31334&mesg_id=31346

Personally, I'm for holding on to the Constitution, in part, for the reasons I gave. I'm curious as to how other DUers feel?

[baldguy]

1. Maybe we should try to actually follow it.

[meegbear]

12. Can't do that, that would make SENSE.

[Scott the Wise]

2. What would you take out?

[cali]

6. You need to expand your question

In the context of my Original post it doesn't make any sense, and, oh yeah, welcome to DU.

[Katherine Brengle]

10. Welcome to DU!

Is it "Scott" for your own name or for Scottie too Hottie McLellan? :rofl:

[manic expression]

43. To me,

it doesn't need to be scrapped, it can be changed without that. I would definitely change many things, however. First, the electoral college would be banned. Second, gender equality would be guaranteed; genocide would be illegalized; the death penalty would be outlawed; a limit on campaign finance would be put in place (to even the political playing field); a guaranteed wage would be enacted; universal medicare would also be enacted and other changes.

Although it doesn't need to be scrapped, it would be interesting to approach a governmental structure from a completely different angle. For instance, I would love to see a process where ALL people convene in local meetings, deciding local issues before sending off a representative to a higher "meeting", which would meet and decide larger issues before sending off representatives to another higher "meeting". This would continue until the highest "meeting is reached". That is my pipe-dream.

What would you change in the constitution?

[Horse with no Name]

45. Term Limits for Congress

:) and make lobbyists illegal.

[pocoloco]

3. Not to worry

It's being rewritten as you speak.

[thinkingwoman]

4. Absolutely not

Our problem is not the constitution. Our problem is the treachory and disregard of the of the people who've sworn to uphold our constitution.

[Skinner]

5. Absolutely not.

I gotta agree with the person higher up this thread who said "Maybe we should try to actually follow it."

The constitution isn't perfect, but it's pretty solid. The Bill of Rights alone is enough to justify keeping the whole thing. I shudder to think what piece of crap we would come up with if we tried to write a new constitution today.

[Katherine Brengle]

8. Excellent point --

The Constitution is not perfect, but when you consider the ideological split we have in this country right now, I doubt any of us on the left would like our new Constitution.

I am, however, for some major changes over the next 40 years or so, including some form of proportional representation to get third parties a little more involved in policy making (perhaps just in the House) and maybe some changes to term limits for Congress.

I also think it is way past time for the states to buck up and ratify the ERA.

[Neil Lisst]

23. Ditto that. The Constitutional Convention didn't produce the BOR

I think we'd get a similar result now. Look at the Patriot Act. I hate to think what would come out with now, if there were a new constitution being written.

It took rabble rousers in the late 1780s to secure our Bill of Rights, and we're still the rabble fighting to keep those rights.

[Minnesota Libra]

41. Skinner: I'm with you 100% on this one!! nt

[cynatnite]

42. Considering who is in charge of it all right now...

Exactly right.

The repukes wouldn't want the dems writing a constitution, either.

I like what we've got now. It's be nice if the repukes liked it, too.

[liberal N proud]

7. Once we clean the shit stains that bu$h has left on it she will be fine

We just need to get back to the Constitution and what it was intended for.

[Sammy Pepys]

9. No...n/t

....

[platimum]

11. NO

Even if some here have many doubts about any war on terror, the United States COULD conceivably have an enemy--one that wishes to take advantage of an opportunity to strike at us (and it could come from anywhere, I have no idea). However, in wanting all this change in the Constitution, or our power levels in NATO, the UN etc.--or even if the idea we hate our country (others may easily confuse 'Bush' with 'our country') is put forth, even accidentally, or by misinterpretation, we may be opening the door for such an attack.

I think we must always remember to consider how an action is PERCEIVED by other nations around the world (not just what we mean, but how it is TAKEN by others.) Thus, tearing up the Constitution may not be a good idea from that point alone.

[cali]

13. a couple of the remarks from the thread

I cited.

"formally" he is right, but that shows exactly why....
the US needs a new constitution and the role of the Supreme Court must be reconsidered. It's impossible to live with a 200 years old construction and have it "translated" by bigots. It can give ANY kind of results. Reminds of fundies reading the Bible.
The US must go from a "judiciocracy" to a secular democracy with a constitution that EXPLICITELY represents modern values....

The Constitution works. And one of the main reason it works is due to intangibles: the fairth that people have invested in it for over 200 years and the patina of decision after decision that expands rights for Americans. That's potent stuff, not easily replaced.
"the best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity"
Alert | Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink | Edit | Reply | Top 
acmejack (1000+ posts)  Wed Mar-29-06 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #7

12. Two hundred thirty years of tradition unhampered by progress
It is very unlikely they will peacefully allow such a change. It may creak a bit, but the love of the document is such that I very much doubt it will be altered in any substantial manner in my lifetime.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MadisonProgressive]

20. Time to say bye bye, Mr. Freeper

[cali]

21. I hope the mods give me a chance to refute

your unsupported assertions. Did you read my OP? All it said was that I don't agree with scrapping the Constitution. That's it. Not a thing about forfeiting my freedoms or what bush has done. But let's move on to what he's done. He lied about intelligence. He flaunted the clearly written FISA laws. That's just to start with. Let me ask you, if Hillary Clinton were pres and did exactly what bush did re the FISA laws, what would your reaction be?

[Skinner]

25. LOL

"domestic wiretapping scandal that democratic house and senate leaders knew of and approved"

Heh.

[cali]

26. Yeah, that was a good one-

and a dead giveaway.

[KansDem]

28. I'm curious too...

...domestic wiretapping scandal that includes ONLY foreign calls with KNOWN terrorists? Since Bush was spying on Americans before 9/11 and was told by Clinton that Osama was the number one terrorist concern, and knowing that Osama was credited with the bombing of the USS Cole, why didn't Bush spy on Osama and stop the attacks? Who was he listening to and why?

Explain that, if you will...

[sweetheart]

15. Yes

I don't agree with it, and i didn't sign it.

I would, as a living citizen, like to see a new agreement
drawn up, that incorporated the lessons of the past 200 years,
with the universal declaration of human rights as the "bill of
rights", one where the executive has direct and undeniable
checkpoints on its power, not newtonian checks of 200 years
ago, but quantum-checks of todays light-speed comms world.

I think electronic media radically changes how a constitution
can work, that we can have an electronic legislature. The
boundaries of the states should be redrawn for sustainable
growth, where the population centers are not divided across
states.

As well.. there needs to be proportional voting and a
multiparty coalition system of government with runoff elections.

I would embrace a total modernization of the republic.
Its become the most out of date democracy on earth due too
its inability to change a 200 year old constitution.

The constitution has failed because "we the people" did not
write it, and we didn't sign it. I certainly wouldn't sign
it today. I would sign the declaration of independence in
a hot second, but the constutiton is flawed by its 2 primary
omissions: the federal reserve system, money, markets, et. al.
electronic propaganda media (TV, radio)... and here, a public
fairness doctrine needs to be pervasive or media does no
service.

[The White Tree]

16. Jefferson favored revising it every 10 years

I was at Monticello about 4 weeks ago and the visitors center has a documentary onm Jefferson and it was implied in the documentary, either by one of the people they interviewed or in the narration, I can't remember which, that Thomas Jefferson was in favor of the idea that the Constitution should be revised at set intervals to more accurately reflect the situation in the country at the time. An interesting, though possibly inpractical idea.

As far as revising the current Constitution, I'm in favor of adding a Marriage Ammendment to it.

A rough draft of the ammendment would be:

Whereas our democracy rests on the founding principal that all men and women are created equal, with certain unalienble rights; whereas one of those rights is the pursuit of happiness; and whereas a loving relationship between 2 consenting adults is consistant with the right to the pursuit of happiness; the Constitution is hereby ammended to allow the legal marriage of two consenting adults, as long as at least 1 is a citizen of the United States of America, with all rights and privelages conveyed by that institution to be legally recognized by all states and offices of the United States of America.

[Squeech]

17. I say

the Constitution could use some emendation.

Not a rewrite per se (although I wouldn't mind taking out the horseshit about counting the slaves as three-fifths of a person) but some definitional stuff. Exactly what is a high crime or misdemeanor? Which part of the second amendment is more important? Should privacy rights be stated explicitly? What sorts of benefits to the arts and sciences are patents and copyrights supposed to preserve?

[im10ashus]

18. Not in my opinion.

Perhaps we should start upholding the one we have first.

:shrug:

[MadisonProgressive]

19. Bite your tongue! Talk about opening a can of worms!

[bowens43]

22. No.

[Virginia Dare]

24. What, are we going to count on the geniuses up on the Hill

to come up with something better than Jefferson, Madison and Mason? Don't think so.....
:crazy:

[slackmaster]

27. No, but as others have said we need to follow and enforce it

:nuke:

[Odin2005]

29. There is a reason most western coutries use a parliamentary system.

It's been shown to be the better system. All other countries with full presidential systems became presidential dictatorships. Presidential systems creates an independent exceutive with far too much power. If a PM tries to pull some shit the legislature can call vote "no-confidice", we need to impeach, which is much harder.

[Booster]

30. Isn't that what we're in the middle of doing?

:sarcasm:

[Squeech]

31. Moreover

I thought of two actual changes I'd like to see in the Constitution:

1) Explicit language that there's no such thing as corporate personhood

2) Explicit language that, freedom of speech notwithstanding, there's no constitutional right to lie.

(Needless to say I'm unsure how to structure the latter. My original impulse was to throw out that lawsuit, I think it was Reebok, who ran a PR campaign falsely claiming their Asian factories weren't sweatshops. But I specifically want it to apply to political speech too. I want Dubya not to be able to get away with claiming he never said Saddam bears responsibility for 9/11. I want the Democratic Party to be able to sue Deborah Howell for claiming repeatedly that they got money from Abramoff. Perhaps I ask too much.)

[CrispyQ]

39. Yes!! I second both your suggestions!

We must revoke corporate personhood or we will become slaves to those behemoths & the traitorous humans who do their bidding.


Lot's of info & links here on Kasky v. Nike: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/nike/


Also, a draft Constitutional Amendment to revoke corporate personhood here along with some other good stuff.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/proposed_constitutional_amendments.html

snip...

An Amendment to Revoke Corporate Constitutional Privileges
SECTION 1. The U.S. Constitution protects only the rights of living human beings.

SECTION 2. Corporations and other institutions granted the privilege to exist shall be subordinate to any and all laws enacted by citizens and their elected governments.

SECTION 3. Corporations and other for-profit institutions are prohibited from attempting to influence the outcome of elections, legislation or government policy through the use of aggregate resources or by rewarding or repaying employees or directors to exert such influence.

SECTION 4. Congress shall have power to implement this article by appropriate legislation.

[Zimmy44]

32. Federal Court System, SCOTUS jurisdiction

I was actually thinking about this the other day, because the Constitution doesn't require a federal court system and allows Congress to set the SC's jurisdiction - what cases they will hear (I know there are limitations on that power, but I don't know the actual contours of those limitations). I think I'd like a constitution that guaranteed a federal court system and didnt' allow so much control by Congress over what the SC could hear.

[Tyler Durden]

33. The SYSTEM is NOT the Document, and vice versa.

Personally, I believe that a document written by a group of:

Rich, Aristocratic White Men
Most of whom at least believed in Slavery if not held slaves
EXLUSIVELY landholders in an era that still practiced indentured servitude (serfdom by another name)


In an era where people believed that

The sun revolved around the earth (the common people)
Heat was a fluid called "Phlogiston"
Insanity was a form of demon possession (again, the common people)
Spontaneous Generation (most everyone)


Should be treated like "Holy Writ," and anyone who says differently is a filthy rotten traitor.

(sarcasm off)

SERIOUSLY. Which documents other than Religious ones dating to that era are treated as non-violate?

Time to convene a new convention, and if they can't get it right, maybe the Confederates were right about ONE thing; that is, we might just be TOO big and TOO diverse to manage anymore.

[cali]

34. I don't think anyone on this thread has suggested

that the Constitution is above reproach. And I gotta say, I think your characterization of an era that was, in addition to the flaws you pointed out, one of vigorous intellectual growth and debate, is seriously flawed.

[Tyler Durden]

36. Don't think ERA, think HUMAN FALIBILITY.

Those people were as FALIBLE and as subject to the prejudices and foolishness of the day as anyone else.

As to INTELECTUALS on the Continental Congress, Go with Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin, then come to a screeching halt. SOME of the rest of them had their hearts in the right place, but I believe ALL Of them would projectile vomit at the worship of "THE FOUNDING FATHERS" and The Holy Constitution.

If there was ONE thing in that room, it was likely HUMILITY at the gravity of their task, but along those lines, too many bandaids make a LOUSY cast, and if the bones have knitted poorly, it's time to re-break the bones and some major orthopedic surgery.

[oc2002]

35. yes, As intended by the founders of the country intended.

Although I fear another civil war would be inevitable.

[Tyler Durden]

37. My spin: that's in the cards anyway.

The Theater has become too small for the audience. Time to change the venue, since limiting attendance is out of the question (and rightly so).

[Strawman]

38. Depends who gets to write the new one

We could do alot better. I'm not some conceited nationalist or traditionalist who thinks the present constitution is the embodiment of perfect justice. I'd favor a parliamentary system with proportional respresentation. I don't think winner take all districts are representative. I don't like the Electoral College. I'd like to see positive, enumerated human rights for all citizens, such as health care and housing in an ideal constitution. No discrimination based upon race, gender, sexual orientation or age. But these are reforms that (while politically very difficult) could occur through other channels or through amendments.

But...we could do alot worse than the current constitution. Imagine a constitution written by corporate and right-wing lobbyists.

Any new constitution would not have the same legitimacy as the current 217 year old one. So many foundational issues would be up for grabs and I'm not entirely confident that the "good guys" would prevail. It's hard for me to imagine a real consensus document coming out of today's political culture. And from a purely practical point of view, the economy would be completely crippled by that kind of uncertainty.

All in all I'd say "scrapping" the Constitution is just too risky. Letting "the perfect be the enemy of the good" is too big of a gamble in this instance. Might be best to simply play with this hand we've been dealt which isn't all that bad. It's one of those things that sounds good in theory and in a vacuum, but in practice I don't think it would turn out so well.

[Jack Rabbit]

40. I say yes

Here's my proposed Constitution. It is very much like our present Constitution except that it features a parliamentary government headed by a Prime Minister, who can lose his job in a no confidence vote when things aren't going right and is forced to be more accountable to the House of Represent ives, of which he is a member. The President is a figurehead elected by the Senate from its members.

I believe the problem with our Constitution now is the concentration of power in the executive branch that has upset the system of checks and balances that used to work.

The Constitution that I propose also addresses grievances against the Bush regime and the abuses of corporations. A prohibition of torture and abusive treatment is added to the Bill of Rights, war crimes is added to reasons to impeach the Prime Minister, no one may strip a citizen of his rights or his citizenship, artificial personhood for corporations is prohibited and the right to organize a labor union is added to the Bill of Rights.

[Cleita]

44. Nothing as drastic as scrapping, but it seems it needs to

be overhauled to reflect our technological and nuclear society.