At what point can we say the Constitution has been a failure?

[Cali_Democrat]

Last edited Mon Oct 14, 2013, 01:04 PM - Edit history (1)

Many Americans seem to have this awkward attachment to a document written and signed by a bunch of white men over 200 years ago.

Perhaps they weren't the sharpest tools in the shed after all. How can it be that a tiny faction in one house of one branch of government can pretty much destroy the entire economy if they don't get their way?

Keep in mind, many of the same folks who signed that piece of paper over 200 years ago didn't think there was anything wrong with enslaving human beings.

Perhaps a parliamentary system is actually more stable and superior to our system of government. Maybe that's why most western countries have the parliamentary system and not our system of government where tiny minorities can cause havoc. I mean come on, it takes 60 votes to get anything past our Senate. What a joke.

I still don't understand this obsession with a piece of paper. Perhaps we don't have the greatest system of government in the world. It seems extremely unstable if you ask me.

Food for thought.

[NuclearDem]

1. Civic religion. That's really the long and short of it.

If you think the Constitution is problematic, then you're (insert scary enemy du jour here).

The 1% found their way to exploit it for their own ends years ago. The 99% gets a token victory every so often, but as a governing document that serves everyone and not just oligarchs, it's been a failure for a long time.

[ScreamingMeemie]

2. Never. It's a living document.

[Cali_Democrat]

3. It's nearly impossible to amend it now

Just look at the requirements for amending.

It's pretty much static now.

[MicaelS]

7. Amendment process has not changed.

Same as it ever was. If enough people want an Amendment passed, one will get passed.

[hack89]

48. There have been five Constitutional amendments in my lifetime.

11 in the past 100 years.

I don't call that static.

[Ranchemp.]

4. Sorry, disagree with you here,

as far as I'm concerned, it's the greatest doc. written ever.

[rrneck]

5. I don't think anybody's going to kick down your door and drag you away for posting that OP.

Just sayn'.

[Rex]

6. The Constitution is no match for Wall Street.

It appears our style of unregulated capitalism is the epic failure here. Well if you part of the 99% it is.

[Cali_Democrat]

14. Good point

The constitution has also essentially enabled Wall Street to control our government.

[HooptieWagon]

38. No. Its the polititians and courts Wall St owns...

...that have subverted the Constitution. Problem isn't the document, its the corruption that buys ways of ignoring it.

[madinmaryland]

8. What might you suggest replacing it with, and how would you get it accomplished??

[onenote]

10. +1

[hooverville29]

17. Don't replace it all. Change the Legislature to a unicameral body like Nebraska where it's worked

fine for years now. Get rid of these two legislative bodies which can be instruments of gridlock. Go to a single legislature. That alone could help us begin to govern ourselves again.

Again, adopt the Nebraska model at the national level.

[Cali_Democrat]

18. Good idea

It is utter gridlock now. That is of course when they aren't threatening economic armageddon.

Legislators don't even legislate now. All they do is rename post offices. We need to make it easier for the majority to have their say so things can get done.

[NuclearDem]

23. Or if we're going to radically alter Congress, keep both bodies

But turn the Senate into a technocratic institution, not democratic. Completely get rid of the district system and have seats in the House allocated proportionally based on party results in elections, then have senators nominated and selected by the academics and professionals in the physical and social sciences. Basically, a fact checker body that weeds out nonsense from the House.



Having two democratic bodies is redundant, especially if an equal amount of stupid purveys both.

[GreenPartyVoter]

28. Anything is better than the dysfunction we have now.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. 1861. Nt.

[taught_me_patience]

11. A huge problem is the big disparity in state size

California 1 senator/30MM people. Wyoming 1 senator/.5MM people. Population disparity wasn't so great in the original 13 colonies.

[FarCenter]

16. Split California into North and South California; combine North and South Dakota, etc.

[melody]

19. Do that and we're a lot less potent Democratic force n/t

[FarCenter]

45. It would benefit the Democrats -- the margin in the senate would increase by 2

CA would go from 2 Ds to 4 Ds

ND+SD would go from 2 Ds and 2 Rs to 1 D and 1 R.

So the Republicans would lose 1 senate seat and the Democrats would gain 1.

The House is proportional by population, so it wouldn't change.

[melody]

46. The whole fight isn't about Congress

I think we'd lose a lot as a force in terms of economic might.

Unless we could, like, toss out Fresno (I'm joking, I'm joking).

[DURHAM D]

12. The great failure in this country is education.

At least half the population does not understand the relationship between their vote and what happens in Washington.

[treestar]

13. I think it's basically good but needs a couple modifications

One, to make it easier to amend. Also to make it absolute that the government continues. Congress won't have the power to fail to pass a budget - there will be a budget for the executive branch and all laws that have been passed.

That the houses cannot make their own rules but put the rules in there, so this 60 vote abuse can be eliminated.

I agree that a parliamentary system is better. It is clearly more Democratic. We need to give the Senate less say, perhaps look at the Australian Senate as an example.

[Downwinder]

15. If I am not mistaken, some of the framers

said it was up to us to keep the Constitution. If we let it fail it is not the fault of framers or the Constitution.

Winston Churchill (from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

[Azathoth]

20. You think a parliamentary system would be better?

Thanks to gerrymandering, a broken primary system, and the wholesale dismantling of campaign finance reform, the Tea Party controls the GOP, and the GOP controls the lower house, which by the transitive law of nutjobbery means the Tea Party would essentially control the government under a parliamentary system. Then we'd really be fucked.

[Cali_Democrat]

21. Of course we should not allow the kind f gerrymandering we see today

Dems in Congress won the vote total in 2012, but the GOP maintained the house majority because of absurd gerrymandering.

That shouldn't be allowed.

[HooptieWagon]

41. In Florida, a few Dem incumbents aided and abetted...

...the GOP gerrymandering, in order to carve themselves safe districts.

[Skip Intro]

22. Racist drivel with, thankfully, no recs.

dubya might agree with you, though. As I recall, he didn't like that dang piece of paper either...

[Cali_Democrat]

25. What's racist about my OP?

Pointing out the fact that the constitution was written and signed by all white men is racist against white men?

[Skip Intro]

30. Oh please.

You use the word "white" as some derogatory insult, as you do with "old" and "men."

Why even mention race? Or gender? Or age?

Why?

[NuclearDem]

32. It was written by older white men.

Race became an issue the second they decided everyone of a certain other race only counted as 3/5 of a person.

[Cali_Democrat]

33. They were white men....

No women and no minorities were allowed. Pointing out that obvious fact is racist?

[Skip Intro]

36. Wow.

You use race, age and gender in derogatory ways in the OP. You're all but saying that the fact that it was written by white, old, men is reason to chunk it. Why not talk about the ideas and concepts of the document, instead of focusing on race, gender and age?

[NuclearDem]

37. Because those old white men didn't give women the vote or treat African Americans as actual people?

[SomethingFishy]

60. No they didn't. It was the times they were living in.

They were however smart enough to make it a living document that can be changed as the times change.

Women are allowed to vote and we have come a long way on race. Not nearly long enough but we are making progress.

[Cali_Democrat]

44. How did I use race and gender in a derogatory way?

Saying the founding fathers were white men is derogatory?

[morningfog]

54. It was written by white racist slave owners.

It is not an inclusive document. It is, itself, racist. That minorities and women were not involved is relevant.

[CreekDog]

65. how many white people were kept in slavery because of the constitution?

zero.

thank you.

now you chime in that race is not an issue. all fixed, in your Confederate Flag, flying racist government of South Carolina.

but why inject race into it?

why? let's look at your posts about Trayvon Martin being racist. why did you inject race into that?

let's look at your defenese of Ron Paul when you said he wasn't racist.

Trayvon was a racist to you, and Ron Paul wasn't.

but why talk about race? because you do all the time --in order to defend the honor of white people. that's why.

[NuclearDem]

27. How on earth did you construe that as racist?

[Skip Intro]

31. Cali is trashing the Constitution, and uses race, age and gender

in negative ways to make his/her point.

Why mention any of that? What does a person's race, age or gender have to do with the point of the OP?

[NuclearDem]

34. And you're absolutely proving the point CD was making.

[Cali_Democrat]

35. Notice how he goes after me for mentioning the founding fathers were white men

But no mention of the actual racism of enslaving African Americans and considering African Americans less than human.

[morningfog]

56. The lack of inclusion goes to the fallibility of the document.

[morningfog]

55. Actual racist often only see the reverse racism

while dismissing actual racism. I'm not saying that is the case here, but who knows.

[Decaffeinated]

61. Reverse racism doesn't exist...

[morningfog]

62. Yes, I know that. That is very much my point.

[ProSense]

39. So it's OK to scream "racist" when people point out that the Constitution was written by white men?

Interesting.

[Initech]

24. It's not the constitution that's the problem. It's the idiots misinterpreting it.

[Savannahmann]

26. Might I suggest you offer something to replace it with?

Because just eliminating it brings about its own problems. First, do you think the several states would just jump on the bandwagon of whatever we come up with here? What do we do with the states that reject the new governmental outline? Do we send the Military into Texas or Georgia and force them to comply?

What if the regions break apart and form mini countries? Do we fight a series of civil wars?

Despair at the status quo is fine. But suggesting a political/social/national upheaval of unimaginable complexity is a little rash. It took years to get everyone on board with this one when the issues were much simpler. Imagine it. Kansas refuses to join the new articles unless Gay Marriage is banned. Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi refuse as well. Then there is Abortion, are you ready to let the states dictate terms on that issue as conditions of participation?

Or are we going to abolish the Constitution and declare President Obama King? Because that might work for a little while, but the resulting civil war will make the French Revolution look like a family reunion.

The best you could hope for is a number of smaller regional nations that are loosely affiliated with a central government. That wouldn't work because the same laws would not apply across the board.

Just off the top of my head I can see nothing but disaster in any direction. There is no scenario I can come up with that ends well. Can anyone come up with something that we could replace the Constitution with that would be acceptable to all the states? Because I can't see how we could remain united.

[Nevernose]

29. Too many people treat it with religious relevance

As of it were the greatest document ever written and handed down to the Founding Fathers. Besides the fact at treating anything with such regard is dangerous, it seems to me like lots of other countries have wonderful, functioning governments, yet have no constitution.

History and tradition are just dead people's baggage, and I feel in no way obligated to it.

[Nye Bevan]

40. I am awestruck that the Constitution is still going strong after 200+ years.

The Founding Fathers were geniuses.

[Jamaal510]

42. I don't think the

Constitution is a failure, but like an earlier post said, there are far too many Americans who misinterpret its meaning (the 2nd Amendment is a prime example). In addition to this, people have this idea that the Constitution is something that is static and should remain as such. That should not be the case when it comes to a document written by man, since humans are of course fallible, and since this document was created long ago when less people had rights.

[ProSense]

43. There is nothing wrong with the Constitution

The problem is the morons who twist its meaning and refuse to acknowledge that it's a living document.

They can't come to grips with the document keeping pace with principles of equality.

They hate the laws that have been passed that give shape, treating all people as equals and supporting the common good.

This is why the libertarians and teabagger racist want to repeal laws like the Civil Right Act and Voting Rights Act and drag America back in time.

I'm sure they want to repeal the Emancipation Proclamation.

[NCTraveler]

47. A couple of things.

1) White men have accomplished some great things.
2) It appears to most that the founding fathers and their creating of the constitution was nothing short of brilliant.
3) Thinking that this is unstable is really a first world view.
4) Most people today in the house of reps don't seem to mind enslaving people. Today it is just economic slavery. Doesn't mean they don't find a nut every now and then.
5) Small minorities should have some power in our system. It slows things down giving ideas time to fester among the citizens thus creating the stability you don't seem to recognize.
6) There is nothing awkward about an attachment to one of the most brilliant pieces of thought put to paper. It has helped to bring about one of the most powerful nations the world has ever seen.

[NuclearDem]

49. The problem is how vague and loosely construed it is.

And the fact that it's an 18th century document.

A lot of what's in there has worked out because some of the things we figured out in terms of governance and rights in the 18th century were spot on, but this is also in the days well before AAs were considered human beings, women were considered less than equal, and before the concepts of socialism and labor unions ever existed.

It's not a bad document, but the institutions it created have not proven strong enough to withstand the corruption and socioeconomic trends of the 21st century. It needs to be drastically altered to reflect the changes in society since it was originally authored.

We should be emotionally attached to rights and the facts. If that document provides them, that's a point in its favor, but we shouldn't be reluctant to criticize it when it fails simply because of what it is.

[NCTraveler]

52. Agree almost 100% with your post.

Although I am not sure it needs to be drastically altered. Overall I think it is very good. I think that minor altercations would be more accepted by the people. Minor altercations to the document, done in a very intelligent manner, could have very positive and drastic effects. I am not who says it should stand in it's current form. Doesn't mean I don't strongly disagree with the ops verbiage.

[NuclearDem]

57. Well, when I mention radical, it's more in the context of different from how we do things

A lot of what I'm suggesting isn't radical by most Western democracies, just by the US.

I mentioned up thread about turning the House into a parliament and the Senate into a technocracy, but that's about as far institutionally as I think the changes should go. The rest are more explicit restrictions and protections of rights, like capping income, campaign finance, reproductive freedom, collective bargaining, codifying a social safety net, and explicit restrictions on the MIC.

[Spider Jerusalem]

50. I'd say, now, probably

if not now, sometime in the near future, the way things have been going. The American form of government essentially took the structures of the British government of the time (king = president, parliament, = Congress) and codified them in a written constitution. The problem with that? The institution of constitutional monarchy hadn't evolved as much as it would later; the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy was settled, but the Glorious Revolution was less than a century in the past and the monarch still exercised much more power relative to the legislature than later. The problem of competing claims of democratic legitimacy from an elected executive and an elected legislature which represent different parties is a difficult one and is the downfall of most presidential governments. And the American system is inherently undemocratic anyway as the Senate has equal representation for states regardless of population, which effectively means that states accounting for a quarter of the nation's population can thwart the passage of laws the other 75% want. (Apportionment among districts in Congress is something else; the number of districts has not grown since 1960, despite the population having nearly doubled.)

[Puzzledtraveller]

51. When you are no longer allowed to ask that question.

[rustydog]

53. It isn't the document as much as it is the ability to change interpretations

of that document and the ability to add to the document, strengthening it and what it stands for.

your 60 vote complaint is in regards to beating a filibuster. the super majority rule. Well, the filibuster is not in the Constitution. Get rid of it. Of course it would take a Democrat with a true set of balls and none really exists today.

The foundation we have as a nation is sound. it is the reinforcement of that foundation that is required every few generations.

Today, America has a deranged group of people financed by people so wealthy that every DU member would have to win the lottery, twice AND the publishers clearing house and EVEN THEN we would not have their financial clout.

They want no taxes for themselves, fuck us. They want to genetically modify your foods while being free from the threat of lawsuit even if the food kills us. They want to privatize the water supply system. they are offended that "regular americans can attend school rather than work in fields picking fruits and vegetables for corporate farmers. They want our children to go back to work in coal mines so they can ship more coal to China...

Our foundation has been weakened and is threatened by today's GOP. We need to reinforce America's foundation and it needs to be done soon. Damn, the Repugnants changed house rules the other day giving the power to call a vote to the floor to ONE GODDAMN MAN!

With the political leadership we have in the Democratic Party today, I don't see that happening too soon, that does scare me.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

58. Don't think the Constitution is really the problem here

it seems like a lot of arcane rules in the House/Senate (which aren't in the Constitution AFAIK) and a law (debt ceiling) that some Congress- for whatever reason- passed a long time ago are gumming up the works. While the rules have almost certainly been used/abused by both parties for some time, the Republicans have taken them, seemingly, to the point of no return in their attempts to undermine/obstruct President Barack Obama. Once a Republican gets back in the WH, they will turn around and immediately denounce- vociferously- any attempts by Democrats to even think about using such hardball tactics (which they likely wouldn't resort to but anyway).

[Waiting For Everyman]

59. "Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got

Last edited Mon Oct 14, 2013, 01:44 PM - Edit history (1)

till it's gone... "

The day after you chuck the Constitution you'll understand that statement. I've read some ludicrous stuff on here before, pretty much every time I log on, but that OP sentiment is close to taking the cake.

You think the Constitution isn't much? and the men who wrote it weren't much either? Good luck with what this age would come up with.

People today are so ego-driven, they have no ability to be grateful for what they were handed so easily at no cost, out of the struggle and brilliance of others.

[ScreamingMeemie]

63. The Constitution isn't the failure. The men who misuse it and constantly refer to it...

without really understanding how it should be used, are the failures.

I know I responded to this rather early in your query, but it's been eating at me for 24 hours.

Keep the Constitution, continually add to/remove from it, and chuck those who would misuse it. Simple solution.

[Zorra]

64. Given the overall condition of western "civilization" at the time the Constitution was ratified,

you have no case. We have maintained many essential freedoms under law for the past 225 years.

Yes, we need some very thoroughly considered changes, and over the years, wealthy private interests have purchased government officials, lawyers, and religious leaders, etc, in order to subvert democracy and obscure the intention of much of the Constitution, in order to come to a position of anti-democratic political power and control over the government and people of the US. They have insidiously supplanted democracy with plutocracy, but we still have many rights existent primarily because of the Constitution.

Now that the ignorant, gullible RW slaves of wealthy private interests have effectively fucked themselves, and us, and subverted the Constitution in service to their malicious plutocratic masters, it is most likely that we must use alternative means, outside the political process, in order to subjugate the plutocrats and install a democratic process and democratic government. Many of the basic principles of the Constitution/Bill of Rights remain necessary, IMO.

But the revolutionaries who ratified the Constitution certainly never intended that corporations should be considered to be persons, any more than they intended that we should be ruled by a plutocratic noblesse.

http://occupywallst.org/

[ecstatic]

66. It's not the Constitution that's the problem, it's our lawmakers

who try to use it as a platform to spread hate (example: marriage amendment).

I would like to see a willingness of congress to revisit amendments that may have been interpreted incorrectly, add important amendments to protect all citizens, or respond to technological advances. The 2nd amendment is a great example of an amendment that was not only misinterpreted, but it also doesn't take into consideration the huge technological differences between the firearms of then and now.

Basically, my biggest frustration with the constitution is that it's not being used as intended... as a living document designed to make things better for all of us.

[JVS]

67. Parliamentary systems are usually less stable than ours.

We're on our second constitution since independence, effective since 1789.
France is on its 13th government since the revolution of 1789.