Chile is updating its constitution for the 21st century. The US should follow its lead

[Judi Lynn]

David Adler

The US constitution used to be considered a model for democracies around the world – but its antiquated institutions and absence of rights have guaranteed its declining influence

Thu 28 Jul 2022 06.22 EDT

“Every constitution,” Thomas Jefferson wrote in a 1789 letter to James Madison, “naturally expires at the end of 19 years.” Two centuries after its expiration date, citizens of the United States are suffering the consequences of a constitution drafted by 55 men who owned hundreds of human slaves, thousands of acres in landed estates, and millions of dollars in inherited wealth. Fundamental rights denied, foundational institutions paralyzed and existential crises ignored: these are side-effects of a legal framework that has not been meaningfully amended in over a half-century.

The US is not alone. Scores of constitutions around the world were written by dictators, colonizers and military occupiers to enshrine institutions that are undemocratic by design and unfit to cope with crises like a rapidly heating planet. In some cases, like the UK, the constitution was never actually written at all, setting the political system on a precarious foundation of norms and conventions that leaders like Boris Johnson have proven all too eager to discard. When a cross-party committee convened in 2013 to review the UK’s constitutional chaos, its recommendation was nothing short of radical: that the government should consider “preparations for a UK-wide constitutional convention”.

But while both the US and the UK remain trapped in constitutional deadlock, the Republic of Chile has just concluded its own nationwide convention to replace the 1980 decree by the dictator Augusto Pinochet and his military government. The product of the convention is a visionary document that would not only update, expand and advance Chileans’ basic rights – to health, housing, abortion, decent work and a habitable planet – but also set a new standard for democratic renewal in the 21st century.

Like that of the United States, the current Chilean constitution was written under extremely undemocratic conditions. Pinochet came to power in a bloody coup to overthrow President Salvador Allende, and set to work designing a constitution that would consolidate executive power, constrain democratic representation, and enshrine free market fundamentalism. Along with a clique of economists known as the “Chicago Boys” for their training at the University of Chicago, Pinochet set the country on a path of such extreme neoliberalization that Chile would become the only country in the world with a constitutionally privatized water system.

More:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/28/chile-updating-constitution-us-should-follow

[FalloutShelter]

1. A constitutional convention right now...

with one party (GOP) of completely faithless participants, would be an absolute disaster for the United States.
JMHO

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

3. Yea, trying to rewrite the Constitution now

Would be a total disaster.

[walkingman]

2. America thinks of our founding fathers as almost Gods - that is the history we have been

taught for centuries.In comparison to our contemporary leaders that do look pretty damn smart. We even have an originalist cult that gets credibility by many.

[Ocelot II]

4. Yeah, no. The US, for all the mess it's in right now, is not Chile,

notwithstanding that TFG was much closer to Pinochet than to any former US president. The Constitution, for all its faults and loopholes, has kept the machinery of government creaking along, more or less preserving democracy, since the beginning. There are certainly things that need fixing, but calling a constitutional convention at this point, with radical GOPers in control of so many states, would be a disaster. If the current Constitution has undemocratic elements, just wait til you see the new one.

[Midnight Writer]

5. Never open negotiations with bad faith partners. It's better to keep what we've got.

Not only are conservatives unwilling to bargain in good faith, they are loons with an invalid political philosophy.

Republicans can't even come up with SCOTUS Judges that can make a simple, rational ruling. They can't even agree that overruling an election and installing a fascist leader is bad for America. Can you imagine who would sit on their Constitutional Committee?

[slightlv]

6. I agree with everyone that

calling a Constitutional Convention now would be a disaster, but Jefferson was pretty damned smart here. And he proves the Supremes are full of it. What Jefferson is saying is the Constitution is a LIVING document... NOT set in stone! Hence, there is no such thing as "Originalism." Unless you want to claim Jefferson's words here as originalism, and I'll bet the Supremes will deny them! (LOL)

Basically, Jefferson was calling for an updated Constitution once every generation, which makes absolute sense. Society changes that much overall. To keep up and not become antiquated, it must change as well. I'm assuming this is one of the Federalist letters that Jefferson wrote to Madison.

We have the Federalist Society that put all these Supremes on the court. I would think that a society that names itself the "Federalist Society" would know the Federalist Letters inside-out and upside-down. I guess that could be wrong, tho...