Opinion of the United States Constitution

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Was somewhat reactionary even for its day (although it could have been far worse) and has certainly outlived its usefulness now.

[SWE]

HC (not a plutocrat)

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

FC.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Currently one of the worst among liberal democracies.

[Franzl]

Currently one of the worst among liberal democracies.

Yes, that's probably correct.

[windjammer]

Currently one of the worst among liberal democracies.

Yes, that's probably correct.

[ElectionsGuy]

Freedom Constitution (I feel like this place is becoming farther left every day)

[Paul Kemp]

I shudder to think what it would be replaced with.

[TNF]

The Bill of Rights + 13/14/15/16/17/19/21/24/26 amendments = FF

The rest of the Slaveholders' and Creditors' Constitution = HP

[Cassius]

HC, largely because I don't approve of written constitutions.

[Citizen Hats]

HC, largely because I don't approve of written constitutions.

That's all fine-and-dandy in your fancy-pants unitary state, but your really can't have  federal system without way of distributing powers, at a minimum

[Antonio the Sixth]

HC, largely because I don't approve of written constitutions.

That's all fine-and-dandy in your fancy-pants unitary state, but your really can't have  federal system without way of distributing powers, at a minimum

It's not like it actually could work in unitary states either. Even the UK does have a few written constitutional documents.

[Cassius]

HC, largely because I don't approve of written constitutions.

That's all fine-and-dandy in your fancy-pants unitary state, but your really can't have  federal system without way of distributing powers, at a minimum

It's not like it actually could work in unitary states either. Even the UK does have a few written constitutional documents.

I should perhaps amend my statement to disliking the idea of constitutions such as that of the United States (which are now comparatively common throughout the democratic world) is twofold - firstly they're fairly difficult to amend (in comparison to the British system, which allows for the legislature to change the 'constitution' via a simple legislative majority'. Secondly, they often form the basis for 'judicial review' of government legislation, which I'm also highly iffy about in general.

[Antonio the Sixth]

HC, largely because I don't approve of written constitutions.

That's all fine-and-dandy in your fancy-pants unitary state, but your really can't have  federal system without way of distributing powers, at a minimum

It's not like it actually could work in unitary states either. Even the UK does have a few written constitutional documents.

I should perhaps amend my statement to disliking the idea of constitutions such as that of the United States (which are now comparatively common throughout the democratic world) is twofold - firstly they're fairly difficult to amend (in comparison to the British system, which allows for the legislature to change the 'constitution' via a simple legislative majority'. Secondly, they often form the basis for 'judicial review' of government legislation, which I'm also highly iffy about in general.

I actually somewhat agree with that. Though judicial review is fundamentally necessary, even if it far too easily oversteps its boundaries.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

HC, largely because I don't approve of written constitutions.

That's all fine-and-dandy in your fancy-pants unitary state, but your really can't have  federal system without way of distributing powers, at a minimum

It's not like it actually could work in unitary states either. Even the UK does have a few written constitutional documents.

I should perhaps amend my statement to disliking the idea of constitutions such as that of the United States (which are now comparatively common throughout the democratic world) is twofold - firstly they're fairly difficult to amend (in comparison to the British system, which allows for the legislature to change the 'constitution' via a simple legislative majority'. Secondly, they often form the basis for 'judicial review' of government legislation, which I'm also highly iffy about in general.

I actually somewhat agree with that. Though judicial review is fundamentally necessary, even if it far too easily oversteps its boundaries.

You’re both right that judicial review can be a two way street that can occasionally be harmful, but I disagree with the amendment process being made easier. While the American amendment process is tedious (it took two hundred years for our last Amendment to make it through), I wouldn’t the legislature being able to change things with a simple vote.

I’ve always thought that nationwide referendums on Amendments would be a good reform, and if two thirds of the states pass the amendment on referendum day, it becomes law. This doesn’t change the system as much as it hastens it, and it puts power in the hand of the people and not the state legislatures. I’m sure there are good arguments against this proposal, but it sounds a lot better to me.

[Maxwell]

Very clear FC.

[H. Ross Peron]

Highly progressive (especially with regards to the Bill of Rights) for its time, but badly in need of massive revision or a replacement at this point.

[Deus Naturae]

Highly progressive (especially with regards to the Bill of Rights) for its time, but badly in need of massive revision or a replacement at this point.

What do you want to revise/replace?

[H. Ross Peron]

Highly progressive (especially with regards to the Bill of Rights) for its time, but badly in need of massive revision or a replacement at this point.

What do you want to revise/replace?

Well for starters making the Senate far less grossly unrepresentative and/or reducing its powers, abolishing the Electoral College, possibly adopting a parliamentary system, and reducing the excessive powers given to states whose boundaries do not even remotely reflect actual realities.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Highly progressive (especially with regards to the Bill of Rights) for its time, but badly in need of massive revision or a replacement at this point.

What do you want to revise/replace?

Well for starters making the Senate far less grossly unrepresentative and/or reducing its powers, abolishing the Electoral College, possibly adopting a parliamentary system, and reducing the excessive powers given to states whose boundaries do not even remotely reflect actual realities.

You keep repeating this claim about the states but I don't think you understand the purpose of the states. They are not administrative districts. They are highly autonomous for a reason. The United States is not a giant federal republic spanning from coast to coast like France for an example. It’s a federation of states with their own distinct cultures and history.

While the Westminster system is an interesting style of government and would keep a political junkie like myself highly entertained, it isn’t compatible with American life. The American people are not a homogenous blob with similar values on the whole. What Democrats prioritize in Georgia is different than what they prioritize in Minnesota, etc, etc. The Electoral College allows for the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of one state’s citizens to make an impact.

Furthermore, the Senate plays a highly important role in our nation as its chief deliberative body. In the event that nationwide swings do occur (very rarely), it cancels out any radical changes. It generally still is the more bipartisan body in Congress, but of course that doesn’t appease the “muh bipartisanship” crowd at all.

Proponents of a “new constitution” and the radical centrist pipedreams of Electoral Reform (please do not interpret this as a personal attack on you, because it is not; I’m talking about the academics who seriously propose these type of reforms for the United States) do not seem to have any real understanding of American politics.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Great overall, and very progressive for its time on civil rights and liberties issues, but also dated in some respects.

[All Along The Watchtower]

very progressive for its time on civil rights

.....

[GaussLaw]

Freedom Constitution (I feel like this place is becoming farther left every day)

Boy, being an FDR Democrat may be liberal in Missouri where I live, but it seems downright fascist here on Atlas.  

EDIT  Anyways, FC easily.

[H. Ross Peron]

Highly progressive (especially with regards to the Bill of Rights) for its time, but badly in need of massive revision or a replacement at this point.

What do you want to revise/replace?

Well for starters making the Senate far less grossly unrepresentative and/or reducing its powers, abolishing the Electoral College, possibly adopting a parliamentary system, and reducing the excessive powers given to states whose boundaries do not even remotely reflect actual realities.

You keep repeating this claim about the states but I don't think you understand the purpose of the states. They are not administrative districts. They are highly autonomous for a reason. The United States is not a giant federal republic spanning from coast to coast like France for an example. It’s a federation of states with their own distinct cultures and history.

Erhm France is an unitary republic, not a federal republic like the United States. That said while America's origins was certainly one of a federation of states, most later states were a creation of the federal government and with people regularly moving between states, identities have eroded especially with a large influx of immigrants who usually adopt an American identity but not a state one. Many identities that do exist don't reflect state boundaries either: for example someone who lives in Fairfield County or in Newark has far more to do with New York City (when one considers transportation policy or education) than a resident of Buffalo or Syracuse.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Parliamentary systems operate in federal republics such as Germany. If anything, the current American system by being more naturally biased towards two parties than even parliamentary systems with FPTP, does not reflect the heterogenity of the US. Also I highly doubt the result of the 2000 election was due to any special dislike of Al Gore by Floridian (I'm going with the assumption that Bush indeed won the state).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never said I'm against an upper house that for example might only decide on a constitutional question or even an upper house that would elect its representatives in a fairer manner.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Don't worry, I don't consider this an insult.

very progressive for its time on civil rights

.....

He's correct if you use the actual definition of civil rights rather than the modern sense of "expanding civil rights for blacks".

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Great overall, and very progressive for its time on civil rights and liberties issues, but also dated in some respects.

^^^This. We could do with a couple more Amendments, but most of the document is still good.