The issue I have with SCOTUS and all those who “interpret “ constitutional law, it’s not relevant today!! The fight against the old white guys and their Christian nationalist views is going to be difficult!!
A new one is certainly needed through a streamlined process. Our nation was never a nation of just men. Why do those excluded from the process consider themselves bound by any of it….
They were aware that it was not perfect for the ages, although they might differ on the reasons. It was far ahead of its time. They expected their product, the Constitution, would be updated by Amendments. It was amended often, until it wasn’t. The ERA is 100 years old and never was ratified by enough states. I am afraid a new version in these troubled days would be worse and/or never ratified.
I love that you’re considering these things, thank you.
The difficulty was they created guidance for those that looked like them, purposefully excluding those that didn’t. Thirty-five out of the thirty-nine signers were either lawyers or those with some kind of legal training.
I’ve had law classes, at one time, thinking it was to be my profession. Surely, they understand the importance of specificity of language.
The amendment process was always unwieldy, designed to make that process harder than it needed to be? Was it really that they wanted state input or that they wanted to mitigate against broad-sweeping changes? Expelling a member from a Congressional chamber has also been unnecessarily difficult. Little guidance on the regulation of the Supreme Court of this land. So many missed opportunities.
The Electoral College was about keeping power out of the hands of the people. They did not believe every day persons could understand the mechanics of our government. It was another check against the potentially uneducated, uninformed, simple persons of this country.
All of these things must be rectified now. We can do it, of course. I have faith. Not a religious faith, but faith nonetheless:)
Thanks. I think roughly a third of the signers were businessmen of some sort. Most had or were serving in government. For direct participation by the public they created the House (to be offset by the Senate) and envisioned the public participating in local town halls.
There were other major considerations. The Confederation was not functioning and seemed on the verge of disintegrating. Its Articles could not be amended without unanimous consent. Small states feared being domination by larger ones. Therefore each (sovereign) state had one vote in its unicameral Congress. 9 of the 13 states were needed to pass anything.
It took a lot of compromising to draft a Constitution each state would sign. That affected the wording and lack of specificity. After it was signed, the document went to Congress where more changes were made.
There were the things they could foresee and more that they could not. They were familiar with the public being taken in by charlatans. They did not see state and local issues being pushed aside for national alliances or foresee mass communication.
Still, it might be less about the process and more that lack a strong common view of democratic principles and how to apply them.
On the other hand, a difficult process may not be all bad. Law is supposed to be consistent, not a whipsaw. An easier path to amendments would mean an anti-democracy wave would have an easier time passing amendments also. I’m not enthused about amendments that would be produced by those who describes democracy as 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner.
I won’t live long enough to see anyone tackle re-writing or updating the Constitution. I hope I live to see sturdy guardrails implemented around our institutions. Both for their protection and ours.
We’ve seen what unwieldy processes have looked like; it seems the perfect time to do something else. I’d like to see direct participation. I wonder if it would work. Perhaps a bicameral congressional system (legislative) should be done away with…
Make way for something better.
I’m open to new governing systems.
I’d love to see more discussion on this. Some accounts have already shared alternative possibilities. Elle Griffin is one such.
I’ve never been one tied to tradition. I like what’s best, what works best, what evolves us as a humane planet. In all this time, surely we can choose this…
The issue I have with SCOTUS and all those who “interpret “ constitutional law, it’s not relevant today!! The fight against the old white guys and their Christian nationalist views is going to be difficult!!
A new one is certainly needed through a streamlined process. Our nation was never a nation of just men. Why do those excluded from the process consider themselves bound by any of it….
They were aware that it was not perfect for the ages, although they might differ on the reasons. It was far ahead of its time. They expected their product, the Constitution, would be updated by Amendments. It was amended often, until it wasn’t. The ERA is 100 years old and never was ratified by enough states. I am afraid a new version in these troubled days would be worse and/or never ratified.
I love that you’re considering these things, thank you.
The difficulty was they created guidance for those that looked like them, purposefully excluding those that didn’t. Thirty-five out of the thirty-nine signers were either lawyers or those with some kind of legal training.
I’ve had law classes, at one time, thinking it was to be my profession. Surely, they understand the importance of specificity of language.
The amendment process was always unwieldy, designed to make that process harder than it needed to be? Was it really that they wanted state input or that they wanted to mitigate against broad-sweeping changes? Expelling a member from a Congressional chamber has also been unnecessarily difficult. Little guidance on the regulation of the Supreme Court of this land. So many missed opportunities.
The Electoral College was about keeping power out of the hands of the people. They did not believe every day persons could understand the mechanics of our government. It was another check against the potentially uneducated, uninformed, simple persons of this country.
All of these things must be rectified now. We can do it, of course. I have faith. Not a religious faith, but faith nonetheless:)
Thanks. I think roughly a third of the signers were businessmen of some sort. Most had or were serving in government. For direct participation by the public they created the House (to be offset by the Senate) and envisioned the public participating in local town halls.
There were other major considerations. The Confederation was not functioning and seemed on the verge of disintegrating. Its Articles could not be amended without unanimous consent. Small states feared being domination by larger ones. Therefore each (sovereign) state had one vote in its unicameral Congress. 9 of the 13 states were needed to pass anything.
It took a lot of compromising to draft a Constitution each state would sign. That affected the wording and lack of specificity. After it was signed, the document went to Congress where more changes were made.
There were the things they could foresee and more that they could not. They were familiar with the public being taken in by charlatans. They did not see state and local issues being pushed aside for national alliances or foresee mass communication.
Still, it might be less about the process and more that lack a strong common view of democratic principles and how to apply them.
On the other hand, a difficult process may not be all bad. Law is supposed to be consistent, not a whipsaw. An easier path to amendments would mean an anti-democracy wave would have an easier time passing amendments also. I’m not enthused about amendments that would be produced by those who describes democracy as 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner.
I won’t live long enough to see anyone tackle re-writing or updating the Constitution. I hope I live to see sturdy guardrails implemented around our institutions. Both for their protection and ours.
We’ve seen what unwieldy processes have looked like; it seems the perfect time to do something else. I’d like to see direct participation. I wonder if it would work. Perhaps a bicameral congressional system (legislative) should be done away with…
Make way for something better.
I’m open to new governing systems.
I’d love to see more discussion on this. Some accounts have already shared alternative possibilities. Elle Griffin is one such.
https://www.elysian.press/p/your-alternatives-to-democracy?r=462aa&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I’ve never been one tied to tradition. I like what’s best, what works best, what evolves us as a humane planet. In all this time, surely we can choose this…