The U.S. Constitution is like a legacy piece of software written by hand and published in 1787.
The U.S. Constitution is like a legacy piece of software written by hand and published in 1787.
The Bill of Rights was the first patch deployed in 1791 with an Overwhelmingly Positive reception.
Future releases came in the form of Constitutional Amendments with Mostly Positive reviews (although certain groups of people did attempt to review bomb).
You're viewing a single thread.
And we're way overdue for another patch or two.
Yeah, having the oldest constitution in the world that's still in use, is not a good thing.
It's a mixed bag. Having moved to Canada, even modern constitutions can be a shitshow. For example, Canada's constitution allows premiers (the Canadian provincial version of state governors) to freeze certain rights from Canada's version of the Bill of Rights (the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) on a whim until the next election. Ontario's premier, Doug Ford, recently tried to use this technicality to freeze the right to protest to stop a school workers' strike.
The reason this ability exists is because when Canada first became an independent nation and created its constitution (in the 1980's), the provinces would only sign onto it if these kinds of exemptions to their Charter of Rights and Freedoms were included. Looking at it from that perspective, the strength of the Bill of Rights actually looks pretty impressive by comparison.
The other factor I think is worth considering is that when it comes to the legitimacy of constitutions and governments, time is everything. When you reach around the age of a century old, the mere fact that your country had made it that long with that constitution starts to lend legitimacy and stability to it. Which is to say that if we had a brand spanking new constitution, everybody would be questioning it. Worst case scenario you get civil wars. Slightly better, but still bad scenario is a lot of disillusioned people that refuse to abide by the new document. America's constitution is old enough that it gets a lot of respect from even the most fierce of rivals. That's pretty invaluable, especially in times of political turmoil.
I believe that Trump would have had an easier time trampling over a newer constitution, regardless of how well thought out the document was. Having a constitution steeped in a national mythology and at the center of so many norms and traditions protects us from even some of the worst stress tests. The greater challenge isn't a crazy stress test like Trump, but the gradual decay of those norms. Which is to say that I really believe our norms have been protecting us even still, after so many things have been thrown out the window lately. Creating a new baby constitution in the midst of this messy era of politics would be one of the worst moves we could make.
Wow. I realise I hold the same sentiments but there is no way I could have expressed it they way you did. I totally agree that we should tread very carefully when proposing to amend or replace a document so deeply entrenched in the culture of the people and respected by all. The alternative is a scenario you described in regard to Canada and is a huge risk irrespective of who holds power.
I’ve never thought I’d be so convinced about the value of tradition.
Meh, it would be fine if they kept up with the updates, but they keep deferring obvious fixes like "stop sending everything through the damn electoral college".
Everyone else had the proportional voting representation patch, we're the only idiots who claim to like it better broken.
San Marino would like to have a talk.
ERA still hanging on by a thread
Technically 38 states have now voted to ratify it, so we'll need to see how far it goes in court