politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Which of our existing processes do you think will produce the result you want? Passing an amendment through Congress seems quite unlikely with our current field of partisan legislators. We can't even meet the lower thresholds for passing legislation for things like raising minimum wage, which is supported by about 2/3 of the population. The Koch brothers were highly successful at stacking state legislatures with Tea Party nutjobs with the ultimate goal of calling for a Constitutional Convention to rewrite it. Republicans still control 28 state legislatures, and they're generally pretty beholden to Trump and the MAGA base, so I don't think we'd have a positive outcome with a Constitutional Convention.
So in my opinion, we need to have favorable majorities in our representation before we can have a favorable outcome with amending the Constitution. Do you have a different approach in mind?
You have this backwards, you're giving rhetorical answers to non-rhetorical questions.
I started by the need to acknowledge centuries-old constitutions are outdated. That is the first step. Get citizens being a push for change. No "existing process", that is the main point.
As stated, the first step is really to push the idea of rewriting a constitution.
If you don't have the people pushing, you are never getting a new document or a positive vote for such a document. And you won't even start to have a favorable majority for something that is not claimed.
Then people in power (elected or through a crisis caused by an uprising) can push a new constitution, with no care for the old document. This is how European countries have mostly done it.
Plus US is not facing a simple constitutional crisis, it is a religion-like crisis seeing how the document has been sanctified for so long. So no amending. Rewriting. And won't happen without a huge push for trashing the old one.
I'm asking what does that look like to you? Voting? Protesting in the streets and/or at the capitol buildings? Armed revolution?
My own belief is that it comes down to voting. We do not currently have a legal means for the people to directly initiate a Constitutional Convention. So we need state legislators who say they will vote to call for one, and federal legislators who say they will vote for Constitutional Amendments. But I don't want the current majorities to be in charge of that. We would just end up with a fully Christo-fascist Constitution given the makeup of the delegations. Most states don't have any means to recall legislators or for voters to directly initiate ballot initiatives to write new legislation. So we need to put better representatives in office first. My belief, as stated in other comment in this thread, is that we have to have 3rd party and independent candidates run in the major-party primaries, and we have to vote in those primaries for those candidates. We're seeing it work more and more for DSA-aligned candidates, so hopefully we can keep building on that momentum and finally get some real change.
First step is "propaganda" (I don't like the word but can't offer another one).
Then protests and voting. (None will be available solutions if citizens are not concerned first).
A new constitution in the current case needs a referendum to minimize risks. I totally agree with the christo-fascist risk if lead by the current gvt.
I think this is a short term way out (a good one) but won't solve the systemic issue caused by the constitution.
Totally agree with that.
🍻
🥂