this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2026
9 points (69.6% liked)

Political Discussion and Commentary

1224 readers
104 users here now

A place to discuss politics and offer political commentary. Self posts are preferred, but links to current events and news are allowed. Opinion pieces are welcome on a case by case basis, and discussion of and disagreement about issues is encouraged!

The intent is for this community to be an area for open & respectful discussion on current political issues, news & events, and that means we all have a responsibility to be open, honest, and sincere. We place as much emphasis on good content as good behavior, but the latter is more important if we want to ensure this community remains healthy and vibrant.

Content Rules:

  1. Self posts preferred.
  2. Opinion pieces and editorials are allowed on a case by case basis.
  3. No spam or self promotion.
  4. Do not post grievances about other communities or their moderators.

Commentary Rules

  1. Don’t be a jerk or do anything to prevent honest discussion.
  2. Stay on topic.
  3. Don’t criticize the person, criticize the argument.
  4. Provide credible sources whenever possible.
  5. Report bad behavior, please don’t retaliate. Reciprocal bad behavior will reflect poorly on both parties.
  6. Seek rule enforcement clarification via private message, not in comment threads.
  7. Abide by Lemmy's terms of service (attacks on other users, privacy, discrimination, etc).

Please try to up/downvote based on contribution to discussion, not on whether you agree or disagree with the commenter.

Partnered Communities:

• Politics

• Science

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
laverabe@lemmy.world
laverabe@lemmy.zip
9
It's clear the US Constitution has failed. Let's write a new one. (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by BarbedDentalFloss@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
21 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I'm no lawyer, constitutional scholar, or political scientist. I don't expect people here are either. But those people exist. It's time to organize them and make a new constitution.

What're the first steps?

top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dhork@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What you are looking for is a Constitutional Convention, which will be convened once 34 states call for one. While it is intended to propose amendments that can only become law if 38 states approve it, the rules of the convention are set by the delegates and there is nothing stopping them from ripping it all up and starting from scratch.

And I did the calculations once before, but I believe the 38 smallest states only have 44% of the population. If they live in the right zip codes, a minority of citizens can rip it all up and impose their will on the rest of the country.

And if this happens, why should the states that didn't vote for the change stick around?

[–] BarbedDentalFloss@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes I'm aware of the process. But I don't exactly trust those in power to write one that actually protects individual citizens right now - the vast majority of the political class is only in it for themselves. They'll happily reintroduce slavery if a billionaire offers them enough money to vote for it.

So I think the better approach is to have the fixes written first - then advocate for it to receptive legislators while marketting it to the American public as a solution that addresses their actual problems. Several amendments were passed by states passing a law where they waited for consensus of 38 states.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago

You are right to be worried, Conservatives have been angling for a Constitutional Convention for years, specifically to nuke the parts of it they don't like. 28 states have already called for one.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It’s not the Constitution, it’s the way it’s being (or not being) implemented.

[–] BarbedDentalFloss@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 weeks ago

That's true. I was originally trying to make that 501(c)4 to push for an amendment that would be anti-corruption with teeth to clean out the riffraff in ~~congress~~ the millionaire factory.

[–] BarbedDentalFloss@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 weeks ago

I tried hiring an attorney to create a 501 (c) 4 political advocacy organization but after calling 20 different attorneys in different states, I got zero bites when I was saying "Take my money!". It's apparently a very niche area of law and lawyers all specialize and won't do anything in areas they don't have experience. The only one that really seemed like they specialized in political advocacy groups was clearly a super right-wing bullshit group and they didn't respond to my inquiries.

[–] Gullable@programming.dev 4 points 2 weeks ago

Bruce Bueno de Mesquita had a great idea for any legislation change that could be abused to advance any specific political direction. Just have it come to pass in 20-40 years, when the careers of everyone involved are over.

Obviously once you know this you can just openly discuss how any state should actually work without the risk of hurting your current objectives.

[–] Ep1cFac3pa1m@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I think step 1 would be identify and clearly define what went wrong with this one. Then you can take steps to address the failures.

[–] BarbedDentalFloss@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Well the impeachment process is totally unworkable. And there aren't real consequences for elected officials who abuse their office. An amendment could potentially address those issues. That was originally what I was contacting attorneys for - advocating for a 28th amendment.

[–] Ep1cFac3pa1m@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Well yeah, but that would be pretty far down on my list. We have a lot of issues that are much more foundational. We need to address money in politics. We need better ways of electing politicians so we don’t end up with a 2 party system.

[–] BarbedDentalFloss@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Hence why I think a change limited to an amendment may no longer be enough

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You don't need to year down what's there. Those are still reforms.

[–] BarbedDentalFloss@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It'd have to be one hell of an amendment in that case.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 1 points 2 weeks ago

Not unprecedented.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

A term limit for the legislative and judicial branches would be nice. No supreme court justice for longer than, say, 24 years. Can't be reelected senator if you served in that capacity for a cumulative 20 years. Something like that.

[–] BarbedDentalFloss@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah, term limits are necessary. But I was thinking more along the lines of at-large legislators instead of tying them to districts, finding ways to encourage experts in various fields to join congress instead of it devolving into nothing but lawyers and real estate owners, anti-corruption language with enough teeth to scare away the riff-raff, mandating that literally all communications (verbal and written) of elected officials are recorded and public record no more than 30 days after the fact, etc etc.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 1 week ago

Ending the district voting to end with gerrymandering once and for all. Proportional voting...

There is a lot. None of it conflicts with the existing constitution, though.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Step one is to have a proposal. The fundamental problem is we relied on a system of checks and balances that no longer works. How do you address that? If one branch can’t police another, who else could possibly have that power?

If you’re going to rip up the document and start over, you need to have a hope of something better

[–] BarbedDentalFloss@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 weeks ago

Well I'm a nobody without the background to do this better. My intent here is just to gather people who can do it well. I want to approach it in a way where those experts could work it out and compile a document that could supersede the current constitution while addressing the major issues that it couldn't conceive of since it is nearly 250 years old. As it is I'm still having trouble getting a lawyer that is able to work on a 501 (c) 4 political advocacy organization since it is such a small niche that very few attorneys are experienced in it.

[–] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

First you need to be in power to be able to demand a new constitution. The guy that's in the hot seat atm is not gonna work with you.

[–] BarbedDentalFloss@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah the practical side is hairy for sure.