They had some good ideas, but they also had some really bad ideas.

Not only did they guess it should be updated; they even left plenty of mechanisms directly in the constitution that allowed for it to be updated radically whenever situations changed so drastically that a supermajority agrees that it should be changed.

Unfortunately that too is the downfall; as those who want to exploit the status quo are also empowered to leverage their money and power to prevent such a majority from taking place. The constitution is far from perfect, and it absolutely should've been amended many hundreds of times over, not just the paltry less than 30 times we've managed to do so already.

When a book of fiction is considered perfect and the word of god by more than half the population that supports this model… well, your answer is obvious. This works, for the “right” people, even though it’s very wrong. And half the voting population want to make it worse.

I think its interesting how the grifting right has moved away from the "Founding Fathers" to the "Constitution" because they know the fathers would see how shit's being run and be outright mortified!

"We never should have left the monarchy..."

It certainly feels radically different than a few decades ago…

Thinking our gov hasn't been updated means you're not paying attention. There has been a ton of changes since the founding of the country.

Pfft get a load of this guy who thinks the Earth is green.

We no longer have free press, not to any meaningful degree:

European version:

Given that the freedom of press is a requirement for a healthy democracy, and corporations owning all of these subsidiaries prevents that, I think it is well past time that we ban corporations from owning subsidiary companies.

Yes, a functional democracy requires that users have real political agency to engage with political topics, and that requires a high bar for individual liberty including press and academic freedom. A ton of people here will try to argue an absurd absolutist case that freedoms don't matter because all governments engage in some curtailment of freedom, and that this all therefore reduces to preference.

The reality is that neither governments or institutions outside of government are perfect. Perfection is a vision which guides institutions, not a real endpoint. That's why you should always be very critical of anyone who is quick to engage in criticism of your institutions, but is unwilling to engage in criticism of their own. This is the surest sign that someone is not acting in good faith, be it in real life, or on a notoriously sensitive meme community.

What about public radio, NPR? Of all the crap news out there, the reports I get off NPR are usually well balanced

More like a bunch of folk who were turfed out of Europe for being a bit too religiously weird

That takes some doing in the 16th century 😂

Yeah but maybe look at a modern written constitution. At least the guys wrote the American one had some ideals. The Canadian Charter of Rights was written by a career politician in the late 70s to specifically guarantee governmental rights, not citizens.

Or be around Catholics.

The problem is that they're still largely perceived as being the best ever. The American founding fathers are pretty much deified, and it's still expected that important policy decisions will be made based on what these centuries-dead aristocrats thought rather than based on what's needed in the here and now. Other countries don't do this. I've never in my life heard a politician try to attack or defend a position based on what John A. Macdonald would have thought of it, but in the USA that sort of thing happens all the time.

Yeah, but that's a structural flaw inherit in the initial design. We were doomed to quickly end up in a two party system, despite the fact that they all thought they were better than parties. The federal government pretty much immediately became a two party affair, that that inherently stagnates change and limits the actual will of the people from being enacted in government.

We need to switch to Approval Voting and proportional representation if we want the government to actually represent the people.

I will pass on that one, I want equality not equity.

Thanks! I knew I recognized it but not from where.

Did you know it was called Magic John in Japan? If only it kept its name in the US...

Being mid was kinda Jaleco's thing.

An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.

Hate to be that guy but the second amendment was drafted hundreds of years ago. The invention of the nuclear bomb was such a jaw dropping discovery, try explaining to the people who drafted it that the government will have weapons of war that make the arms they had in mind literally useless.

Having guns, for the purpose of keeping a tyrannical government in check, is as effective as bringing ice to the North pole to keep it from melting.

Sorry bud, you're in the wrong community if you're looking for allies when you bring logic based on reality into the conversation.