What is your "ideal" constitution?

[Zardnaar]

I used to quite like the idea of an "unwritten constitution", but then BoJo came along and showed how easy it was to do obviously wrong things and now I really think we should have one.

Well it assumes parliament restrains the PM.

They didn't and now they're in the doldrums poll wise.

 

[EvaDK]

Well, the citizens rights stated on page 72 and onwards in our Constitution, are precisely described and inviolable.

That's the most precious element, especially when I can observe how citizens rights are violated by states elsewhere.

 

[Samson]

The US has a written constitution. I'm not seeing how it's helping them avoid pretty much the same....

It is always hard to say exactly what would have happened in an alternative history, but had Trump been able to close Congress to avoid awkward questions would that have made things worse? If he had been able to pass a law to make social media companies not block him would that have empowered the efforts on keep him in power? Obviously it is very far from perfect, but just having a gentleman agreement (I am not sure what the gender neutral term for that is) when there are rather few "gentlemen" in politics does seem to have obvious flaws.

 

[EnglishEdward]

We should replace the House of Commons and the House of Lords with a House of Women and a House of Gentlemen and be ruled by HowHog !

 

[EvaDK]

Trump's Presidency demonstrated the value - and weaknesses alike of the US Constitution, as well as the value of the non-political American institutions and the free press.

It could have gone considerably worse than it did; Trump was an autocrat wannabe, luckily for us a rather incompetent one.

 

[Narz]

• Mandated community service (not everything is about rights)
• Corporations aren't people
• Every lie a politician tells equal one week jailtime after their term

Not really a constitution just some random thing I'd fit in there

 

[Narz]

When your system of government relies on "decent" men observing the bounds of custom and dignity, it's really easy for someone with no morals to abuse the system.

Ya, need boundaries and consequences.

One of the biggest problems in the US is that the super rich rarely have to pay penalties.

 

[Zardnaar]

Ya, need boundaries and consequences.

One of the biggest problems in the US is that the super rich rarely have to pay penalties.

Our system is a paradise by comparison. A hypothetical bad actor could make Trump look like a saint.

There's a lot of good faith assumptions.

 

[Lohrenswald]

None at all, is how I currently stand

 

[Lexicus]

TBH None is perfect but I love the mention in the American one - and namely "in pursuit of happiness" - this is one from the heart I think , everyone deserves o be happy ! When You're unhappy everything erlse just sucks - Down with King George whichever his inbred number was !! xD

This phrase appears in the Declaration of Independence, not in the US Constitution

 

[EgonSpengler]

This phrase appears in the Declaration of Independence, not in the US Constitution

Beat me to it. Still, I think the preamble of the Constitution is a pretty good statement of purpose.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We've kind of gotten away from establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, and promoting the general Welfare, in my view, but still, it was a nice idea.

 

[Traitorfish]

Unicameral legislature, annual elections, executive branch wholly subordinate to the legislature. This could absolutely bite me on the ass if the wrong people got a majority, but that's the inherent gamble of democracy; all attempts to rig things so that the "right" people end up in charge will invariably be more pernicious than letting the dice fall as they may.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

this is non-trivial to answer. in part because any system you set up has to have a means by which you enforce it, otherwise it stops existing.

i have yet to observe a single constitution in history that survived humanity interacting with it, long-term. before long, they start breaking the rules laid out w/o amending it, and eventually they break it so much that it has no meaning.

yet having one seems to keep a country going longer than it might have otherwise on average, maybe? is that really the best we can do? it's the best we've done so far.

Well, the citizens rights stated on page 72 and onwards in our Constitution, are precisely described and inviolable.

there is no such thing in reality. they are only inviolable to the extent the people of your country protect them as such, and no further. good on your country for keeping the ones it does.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Thoughts on amending, rewriting or replacing the US Constitution, in no particular order:

• Presidents elected by popular vote. Get rid of the electoral college. It's almost beyond belief how many of the [mess] hurricanes of the past couple of decades were caused by Presidents who didn't even get a plurality of the vote. As folks have said, it's impossible to entirely prevent donkeys getting elected to our highest offices, and it's possible the people who won the popular votes in the last couple of decades would have been [garbage] in their own ways, but still. Also, I'm curious about ranked-choice voting. If that works well, maybe I'd put that into my constitution, for electing Presidents.
  
• No Second Amendment. I wouldn't even amend it or rewrite it. Gone.
  
• Enshrine a right to privacy. Get rid of the current 5th Amendment ("No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house[...]") and replace it with an explicit individual right to privacy.
  
• Make secular government, freedom of religion, and the separation of church and state explicit and clear.
  
• I think there are some Constitutions around the world that enshrine dignity as a right. I like that idea.
  
• Something like the Equal Rights Amendment.
  
• Term limits on Supreme Court justices, and maybe on Congress too. I think I like the idea of 18-year terms for Supreme Court justices, with 1 seat opening every 2 years, but I haven't looked too deeply into that idea. I think, historically, the average term for the SCOTUS justice is 16 years, but of course that includes every justice who's ever lived. Barrett only just turned 50 and Jackson turns 52 in a couple of months; there's no reason to think their tenures won't be 30-35 years (and that's if medical science doesn't extend their lives further in those 30 years).
  
• I wish we had more than two legit political parties, but I don't know if that's something you can put in a constitution. If you could, though, I might.

I also would like to take a look at some other constitutions, particularly the more recent ones. The "2nd Gen Constitutions", you might say, where people had a chance to look at the older ones before drafting their own. I think Germany's, for example, might be one of those that mentions human dignity. iirc, Ruth Bader Ginsberg thought highly of South Africa's constitution, but I don't know what she liked about it.

 

[Lexicus]

• Enshrine a right to privacy. Get rid of the current 5th Amendment ("No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house[...]") and replace it with an explicit individual right to privacy.

That's the 3rd. 5th is you can't be forced to incriminate yourself. Probably wanna keep that one, because otherwise Dave Chappelle's legendary skit where he says "F-I-F the FIF" wouldn't make any sense.

 

[Lexicus]

@OP I think a consitution based on John Brown's provisional Constitution would be appropriate. The Supreme Court, the President, and the Vice President are all elected by popular vote.

 

[EvaDK]

Courts and judges should not be voted into power/chosen by the electorate or the political establishment. The electorate choosing judges will very likely be motivated by politics above all else, just like the politicians appointing judges.

The whole point of the judicial branch in the three-way parting of the powers, is that it has to be insulated from making politics and policy.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Courts and judges should not be voted into power/chosen by the electorate or the political establishment. The electorate choosing judges will very likely be motivated by politics above all else, just like the politicians appointing judges.

The whole point of the judicial branch in the three-way parting of the powers, is that it has to be insulated from making politics and policy.

Yes, although the US Judges like the SC who are selected by the political "elite" are pretty awful a lot of the ones in lower courts are elected and also pretty awful

 

[uppi]

• I wish we had more than two legit political parties, but I don't know if that's something you can put in a constitution. If you could, though, I might.

Sure you can put that in a constitution: Just require proportional representation. That would immediately make smaller parties viable.

I think Germany's, for example, might be one of those that mentions human dignity.

Yes, it is the first article.

 

[Lexicus]

Courts and judges should not be voted into power/chosen by the electorate or the political establishment. The electorate choosing judges will very likely be motivated by politics above all else, just like the politicians appointing judges.

The whole point of the judicial branch in the three-way parting of the powers, is that it has to be insulated from making politics and policy.

If you want a government insulated from politics just say you support monarchy, at least then you'd be being honest with yourself and others