Frankly, I think that the only path to a more socialistic, egalitarian society would require

[MineralMan]

the United States to rewrite its constitution. Since our representative republic relies on majority rule in its elections at all levels, the balance of power often shifts back and forth between our two political parties. And each of those parties is generally represented by candidates tilting toward the more extreme edges of political philosophy.

The population of the USA is deeply and almost evenly divided between conservative and liberal ideologies. And, since we have a federal government that is highly dependent on election results in 50 diverse states, we often have a difficult time finding enough consensus across the board to maintain a government that doesn't flip-flop, periodically, between liberal and conservative ideas.

So, it seems highly unlikely to me that the situation will change and that we are likely to continue to alternate sides in power, thus limiting our ability to move toward a more progressive and just society. We have seen this alternation for a very long time here. When progress is made through more liberal ideas, there is typically a reversal of ruling philosophies soon afterwards that reverts to conservative ideas.

That tendency is built into our constitutional system of government. In the Constitution's weighting of decision-making through state-by-state control, it tends to create a political environment that oscillates between philosophies. While that tends to balance things out over historical periods, it also leads to periods where excesses can occur.

Texas and California are two good examples of populous states with very different electorates. And then, we have predominantly rural and agricultural states with small populations that are conservative in nature but which all have equal representation in the US Senate. That was by design in the constitution, but often causes serious problems with finding a more unified and stable national political philosophy.

Short of a complete recasting of our foundational documents, I see no solution to this nagging problem that has plagued us throughout our history. Worse, that recasting would end up being an impossible and divisive challenge.

I have no workable solution to offer, frankly.

[RainCaster]

1. DFT's takeover of the GOP may be the solution

Many are leaving the GOP, and will never return. This will concentrate the crazy and leave those numbskulls in charge of the conservative party. The crazy will increase, and more will leave, both voters and candidates.

Give this another four years and the GOP may be irrelevant for a generation or more.

[MineralMan]

4. Well, I certainly hope that is the case.

However, the last administration clearly points out a flaw in our system that can be exploited by people of ill will.

[Ocelot II]

2. I agree. The Constitution as written has a lot of great ideas, many of them

rather revolutionary (if you'll excuse the expression) for the time. This might be part of the problem. They were trying to put together a system of government very different from that of England, which had a messy history of its own. The English revolution of the seventeenth century, the misrule of various kings and of Parliament probably made them want to avoid the kind of government that made that messy history possible. So they ditched both kings and parliaments. But if we look at the modern parliamentary systems of the developed European countries, most of them seem to work a little more smoothly than ours (Britain excepted; somehow they managed to get stuck with their own version of Trump). A parliamentary system allows for the formation of coalitions and is less of a zero-sum game, politically, than ours. If you can find the Danish TV series Borgen on one of the streaming services, it's a fascinating look at the inner workings of such a system (and also reveals some its weaknesses).

[MineralMan]

3. Well, any such system relies on people of good will as voters and

elected officials. Unfortunately people of ill will now have multiple platforms they can use to spread their toxic message. That wasn't the case in the 18th century.

[Budi]

5. Isn't this what their end game is? Undermine the US Constitution?

I don't want a fking socialistic egalitarian society for this USA.

The endgame has always been Dictator Vladimer Putin's dream of destroying our US Constitution.

[MineralMan]

6. So, what DO you want for this USA?

I'll wait right here...

[Budi]

7. Our US Constitution to be honored, rather than chipped away at by foreign enemies.

What god awful govt model do we trade it for?

Geroge Bush stood at the podium with a doc in his hand, "The constitution", he stated, "it's just a piece of paper".

Why do millions from broken govt's seek refuge in the US. What broke their govt?

Our strength is in our basic laws of governance. Our US Constitution. Our guidelines that have stood the test of time since its inception.

Who wants it replaced? And why?
That's the real question.

[MineralMan]

8. People on both sides of the political spectrum

claim that they are honoring the Constitution. Which side is correct about that? The bottom line is that the Constitution can be interpreted in different ways, and is so interpreted regularly.

The problem is that it was written so long ago, prior to any sort of technology at all. We no longer live in a non-technological society, so interpreting it to suit today's conditions is very, very difficult. In the late 18th century, it took weeks to get information all across the country. Now, it takes moments. We do not even agree what "arms" are or what constitutes protected "speech."

We do not live in a nation where all people are considered to be "created equal." We never did, because we never though all human beings were "people." Women weren't even fully "people."

Stuff changes, but our founding documents do not. We no longer understand them, and those who wrote them would not understand today's world at all. Everything changes, but we stick to our traditional documents, even if we don't really agree on what they mean.

Life is not defined in slogans. Politics are not defined by bumper stickers. Shit's more complicated than that.

[Budi]

9. If true then, what comes next? We ditch it for something, someone else with an agenda is selling?

Roll that dice!

Lucky us. 😕

[MineralMan]

11. We all have an agenda, you know? Is your agenda better than mine? Why?

What comes next? I have no idea. I'm 76 years old. I'll be dead before any major change occurs. I'm not going to be involved in making any changes that are made. Probably neither are you, or you wouldn't have time to post here.

Things are not working. Many things. They need to work if human society is going to survive. Clearly, we have screwed things up in many ways. Right now, some are fighting to avoid the changes that are needed. Others want to adopt some sort of anarchy. Still others want to kill everyone who doesn't agree with them.

It's complicated. Since I don't understand it all, I can't solve the dilemma. If you're young, though, you need to be working on changes that will improve society, because making changes isn't just a good idea - it's essential for survival.

[Budi]

14. So who is making the 'changes' for the future gens? And what is their agenda, where does it originat

There are too many nefarious players shoving this change in our faces at the moment.

The wisdom of the ages would say to know your enemies 1st.

Who exactly wants to 'burn it all down' & who is really behind that propaganda push?

Sounds more treachreaous than anything we've faced before.
Who is behind this sales pitch, 1st of all?
Dig deeper on that one.

[Torchlight]

12. Our agreement over meaning isn't very germane, is it?

"even if we don't really agree on what they mean."

The meanings and definitions of the phraseology isn't determined by popularity contests or social media memes, but instead the 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison that the Supreme Court has had the last word on constitutional interpretation. I think the addition of amendments has allowed the original document to maintain its relevance despite changing social and cultural norms.

I'd guess that the academicians who undertake the disciplines of textual criticism and empirical text analysis understand them to a degree that still allows them a far greater meaning the lay person may understand if their knowledge is only in passing.

At the end of the day, I think it's important to realize a studious and measured change at such a fundamental level as our foundational law code may take more patience than a snap of fingers could potentially allow. But patience can be complicated too.

[MineralMan]

13. On the other hand, we passed an amendment that created Prohibition.

then we changed that, after we found out it didn't work.

However, interpreting the Constitution is, as defined in the Constitution itself, the job of the Supreme Court. We have seen that the makeup of that court can lead to vastly different interpretations, which are subject to change at any time.

We are not even close in this country to agreeing what the Constitution means in many areas. So, we go back and forth, as I described in my opening post. My understanding of the Constitution is very, very different in many ways from the understanding we're seeing in recent decisions by the SCOTUS. Am I right, or is the SCOTUS?

Like all human-written documents, it contains unclear language. I don't know that we can fix that on a permanent basis. I do know that many things many of us hold dear are threatened right now, though, by the very body that has the power to interpret the 200+ year old language in that document.

[Torchlight]

15. The complexity you yourself admitted goes far beyond a message board.

Am I right, or is the SCOTUS?

Sounds like a question that requires an investment of your time, education and research to do it the justice you want (for example, enroll in college basic and advanced law and textual criticism courses). I personally don't have the knowledge nor education to provide the ablative absolutes you seek (and I doubt those who do possess it post on public message boards very often), nor do I understand why you require a permanence from the interpretations if as you say, things change.

I readily admit my lack of complete understanding and education as it applies to constitutional law, and from that, my lack of absolute solutions or pronouncements from on high about changing that which I do not have full knowledge of. I hope most people do, but I also realize not every does.

But it seems to me that if an amendment changed or preempted another amendment contrary to the former, it's working as intended, though possibly not how, or at the pace, an individual may desire.

[MineralMan]

16. Yes, of course it does. Nobody here is a constitutional scholar.

And nobody is going to ask me how I would change that document. I'm identifying a problem that is not improving but deteriorating as time passes.

I have no answer. I have only questions.

[lagomorph777]

10. If we reform the Constitution to prevent minority rule, we will generally trend toward equality.

Most Americans always want a fairer distribution of wealth. But our Constitution was built with protection for slave owners in small-population states. Their political descendants are today's Republican Party, who have finely tuned their machine to exploit the Constitution (and Americans in general).

The biggest problems, as I see it, are:
(1) Senate, based on state count rather than population.
(2) Electoral College, partially the same issue.
(3) Gerrymandering - Congressional districts should be required to meet specific constraints for compact shape.
(4) Voter suppression - Federal government should set standards, which should have explicit Constitutional basis.